The court ruled that a confession statement from a co-accused requires corroboration to be admissible; mere allegations without supporting evidence do not suffice for prosecution under criminal law.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.787 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on seizure of 1.690 MTs of red sanders in a consignment of gypsum boards through shipping Bill No.1590098, dated 24.03.2006 of M/s.Freedom Impex, Tuticorin, by its proprietor A1-John Alexander, so the case was registered by the respondent. A1 gave a statement on 25.03.2006 and on 26.03.2006 that the petitioner supplied the red sanders for illegal transport through his shipping bill, so the petitioner was implicated as A2. Final report was filed for prosecuting the A1/John Alexander and the petitioner/A2 T.Manivannan for the offences U/s.135(1) of the Customs Act and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.787 of 2020 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and the same is pending. The petitioner filed the discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.992 of 2022 U/s.227 of Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai and the same was dismissed on 08.11.2023. Thereafter, five witnesses were examined on the prosecution side. At this stage, the petitioner has filed this petition to quash the case proceedings in C.C.No.787 of 2020 as against him.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been implicated as A2 in this case only based on the alleged statements recorded from the A1/John Alexander, who was the exporter of gypsum. The petitioner is licensed trader and exporter of red sander wood under the name of NKR Corporation. The respondent officials searched the premises of the petitioner’s godown and office, but no materials were seized from the petitioner. Based on the alleged confession statements of A1, prosecution as well as adjudication proceedings were taken against the petitioner. Another statement of A1/John Alexander, gave before the Jailor, since A1 was in prison, identifying the photo of the petitioner, is also not admissible in evidence. It is well settled position of law that the confession statement alone cannot be taken as the sole material against another person and the same is also not admissible in law. Based on such alleged confession of A1, the adjudication proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the respondent official in Order in Original No.64/2007, dated 30.11.2007. Though it was confirmed in Appeal No.C/26/208-SM passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Chennai as per Final Order No.40598/2016 dated 11.04.2016, the same was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.(MD)No.944 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8489 of 2016 by its order dated 20.02.2024. This Court held that merely the petitioner is licensed dealer in red sander and he knew exporter A1/John Alexander is not a fact to corroborate the incriminating statement of the co-accused, indicating the petitioner and also held that the statement of the co-accused without material corroboration is not acceptable. The respondent official has not preferred any appeal against the order of this court passed in CMA(MD)No.944 of 2016 and so, it became final. The only available material in the hands of the respondent official is the confession statement of co-accused/A1, which is unworthy, except this, there are no other material records implicating the petitioner in this case proceedings. Therefore, the prosecution proceedings against this petitioner in C.C.No.787 of 2020 may be quashed.

4. In support of h