( 1 ) ). The petitioners have filed this Revision Application before this court against the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at bhuj on 24-9-1991 in Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 64 of 1991. The learned Sessions judge allowed the Revision Application filed by the respondent No. 1-Superintendent of Customs against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, kutch at Bhuj on 3-9-1991 releasing the petitioners on bail in connection with the offence committed by them under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) ). Mr. Kapadia, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that except the retracted statement of the co-accused there is no other evidence to involve the petitioners for the offence under Sec. 135 of the Act for smuggling silver worth more than Rs. 6. 00 crores. Such evidence is no evidence in the eye of law and on such evidence, no Court can convict the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners should be released on bail. Merely because the statement of the co-accused recorded under Sec. 108 of the Act is retracted subsequently by the accused, it cannot be said that it is no evidence. Conviction can be based by the Court even on the sole retracted statement of the co-accused recorded under Sec. 108 of the Act, provided that the Court is satisfied that the said retracted statement of the co-accused is otherwise reliable and trustworthy, after considering the attending circumstances of the case. At the most it can be said that it would be risky to base conviction on the sole retracted statement of the co-accused; but it can never be said that no conviction can be based on the retracted statement of the co-accused. If the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of the retracted statement of the co-accused, then the accused would try his best to see that his co-accused retracted his statement which he has made under sec. 108 of the Act and in that case, the whole purpose and object behind sec. 108 of the Act will become nugatory. Thus, there is no merit and substance in the above submission made by Mr. Kapadia, therefore, it fails and is rejected. Even if I had to hold that there is insufficient material against the accused in the nature of retracted statement of the co-accused while considering the question of grant of bail on this material, the bail should be refused in view of the fact that offences under the Customs Act are economic offences which are against the Nation and if it is not seriously viewed, it will ruin the economy of our country. I am supported in my view by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State (through Dy. Commissioner of police, Special Branch, Delhi) v. Jaspal Singh Gill, reported in 1984 Cri. LJ 1211 equivalent to AIR 1984 SC 1503. It was a case under the Official secrets Act; but the same principle which is enunciated by the Supreme Court will squarely apply in this case also. Therefore, also the above submission raised by Mr. Kapadia is required to be rejected.

( 3 ) ). Mr. Kapadia next contended that after considering the fact that both the co-accused have retracted their statements from the Jail, within two days and thereafter even a criminal complaint was filed by each co-accused before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhuj against the police personnel and Custom Officials alleging that the co-accused were threatened and beaten and therefore, this Court (Coram : V. H. Bhairavia, J.) in this order of granting anticipatory bail in Cri. Revision application No. 944 of 1991 held that the statements of the co-accused were recorded under threats and coercion. Therefore, he has submitted that it was not open to the learned Sessions Judge to arrive at a different finding and to take a different view while considering the regular bail application and to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate releasing the petitioners on bail. He also submitted that even i am bound