IMPORTANT POINT
High Court rightly held that the statement of accused recorded u/s.108 of customs Act, 1962 is neither hit by section 164 Cases Referred.P.C. 1973 nor u/s.24 of Evidence Act, 1872 and is adoricsible in evidence.

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. 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 asssailing the judgment of the Courts below convicting him of the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act ) arid 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.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that 207 silver ingots weighing approximately 30 kgs 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). 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 investigation revealed that the trawler was stationed on the port for being used to carry and transport the contraband Sliver ingots.

4. The respondent who was a Customs Officer issued a notice to the appellant on 5th October. 1988 and recorded his statement under Section 108 of the Act. Subsequently on 6th October, 1988 the appellant was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 7th October, 1988. Thereafter on 28th February, 1989 the respondent filed a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji The trial court by judgment dated 18th February, 1995 convicted the appellant and others for having committed 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa by the judgment dated 28.12.1999 maintained the conviction of the appellant but reduced the sentence to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment further. The appellant filed the Criminal Revision Application No. 6 of 2000 assailing the judgment/order of the Appellate Court. The High Court by order dated 28.4.2000 dismissed the Criminal Revision Application. The said order is under challenge in the present appeal.

5. In paragraph 4 of the judgment under challenge the High Court has formulated the three points urged by the counsel appearing for the appellant, namely:

1. The Customs Authorities while recording the statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, had not followed the safeguards provided under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code;

2. The applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 4, 5 and 6/2000 had been detained by the Customs Authorities from 4th October, 1983 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. In this connection 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

3. No link has been established between the Arab dhow and the said trawler.

6. The High Court, on examination of the first point which raised essentially a question of law, rejected the contention of the applicant referring to different decisions of this Court in Union Textile Traders vs. Shree Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. (AIR 1970 SC 1940); Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh and another vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (AIR 1972 SC 1224); K.T.M.S. Mohd. and another etc. etc. vs. Union of India (1992 (3) SCC 178), and held that the provisions of section 164 of the Criminal Pro