Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. - This appeal by the first accused, on certificate, is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated September 26, 1968, in Criminal Appeal No, 244 of 1967 confirming his conviction and sentence passed against him by the Presidency, Magistrate Mazgaon, Bombay for offences under S. 120-B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 19621 hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and also under Section 135 of the Customs Act in respect of the articles claimed to have been recovered from his possession.

2. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Section 24 of the Evidence Act is a bar to the admissibility in evidence of the statement Ex. T. given by the appellant to the Customs Officers on a summons issued to him under Section 108 of the Act.

3. The appellant along with six others was charged under the sections mentioned above and after being found guilty was sentenced to undergo one years s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the charges under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Act. He was also sentenced to undergo one year s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/for the charge under Section 135 of the Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, he was also sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for the period mentioned in the Judgment of the Presidency Magistrate.

4. The case against the appellant was that he and several other persons entered into a conspiracy during the period from June, 1963 to the end of December, 1963 to smuggle wrist watches and other luxury goods such as nylon textiles, toilet requisites, playing cards, cigarette lighters, saffron, etc., from Dubai to India through Mechanised sailing vessel and land the said imported and smuggled goods surreptitiously at any coast near Bombay and then to bring the smuggled goods to Bombay by Motor Vehicles. It was further alleged that in pursuance to the said conspiracy such articles were actually smuggled in the month of December, 1963. The various parts played by the appellant along with the other accused had been given in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. P. W. 19. Inspector in the Rummaging Division Town Intelligence in the Bombay Customs, on receipt of information in or about December 21, 1963 about the smuggling of the goods conducted searches in various places and seized several smuggled articles.

5. During the pendency of the trial, the third and the fifth accused died and the second accused who was present for some later (sic) absconded necessitated separation of his trial. Some other accused could not be traced at all. Therefore, the trial proceeded against the appellant and accused Nos. 4, 6 and 7. It is not necessary to refer to the pleas of, accused Nos. 4, 6 and 7 as they have been acquitted of all the charges by the Presidency Magistrate. The appellant had filed a lengthy written statement on October 24, 1966 denying the charges levelled against him. He had stated that he was not in any manner concerned with any conspiracy. He also denied that any articles had been recovered by the Customs Officers from the houses mentioned by them and stated that in any event he had nothing to do with any of those articles. He pleaded that his brother Cama was inimical towards him and that the latter in connivance with the Customs authorities had foisted this criminal case against him making false allegations. The appellant alleged that he had left Bombay for Ajmer to pay his respects to the Darga on December 21, 1963 and returned to Bombay on January 2, 1964, when he was apprehended by the Customs authorities and kept in detention, in the first instance, till January 7, 1964 During this period of detention he was continuously harassed and interrogated by P. Ws. 5 and 19 and forced to put his signature on January 7, 1964 to a statement already got writte