Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 161 (8.09 seconds)
Documents citing Roshan Beevi And Ors. vs Joint Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 9 November, 1983

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 3 July, 2024

"We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on this legal aspect. But suffice it to say that the core of all the decisions of this Court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made either before the customs authorities or the officers of Enforcement Directorate under the relevant provisions of the respective Acts is a sine qua non to act on it for any purpose and, if the statement appears to have been obtained by any inducement, threat, coercion or by any improper means, that statement must be rejected brevi manu. At the same time, it is to be noted that, merely because a statement is retracted, it cannot be recorded as involuntary or unlawfully obtained. It is only for the maker of the statement who alleges inducement, threat, promise, etc. to establish that such improper means have been adopted. However, even if the maker of the statement fails to establish his allegations of inducement, threat, etc., against the officer who recorded the statement, the authority, while acting on the inculpatory statement of the maker, is not completely relieved of his obligation at least subjectively to apply its mind to the subsequent retraction to hold that the inculpatory statement was not extorted. It thus boils down to this that the authority or any Court intending to act upon the inculpatory statement as a voluntary one should apply its mind to the retraction and reject the same in writing. It is only on this principle of law that this Court, in several decisions, has ruled that, even in passing a detention order on the basis of an inculpatory statement of a detenu who has violated the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or the Customs Act, etc., the detaining authority should consider the subsequent retraction and record its opinion before accepting the ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru Page 58 of 73 inculpatory statement lest the order be vitiated. Reference may be made to a decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Roshan Beevi vs. Jt. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Deptt. etc. (1983) Mad LW (Crl.) 289 : (1984) 15 ELT 289 : AIR 1984 NOC 103, to which one of us (S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.) was a party."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 123 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 3 July, 2024

"We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on this legal aspect. But suffice it to say that the core of all the decisions of this Court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made either before the customs authorities or the officers of Enforcement Directorate under the relevant provisions of the respective Acts is a sine qua non to act on it for any purpose and, if the statement appears to have been obtained by any inducement, threat, coercion or by any improper means, that statement must be rejected brevi manu. At the same time, it is to be noted that, merely because a statement is retracted, it cannot be recorded as involuntary or unlawfully obtained. It is only for the maker of the statement who alleges inducement, threat, promise, etc. to establish that such improper means have been adopted. However, even if the maker of the statement fails to establish his allegations of inducement, threat, etc., against the officer who recorded the statement, the authority, while acting on the inculpatory statement of the maker, is not completely relieved of his obligation at least subjectively to apply its mind to the subsequent retraction to hold that the inculpatory statement was not extorted. It thus boils down to this that the authority or any Court intending to act upon the inculpatory statement as a voluntary one should apply its mind to the retraction and reject the same in writing. It is only on this principle of law that this Court, in several decisions, has ruled that, even in passing a detention order on the basis of an inculpatory statement of a detenu who has violated the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or the Customs Act, etc., the detaining authority should consider the subsequent retraction and record its opinion before accepting the ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru Page 58 of 73 inculpatory statement lest the order be vitiated. Reference may be made to a decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Roshan Beevi vs. Jt. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Deptt. etc. (1983) Mad LW (Crl.) 289 : (1984) 15 ELT 289 : AIR 1984 NOC 103, to which one of us (S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.) was a party."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 123 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 3 July, 2024

"We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on this legal aspect. But suffice it to say that the core of all the decisions of this Court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made either before the customs authorities or the officers of Enforcement Directorate under the relevant provisions of the respective Acts is a sine qua non to act on it for any purpose and, if the statement appears to have been obtained by any inducement, threat, coercion or by any improper means, that statement must be rejected brevi manu. At the same time, it is to be noted that, merely because a statement is retracted, it cannot be recorded as involuntary or unlawfully obtained. It is only for the maker of the statement who alleges inducement, threat, promise, etc. to establish that such improper means have been adopted. However, even if the maker of the statement fails to establish his allegations of inducement, threat, etc., against the officer who recorded the statement, the authority, while acting on the inculpatory statement of the maker, is not completely relieved of his obligation at least subjectively to apply its mind to the subsequent retraction to hold that the inculpatory statement was not extorted. It thus boils down to this that the authority or any Court intending to act upon the inculpatory statement as a voluntary one should apply its mind to the retraction and reject the same in writing. It is only on this principle of law that this Court, in several decisions, has ruled that, even in passing a detention order on the basis of an inculpatory statement of a detenu who has violated the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or the Customs Act, etc., the detaining authority should consider the subsequent retraction and record its opinion before accepting the ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru Page 58 of 73 inculpatory statement lest the order be vitiated. Reference may be made to a decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Roshan Beevi vs. Jt. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Deptt. etc. (1983) Mad LW (Crl.) 289 : (1984) 15 ELT 289 : AIR 1984 NOC 103, to which one of us (S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.) was a party."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 123 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 3 July, 2024

