Supreme Court · 2000 INSC 377 · Decided 7 August 2000
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries LTD. and ORS.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Citation
- 2000 INSC 377 · [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 162
- Case number
- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 628/2000
- Decided
- 7 August 2000
- Bench
- K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI (2-judge bench)
- Outcome
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Case type
- Criminal
- Acts & sections cited
- IPC; CrPC Section 164, 164(2); Evidence Act Section 24, 25; Customs Act Section 108; Central Excise Act Section 120
Headnote
Customs Act, 1962 : Section 108. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 164 Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 : Section 9(1) Evidence Act, 1872 : Sections 24 and 25. Excise officer-Statements recorded by-Admissibility of Cigarette companies-Directors-Prosecution under section 9( 1) of Central 120-B Indian Penal Code-Statements of - accused recorded by excise officer-Accused not administered warning as required under section 164(2) Criminal Procedure Code-Held, such statements are admissible in evidence-However court should examine whether inculpatory statements were voluntary or
Judgments are the courts' own published copies, provided for study; they are not certified copies. Source: Indian Supreme Court & High Court Judgments, Dattam Labs (CC-BY-4.0)