2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Kulwant Rai – Respondent
CRL.A. 1147/2025

A statement recorded under customs interrogation is admissible in evidence unless proven to be involuntary. Minor clerical or accounting discrepancies in seized evidence do not negate the fact of recovery if the integrity of the chain of custody and evidence seals is maintained and proven.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 489B and 489C - Possession of counterfeit currency - Admissibility of statements recorded under customs laws - Statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence and can be used against the maker, provided it is voluntary and not recorded under duress (Paras 40-43).

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Interference with acquittal - Appellate power is to be exercised where the judgment below is based on perversity or ignores substantial evidence; minor discrepancies in counting seized articles which are attributable to human error do not invalidate the entire recovery when chain of custody is established (Paras 64-68).

(C) Evidence - Prosecution's burden - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not impossible standards; if the totality of evidence points to conscious possession, trivial clerical errors do not warrant acquittal (Para 24).

Facts of the case:
The respondent was intercepted at an international terminal while disembarking from a flight. During a personal search, counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the respondent’s socks. The respondent provided a voluntary statement under the relevant customs legislation detailing the source of the currency and the instructions received. The trial court acquitted the respondent primarily citing discrepancies in the counting of the currency notes and serial number matching. The appellant challenged this acquittal.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the statement made under the customs regulatory framework was voluntary and corroborated by the recovery of the notes. It held that the minor discrepancies in the number of notes and serial numbers were the result of human error during handling and did not suggest tampering, as the official seals remained intact throughout the transit of the case property. The court found that the conscious possession of the counterfeit notes was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of the statement provided during customs interrogation, whether procedural discrepancies in counting the seized items invalidate the recovery, and whether the respondent was guilty of possessing counterfeit currency.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements recorded under customs regulatory powers are distinct from police statements and are admissible unless proof of duress is established. When evidence proves the integrity of the case property through intact seals and consistent corroborative testimony, minor clerical errors in accounting for physical evidence do not mitigate the established fact of conscious possession.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; acquittal for trafficking set aside; conviction for possession of counterfeit currency upheld.