Recording of Statement under Customs Act - Supreme Court allows presence of Advocate

1. Day in and day out so many statements are recorded by the officers of Central Excise and Customs through out the country U/S 108 of the Customs Act. Most of the time the statements are only factual enquiries where a document is shown and certain thing is verified in its context. In most of these cases not only there is no beating but also the statement is taken under proper respectful and conducive environment. Either the person confirms or denies the said facts. In case he confirms and the content is against him, without exception on his own or under the learned advice of his consultants he immediately retracts it. Most of the time in his representation he alleges beating, harassment and manhandling etc. In most of these cases such things have not taken place at all but as there is no offence in telling this lie as it is well digested by all as harmless object.

2. So called beating perhaps may have some relevance only in Narcotic cases as far as Custom officers are concerned. As such, the statement retracted or otherwise have to stand the test of the time and has to be seen with other evidences for being any material evidence for prosecuting any one. I have not come across with any case where some one was prosecuted/penalized on the basis of retracted evidences only and that case was later sustained in the judicial scrutiny.

3. It is beyond doubt that Customs is no where near the Police as far as rough dealing is concerned and the main reason of same is the kind of people they deal with. When in its wisdom Hon’ble Apex court ruled that Customs officers are not police officers they applied a lot of experience and sense to come to that conclusion and it is felt that it is correct and true and has stood well with time. Even in the present judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court have not allowed the advocates to interfere and give words in the mouth of their clients when they give their statements.

4. Lastly. Certain persons so summoned, when, were given an option to get their statement video-graphed also, they refused. And immediately after the statements they retracted it at the first opportunity. As due to technological advancement videography is now very easy and cheap, there is no harm that it should be made mandatory in all cases of recording the statements. I wish that once the case has come for prosecution or adjudication all such recording should be put in free public domain. Let every one judge the truth or lie/ beating and harassment. I am sure no thief will ever say “Yes! I had stolen”. Denial is first natural defense.

A N 26/11/2010

 

Even in the present Supreme Court judgment there is a restriction for Advocates. They can be present only at a distance and not allowed to interfere the questioning. As such Sec.108 IS STILL CAN BE USED EFFECTIVELY. However as mentioned by Mr. Watson, recording of statement , now a days, is done fairly. It is better to disclose than to retract later.
By,
M. RAM KUMAR

ramkumar ramkumar 26/11/2010