Section 108 Statements Enough at Charge Stage: Kerala High Court Refuses to Discharge Accused in CBI Customs Corruption Case

Section 108 Statements Enough at Charge Stage: Kerala High Court Refuses to Discharge Accused in CBI Customs Corruption Case

Introduction

The Kerala High Court has refused to discharge an accused in a CBI corruption case, holding that statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, along with other materials, constitute sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed to trial. Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the evidentiary value of such statements, including those of approvers and extra-judicial confessions, must be assessed during trial and not at the stage of discharge.

Factual Background

The case arises from a CBI prosecution pending before the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI Cases)-III, Ernakulam. The prosecution alleges that certain customs officials received illegal gratification from passengers in exchange for releasing dutiable goods without imposing customs duty or penalty.

The revision petitioner, arrayed as Accused No. 3 and himself a customs officer, was alleged to have received ₹30,000 from one passenger for releasing gold ornaments, ₹15,000 from another passenger for releasing a passport and baggage containing dutiable goods, and ₹15,000 from one Kattappani Abdul Rifay for similar release of goods.

The prosecution relied, inter alia, on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and statements of co-accused persons. Certain co-accused were granted pardon under Section 306 of the CrPC and were examined as approvers. CCTV material was also part of the record.

Procedural Background

The petitioner had moved a discharge application before the Special Court, which was dismissed. Aggrieved, he filed a revision petition before the Kerala High Court challenging the refusal to discharge him from the case. The High Court examined whether, at the stage of discharge, the materials on record were sufficient to frame charges and proceed to trial.

Issues

1. Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are sufficient to constitute prima facie material for framing charges.

2. Whether absence of corroboration at the pre-trial stage warrants discharge of the accused.

3. What is the scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of considering a discharge plea.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner contended that the prosecution primarily relied on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, including those of co-accused, and argued that such material, without corroboration, was insufficient to frame charges. He submitted that reliance on approvers’ statements and alleged extra-judicial confessions could not sustain a prima facie case.

The prosecution, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, argued that the materials on record, including Section 108 statements, approvers’ evidence, and CCTV material, disclosed a strong suspicion against the accused and were sufficient to proceed to trial.

Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court observed that at the stage of discharge, the court is not required to conduct a mini trial or weigh the evidence meticulously. The limited inquiry is whether a prima facie case or strong suspicion exists against the accused. The Court noted that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are taken by gazetted Customs officers and are generally admissible in evidence, not being hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.

It held that the evidentiary value of approvers’ statements, the credibility of extra-judicial confessions, and the weight to be attached to Section 108 statements are matters to be determined during trial. Similarly, the probative worth of CCTV material must be tested at the stage of evidence. The Court found that there were sufficient materials on record to prima facie proceed against the petitioner. The existence of statements implicating him, along with other supporting materials, was adequate to justify continuation of trial.

Decision

The Kerala High Court upheld the Special Judge’s order dismissing the discharge application and dismissed the revision petition. It held that there were sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed with the trial against the petitioner.