The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Allahabad has acquitted an individual accused of smuggling, ruling that a conviction for smuggling requires more than just a confession to be deemed legitimate.
The case revolved around a confession made by the accused to customs officers, which was later retracted, with the individual claiming that the confession had been coerced.
The appellants, Shri Raj Kumar Singh, the proprietor of M/s Bunti Scrap Suppliers and Shri Harishchandra Singh, represented by Ms Surabhi Sinha argued that the conviction was based solely on a retracted confession, which had been coerced by customs officials. The confession, the appellant claimed, was unreliable and could not serve as the sole basis for conviction.
Get a Copy of Critical EPF & ESI Act Provisions – Interpreted by the Supreme Court – To know more, Click here
They further contended that the prosecution failed to provide corroborative evidence, such as contraband or independent witness testimony to substantiate the smuggling charges.
The respondent revenue, Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow, represented by Shri A.K. Choudhary maintained that the appellant’s confession was voluntary and valid, claiming that it clearly established the accused’s involvement in smuggling activities.
They argued that the confession alone was sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, despite the appellant’s retraction. The respondent revenue further contended that no corroborative evidence was needed as the confession met the required legal standard for proving guilt in customs smuggling cases.
The two-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Mr. P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) highlighted that smuggling convictions cannot stand on confessions alone, especially when these confessions are retracted during the course of the trial. According to the bench, the confession must be corroborated by independent evidence such as contraband seizure, witness testimony or forensic data to hold weight in a court of law.
Get a Copy of Critical EPF & ESI Act Provisions – Interpreted by the Supreme Court – To know more, Click here
In this case, the prosecution had failed to produce additional evidence that could substantiate the confession. Without material proof or corroborative testimony to back up the accused’s admission of guilt, the bench found that the charges were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The acquittal reflects the principle that a fair trial requires proof beyond just verbal admissions, especially when there is any hint of coercion or pressure involved.
The judgment stressed the importance of safeguarding individual rights and ensuring that legal processes are not manipulated to secure convictions based solely on dubious confessions.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