"We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on this legal aspect. But suffice it to say that the core of all the decisions of this Court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made either before the customs authorities or the officers of Enforcement Directorate under the relevant provisions of the respective Acts is a sine qua non to act on it for any purpose and, if the statement appears to have been obtained by any inducement, threat, coercion or by any improper means, that statement must be rejected brevi manu. At the same time, it is to be noted that, merely because a statement is retracted, it cannot be recorded as involuntary or unlawfully obtained. It is only for the maker of the statement who alleges inducement, threat, promise, etc. to establish that such improper means have been adopted. However, even if the maker of the statement fails to establish his allegations of inducement, threat, etc., against the officer who recorded the statement, the authority, while acting on the inculpatory statement of the maker, is not completely relieved of his obligation at least subjectively to apply its mind to the subsequent retraction to hold that the inculpatory statement was not extorted. It thus boils down to this that the authority or any Court intending to act upon the inculpatory statement as a voluntary one should apply its mind to the retraction and reject the same in writing. It is only on this principle of law that this Court, in several decisions, has ruled that, even in passing a detention order on the basis of an inculpatory statement of a detenu who has violated the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or the Customs Act, etc., the detaining authority should consider the subsequent retraction and record its opinion before accepting the ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru Page 58 of 73 inculpatory statement lest the order be vitiated. Reference may be made to a decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Roshan Beevi vs. Jt. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Deptt. etc. (1983) Mad LW (Crl.) 289 : (1984) 15 ELT 289 : AIR 1984 NOC 103, to which one of us (S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.) was a party."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 123 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kishore J. Chawla vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 11 November, 1999

In this connection we may note that a Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Roshon Beevi v. Joint Secretary to the Government, Tamil Nadu Public Department, etc., 1983 Law Weekly (Crl.) p. 289, in paragraph 48 observed: 'If, in a given case, the Customs official detains any person required or summoned under the provisions of the Customs Act for a prolonged period, even exceeding twenty-four hours, or keeps him in closed doors as a captive prisoner surrounded by officials or locks him in a room or confines him to an office premises, he does so at his peril because Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act do not authorise the officer belonging to the Customs Department to detain a person for a prolonged custody and deprive him of the elementary facilities and privileges to which he is entitled. In such a situation, the officer must be held to have over-stepped his limits, and any confessional statement obtained from such a person by keeping him in a prolonged custody has to be recorded with grave suspicion, because there is always room for criticism that such a confession might have been obtained from extorted mal-treatment or induced by improper means.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Prakash Kumar Iswarlal vs The Special Director Of Enforcement on 21 March, 2025

NC: 2025:KHC:12076-DB MFA No. 5003 of 2014 and others,) and the decision of this court in Roshan Beevi and Others Vs. Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Others,) in support of his contention that statement made before the customs officer u/s 108 of the Customs Act, though retracted later is an admissible evidence and binding. Certainly, there is no quarrel about the said proposition. The admissibility of such statement as evidence is always there. However, the question is whether the authorities can act on such statement alone in the absence of any corroborating materials to substantiate the contents of such statement. Therefore, the admissibility of an evidence cannot and should not be taken to mean its acceptability as well. As we have already pointed out, the statement made by Abdul Razak, especially when retracted subsequently and reiterated the original statement thereafter, certainly raises a doubt with regard to the genuineness of its contents. Therefore, even though such statement made u/s 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence, the authorities are not necessarily bound to accept the same as such in the absence of further materials to substantiate the contents of such statement. Therefore, by applying the facts and circumstances of the present case, the reliance placed on those above two decisions by the Revenue will not help them in any way."
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation ... vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 23 April, 2025

5. 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4599 Page 39 of 66 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:46:17 am ) W.P.Nos.10348, 10352 & 10355 of 2025 “13. Thus Deepak Mahajan (supra); Roshan Biwi (supra) and Harbhajan Singh (supra) all in unison clarify the custody and arrest are not synonymous. In every arrest there is always a custody but in every custody there may not be arrest. Even otherwise, if one look at the scheme of PMLA it shows arrest needs to be made only under Section 19(1) of the Act after completion of process under Section 17(1) and 18 (1) and the accused is to be produced before the concerned court within 24 hours of his arrest under Section 19(1).
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next