B. N. Kirpal ( 1 ) THE Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has REFERRED TO to this court the following question of law: "whether order of the North Regional Bench of the C. E. G. A. T. dated 26. 7. 1983 upholding penalty of Rs. 20,000. 00 upon the applicant Shri Kailash Chand Gupta under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962, can be held to be justified in view of his retracted confession which was not used literatim et verbatim?" ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are, as set out in the statement of the case, that on 2nd March 1977, officers of Delhi Collective intercepted car No. DHC 5846 and recovered two bars of foreign market gold weighing two Kgs. and that the occupants of the car were the petitioner, his cousin Shri Arvind Bansal and driver Shri Banarsi Dass. It is also on the record that the petitioner made a statement admitting recovery of gold from the car and also stated that the same has been purchased form one Shri Kanshi Ram at the instance of the petitioner s father Lala Om Parkash, Adjudication proceedings under Section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962 took place before Shri B. B. Julka, Collector of Customs, New Delhi, who imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000. 00 upon the petitioner and a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000. 00 each on Shri Om Parkash, Shri Som Parkash and Shri Kanshi Ram, under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, vide order (original) No. 42/80 dated 23rd October, 1980. In appeal Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, exonerated Shri Kanshi Ram. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, petitioner alongwith Om Parkash and Som Parkash filed an appeal in the Tribunal, who vide its order No. 332/83-NRB date 26. 7. 83 exonerated Om Parkash and Som Parkash. Penalty amount imposed upon the petitioner Shri Kailash Chand Gupta was also reduced to Rs. 20,000. 00. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the Tribunal petitioner, has filed an application for referring a question of law and thereupon the aforesaid question of law has been REFERRED TO. 7. 83 exonerated Om Parkash and Som Parkash. Penalty amount imposed upon the petitioner Shri Kailash Chand Gupta was also reduced to Rs. 20,000. 00. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the Tribunal petitioner, has filed an application for referring a question of law and thereupon the aforesaid question of law has been REFERRED TO. It is submitted by the learned counsel for me petitioner that the statement of the petitioner was inculpatory and in this statement he had stated that he had purchased gold from Kanshi Ram and that money had been given to him by his father Om Parkash and the car pertained to his uncle Som Parkash and that his cousin Arvind Kumar and Banarsi Dass, driver were in the car when the seizure of the gold took place. The submission of the learned counsel is that Arvind Kumar and Banarsi Dass were proceeded against by the customs authority while Kanshi Ram was exonerated by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal exonerated Som Parkash and Om Parkash. In view of this, it is contended that, the statement of the petitioner was only partly accepted and this is not permissible because when a wholly inculpatory statement is made it must be accepted in its entirety or rejected. ( 5 ) IN support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 1091 where at page 1111 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:- "if the evidence of the experts is eliminated, there is no material for holding that Exhibit P-24 was typed on Article A. The trial magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge used part of the statement of the accused for arriving at the conclusion that the letter not having been typed on article B must necessarily have been typed on article A. Such use of the statement of the accused was wholly unwarranted. It is settled law that an admission made by a person whether amounting to a confession or not cannot be split upend part of it used against him. An admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. It is settled law that an admission made by a person whether amounting to a confession or not cannot be split upend part of it used against him. An admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. If the statement of the accused is used as a whole, it completely demolishes the prosecution case and, if it is not used at all, then there remains no material on the record from which any inference could be drawn the letter was not written in the date it bears. " ( 6 ) RELIANCE is also sought to be placed on the case of Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 wherein at page 123 it has been stated as under:- "shortly put, a confession may be as an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence. A statement which contain self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement B of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. If an admission of an accused is to be used against him the whole of it should be tendered in evidence and if part of the admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part only. See Hanumant Govind Vs. State of M. P. 1952 SCR 1091 at p. 1111 ( AIR 1952 SC 343 at p. 350) and 1953 SCR 94 ; AIR 1952sc354 ). The accused is entitled to insist that the entire admission including the exculpatory part must be tendered in evidence. But the principle is of no assistance to the accused where no part of his statement is self-exculpatory, and the prosecution intends to use the whole of the statement against the accused. " ( 7 ) BEFORE dealing with the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it will be pertinent to see as to what was the statement of the petitioner before the Customs authority after the seizure had taken place. In the said statement he, inter-alia, had mentioned that after he left his father he set up a rice mill. He had also stated that he had helped in the business of his father who was a Saraf. In the said statement he, inter-alia, had mentioned that after he left his father he set up a rice mill. He had also stated that he had helped in the business of his father who was a Saraf. He further stated (hat his father and uncle maintained a car for business purpose and the said car which was registered in the name of the uncle had registration No. DHC 5846. Mention was also being made that during the last 4 years he had visited Delhi from Karnal where his business was situated about twenty times and he had purchase smuggled gold on three or four occasions on cash payments. His father used to give him money and he used to deliver the gold after purchasing from Delhi to his father at Karnal. With regard to the seizure of the gold in question, the statement of me petitioner was as follows: TODAY I alongwith my cousin brother Arvind Kumar and Driver Banarsi Dass left Karnal in our car No. DHC-5846 at 12 noon. We reached Delhi at about 2 P. M. We brought alongwith us silver weighing 64 Kg. This silver weighing 64 Kg was sold by me for Rs. 70,000. 