In this companynection it is pointed out that the medical papers of the applicants show that they were assaulted and, as such, the statements of these applicants recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, cannot be said to be voluntary and No link has been established between the Arab dhow and the said trawler.
The gist of the prosecution case is that 207 silver ingots weighing approximately 30 kgs.
The investigation revealed that the trawler was stationed on the port for being used to carry and transport the companytraband silver ingots.
The appellant filed the Criminal Revision Application No.6 of 2000 assailing the judgment order of the Appellate Court.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa by the judgment dated 28.12.1999 maintained the companyviction of the appellant but reduced the sentence to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/ in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment further.
Regarding the other two points urged by the companynsel for the appellant, the High Court did number feel persuaded to interfere with the companycurrent findings of fact rejecting the companytention that the statement recorded under section 108 of the Act was number voluntary one having been obtained under pressure of companyrcion and threat and physical assault on the appellant.
The High Court also rejected the third point that the prosecution has failed to establish any companynection between the Dhow and the trawler on which the appellant and others were present.
The respondent who was a Customs Officer issued a numberice to the appellant on 5th October, 1988 and recorded his statement under section 108 of the Act.
The said order is under challenge in the present appeal.
Thereafter on 28th February, 1989 the respondent filed a companyplaint under section 135 of the Customs Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji.
valued at Rs.4,22,48,225/ were clandestinely brought into Goa in an Arab Dhow and the same were to be transported in the trawler Gramdev Navdurga for short the trawler .
Subsequently on 6th October, 1988 the appellant was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 7th October, 1988.
When the said trawler was intercepted at Aguada Light House by the Officers of the Customs Department on 4th of October, 1988 the appellant was found to be present on the trawler.
The trial companyrt by judgment dated 18th February, 1995 companyvicted the appellant and others for having companymitted the offence under section 135 of the Customs Act and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/ and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
The High Court by order dated 28.4.2000 dismissed the Criminal Revision Application.
In paragraph 4 of the judgment under challenge the High Court has formulated the three points urged by the companynsel appearing for the appellant, namely The Customs Authorities while recording the statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, had number followed the safeguards provided under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code The applicants in Criminal Revision Application No.4, 5 and 6/2000 had been detained by the Customs Authorities from 4th October, 1988 to 7th October, 1988, which amounts to arrest of the said applicants and the statements of these applicants were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act during this period of detention after giving threats and exercising duress.
Faced with dismissal of the revision application filed by him, challenging the judgment passed by the Appellate Court dismissing his appeal, the accused Gulam Hussain Shaikh Chougule has filed this appeal by special leave assailing the judgment of the Courts below companyvicting him of the offence under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 for short the Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/ in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment further.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
