Voluntary Confession Substantive Evidence Under Customs Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a person can be held liable under the Customs Act based on the voluntary confessional statements given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal filed by two persons, convicted for smuggling 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 wrist watch straps, with an estimated value of Rs. 2 lacs in Gujarat's Mandvi in 1985. Although the conscious possession of the smuggled goods was not attributed to the appellants, their conviction was upheld by the High Court solely based on their confessional statements.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellants primarily questioned whether convictions could rest on confessional statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108, especially when allegations of coercion were raised. The appellants argued that the prosecution relied largely on such statements and pointed to claims of custodial torture involving a co-accused whose statement led to further discoveries.

Dismissing an appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta reiterated that Section 108 statements are admissible as substantive evidence, provided they are voluntary. Relying on K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (1997) 3 SCC 721, the Court underscored that these statements are not hit by Sections 24, 30 or 34 of the Evidence Act, and the burden lies on the accused to establish coercion or inducement.

The Court held that Customs authorities are empowered “to collect relevant information and evidence relating to contraventions of the Act, and that such statements, if found to be voluntary, are substantive pieces of evidence capable of being relied upon in support of the prosecution case.”

Rejecting the Appellants' contention that the lack of corroboration of the confessional statements would not hold good the conviction, the Court said that “the conviction of the appellants was not based merely on confessional statements, but in addition thereto, the prosecution provided tangible corroborative evidence. Therefore, the judgment of conviction did not suffer from perversity or legal infirmity.”

However, noting that the incident occurred 40 years ago, the appellants have undergone a substantial period of incarceration, and having an advanced age, the Court, while upholding their conviction, reduced their sentence to the period of sentence already undergone.

The appeal was partly allowed.

Headnote

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 135(1)(b)(i) – Smuggling of foreign wrist watches – Admissibility of Section 108 statements – Sentencing – Reduction of sentence to period already undergone – The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants for the illegal import and handling of 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 straps - upheld the High Court's finding that statements recorded by Customs Officers under Section 108 are substantive pieces of evidence and are not barred by Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided they are voluntary.

Evidentiary Value of Confessional Statements – noted that the conviction was not based solely on confessions, but was supported by the discovery of incriminating material (contraband and money) documented via panchnamas - Such discoveries constitute independent and relevant evidence under Sections 6, 10, and 11 of the Evidence Act.

Sentencing Discretion – While the statutory minimum was six months, Supreme Court exercised its discretion to reduce the three-year rigorous imprisonment sentence to the period already undergone (approximately one year) - This decision was based on the advanced age of the surviving appellants, the fact that the incident occurred nearly four decades ago (1985), and the prolonged pendency of the proceedings – Appeals partly allowed. [Relied on K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin (1997) 3 SCC 721; Paras 20-22, 27-28]

Cause Title: AMAD NOORMAMAD BAKALI VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 190

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amar Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv. Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv. Mr. Yadumandan Bansal, Adv. Mr. Anand G, Adv. Mr. Ravi Panwar, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Raja Thakre, A.S.G. Mr. G.s. Makker (aor), Adv. Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv. Ms. Medha Pushkarna, Adv. Mr. Diwakar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mili Baxi, Adv.