Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026

The case arose from a 1985 smuggling incident in Mandvi, Gujarat.

The appellants were accused of smuggling 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 wrist watch straps, valued at approximately ₹2 lakhs.

Though conscious possession of the smuggled goods was not directly attributed to the appellants, they were convicted.

Their conviction was primarily based on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

The High Court upheld the conviction relying substantially on these statements.

The appellants challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the statements were obtained under coercion and custodial torture.

They contended that convictions should not rest solely on such confessional statements without independent corroboration.

The Supreme Court reiterated that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible as substantive evidence, provided they are voluntary.

It relied on K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (1997) to reaffirm that such statements are not barred by Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Evidence Act.

The Court emphasized that the burden of proving coercion or inducement lies on the accused.

It held that Customs authorities are empowered to collect relevant evidence relating to contraventions of the Act.

The Court rejected the argument that lack of corroboration invalidated the conviction, noting that tangible corroborative evidence was available.

It found no perversity or legal infirmity in the High Court’s decision.

However, considering that the incident occurred 40 years ago, the appellants had undergone substantial incarceration, and were of advanced age, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

The appeal was partly allowed to the limited extent of modification of sentence.

The ruling strengthens the evidentiary value of Section 108 Customs Act statements, aligning with established precedent.

It clarifies that Customs officers are not considered “police officers” for the limited purpose of confessional admissibility under the Evidence Act.

The judgment reinforces the principle that voluntariness is the key test for admissibility.

By placing the burden on the accused to prove coercion, the Court maintains investigative authority while safeguarding procedural fairness.

The decision balances strict enforcement of economic offences with humanitarian considerations in sentencing.

The reduction of sentence reflects judicial sensitivity toward delay, age, and long lapse of time, without disturbing the conviction.