Can Customs Officers Record Valid Confessions? Supreme Court Clarifies

The Supreme Court recently observed that confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by duly authorised customs officers are admissible in evidence, provided they are made voluntarily. Court clarified that such statements do not attract the bar under Sections 24, 30 or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding to Sections 22, 24 and 28 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, however, partly allowed the appeal filed by Amad Noormamad Bakali and others by maintaining their conviction under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act in a 1985 case involving smuggling of foreign-made watches, while reducing the sentence.

The prosecution alleged that the accused knowingly dealt with smuggled foreign goods despite being aware that the goods were liable to confiscation. They were said to have concealed, transported, sold or otherwise handled the watches, thereby committing an offence under Section 135 of the Act.

In the case, 777 wristwatches and 879 watch straps of foreign origin were recovered from two gunny bags found lying abandoned in a pit on a newly laid road near the Government Guest House in Mandvi.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj-Kachchh, by judgment dated March 26, 2003, convicted seven persons and sentenced each of them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 2,000. Their appeals were dismissed by the sessions court in 2005 and by the Gujarat High Court in 2010.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that their implication was primarily based on the confessional statement of one Hussein Mamad Bhadala. It was contended that Bhadala had been summoned by customs authorities, subjected to severe custodial torture during the investigation, and later died due to those injuries. An FIR was also registered against the concerned customs officials for offences under Sections 330, 302, 323 and 34 of the IPC [corresponding to Sections 120 (1), 103, 115 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023].

Court noted that the high court had found that the conviction was not based solely on confessional statements, but was supported by independent corroborative evidence. It held that the findings of guilt recorded by the trial court, and affirmed by the appellate court and the high court, did not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

On the question of sentence, the Bench observed that conscious possession of the smuggled goods was not directly attributed to the appellants, as the watches were recovered in an abandoned condition. It also took note of the fact that some co-accused had been acquitted, some appellants had passed away during the pendency of the case, and the surviving appellants were now of advanced age.

Court further noted that the surviving appellants had already undergone about one year of imprisonment, which was more than the statutory minimum sentence of six months applicable at the time.

Considering that the incident was nearly four decades old, along with the prolonged pendency of proceedings, the period of incarceration already undergone, and the advanced age of the surviving appellants, Court held that sending them back to prison would be unduly harsh.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.

Case Title: Amad Noormamad Bakali Vs The State of Gujarat & Ors

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Date of Judgment: February 23, 2026