Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

NARESH J. SUKHAWANI versus UNION OF INDIA

Decided
6 November 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 778 · 1995 INSC 689
Also cited as
  • (1995) Supp 4 SCC 663 (14 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1996 SC 522 (8 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
3 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The special leave petition arises from the order dated 7th August, 1995 passed by the Bombay High Court Court in W.P. No. 1334 of 1995. The Customs officials at Sahar International Airport, Bombay apprehended one Sukhawani Solanki when he was attempting to export foreign exchange out of India valuing Rs. 13,27,212. Mr. Solanki in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the Customs official, had stated that one Mr. Subhash Dudani had given him the currency to hand over to Mr. Kenny at Hongkong. The Customs officials apprehended Mr. Subhash Dudani who in his statement recorded under Section 108 stated that foreign exchange given to Solanki was received from one Mr. Rajcsh Sukha\vani. Thereafter, the Custon1s officials traced the Jll:!lilinnl'.r and haJ searched hi~ prcn1iscs nn .Dc:cembcr 2-1, 1991, in. his absence, but nothing incriminating recovered.

p. 779, margin D

The Customs officials initiated proceedings for confiscation of foreign exchange and used the state111ent of Mr. Dudani against the petitinncr. After enquiry an<l giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the 1'\d<litional Collector confiscated the foreign currency an<l imposed a penalty of Rs. I, lakh. When the petitioner challenged the confiscation in appcal, the Collector set aside the said order. ()n suo n1otu revision, the Ciovern111ent r.:versc<l the order of the C.~ollcctor and restored the order of the Additional Collector which was affirmed by the High Court hy the in1pugni.:<l order. Thus the special leave petition.

p. 779, margin F

The Joint Secretary to the Government, the revisional authority, has held lhal the evidence and the statement given by Mr. Dudani incriminates the petitioner. This was established with reference lo the photograph and other intrinsic material. On that basis, he concluded that Mr. Dudani incriminated himself and the appellant in passing off foreign currency out of India, i.e., to Hong Kong. It was accordingly held that the contravention was established. It is contended that the statement of co-accused could be used only to corroborate other evidence as one of the circumstances under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. But it cannot be used. as substantive evidence without corroboration from other independent evidence. Except the statement of Dudani, there is no other independent evidence. Mr. Dudani's evidence cannot be pressed into service ~o arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner is involved in the passing off foreign currency out of India.

p. 780, margin A

It must be remembered that the statement made before the Customs officials is not a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Therefore, it is a material piece of evidence collected by Customs officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act. That material incriminates the petitioner inculpating him in the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. The material can certainly be used to connect the petitioner in the contravention inasmuch as Mr. Dudani's statement clearly inculpates not only himself but also the petitioner. It can, therefore, be used as substantive. evidence connecting the petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign currency out of India. Therefore, we do not think that there is any illegality in the order of confiscation of foreign currency and imposition of penalty. There is no ground warranting reduction of fine.

p. 780, margin C

The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 780, margin F