00 through one Dalal Krishan Lal. I purchased two slabs of foreign marked gold each weighting one kilo from Kanshi Ram and paid him Rs. 1,16,200. 00. I had brought with me about Rs. 47,000. 00 from Karnal. According the time was fixed to get the delivery of two slabs of gold at Kashmere Gate opposite Rits Cinemas at about 7. 45 P. M. I alongwith my cousin brother and Driver Banarshi Das reached at the fixed place in our Car No. DHC - 5846 at about 7. 30 hours. After about 15 or 20 minutes Kanshi Ram came there and delivered me the two slabs of Gold which were kept by me in the space in between the two rear seats immediately thereafter some officers who later on gave their identity as Customs Officers came there and asked for the search of the car. Two witnesses were also called mere as a result of search two gold slabs with foreign marking and weighing one Kg. each were recovered from the spaces in between the rear seats and its back. Our car was escorted to Customs House where a pancbnama was prepared in presence of the same independent witnesses. Two witnesses were also called mere as a result of search two gold slabs with foreign marking and weighing one Kg. each were recovered from the spaces in between the rear seats and its back. Our car was escorted to Customs House where a pancbnama was prepared in presence of the same independent witnesses. Some other documents recovered from the car and from my pocket were also taken in possession by the Customs Officer. Two slabs were sealed in my presence as well as in presence of witnesses with departmental seal. I have furnished my above statement voluntarily on enquirying by the Customs Officers and is based on truth. No under pressure or duress was exerted at the time of recording the statement. " ( 8 ) THE first appellate authority had dropped the proceedings against Kanshi Ram on the ground that the statement of the petitioner herein was not corroborated by any evidence against Kanshi Ram. With regard to Som Parkash, the appeal filed by him as accepted by the Tribunal by holding that the business of Som Parkash and Om Parkash (petitioner herein) was separate. With regard to the appeals filed by Om Parkash it was held by the Tribunal that the statement of the petitioner herein did not mean that it is Om Parkash who had arranged forthe money which was carried by the petitioner to Delhi for the purchase of gold. Om Parkash was, therefore, found not to be related or linked in the recovery of the gold in the present case. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal decided the case against the petitioner by holding as follows:- "after taking into consideration all the submissions, we are of the opinion that gold was recovered from the car as alleged while it was being Occupied by the appellant. Against him, the department officials had no ill will to involve him falsely in the case. Had he been beaten and tortured as alleged, then he should have got himself medically examined after having the order of the Magistrate before whom he was produced on the following day. It was not done and the same goes to show that he was not beaten and he had made statement at his own accord after the said recovery. Had he been beaten and tortured as alleged, then he should have got himself medically examined after having the order of the Magistrate before whom he was produced on the following day. It was not done and the same goes to show that he was not beaten and he had made statement at his own accord after the said recovery. It is not disputed that the said gold is of foreign origin and as such the possession thereof is prohibited until and unless permitted by law. The appellant has not claimed the gold in any manner. ". ( 10 ) THE finding of fact arrived at by thetribunal,as is evident from the aforesaid extract from his order clearly is that recovery of gold was made from the car which was occupied by the petitioner and that gold was of foreign origin. In the said order Tribunal also made reference to the statement of the petitioner to the effect that he had purchase the gold himself. The penalty which was being imposed on the petitioner was reduced from Rs. 50,000. 00 to 20,000/ -. The question of law as REFERRED TO presupposes that with respect of confession was not used literatim -et-verbatim meaning letter for letter and word for word. ( 11 ) IN the present case the petitioner had stated that he had purchase gold from Kanshi Ram. Kanshi Ram s appeal was allowed by the First Appellate Authority and, therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said part of the transaction having not been accepted, the confession could not have been relied upon. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid statement it was ever mentioned that the present purchase was made on behalf of the father. The appeal of the father Om Parkash was in fact allowed on this ground. The only question, therefore, is that if the appeal of Kanshi Ram had been accepted that means that no part of the statement of the petitioner should be relied upon. ( 12 ) IN Hanumant s case (supra) all that the Supreme Court had held was that an admission made by a person whether amounting to a confession or not cannot be split up and part of it used against him. ( 12 ) IN Hanumant s case (supra) all that the Supreme Court had held was that an admission made by a person whether amounting to a confession or not cannot be split up and part of it used against him. The statement of a person may contain a number of admissions as in the present case. The statement of the petitioner contained admissions: (1) he had brought silver from Kamal. (2) he had sold silver in Delhi (3) he had brought Rs. 47,000. 00 - from Karnal (4) he had bought gold in Delhi (5) the gold was sold to him by Kanshi Ram. These are five different admissions made in the same statement and when his averment that gold was sold to him by Kanshi Ram was not accepted, in the appeal filed by Kanshi Ram, does not mean that his statement has been split up and a part of it used against him. The decision of Hanumant s case does not, therefore, help the petitioner and same is the position with regard to the decision of the Supreme court in Aghnoo Nagesia s case (Supra ). In that case all what was held by the Supreme court is that when a statement contained exculpatory and inculpatory statement the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part alone and the accused is entitled to insist that his entire admission including the exculpatory part must be tendered in evidence. In the present case the entire statement of the petitioner had been tendered in evidence and no part of it had been withheld. ( 13 ) THE judgment of the Supreme Court in Hanumant s case has also been considered and was followed the Constitution Bench in the case of Nishikant Jha Vs. St. of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 422 . It is contended in that case that if the statement is to be considered at all it must be taken as a whole and the Court could not act upon one portion of it while rejecting the other. St. of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 422 . It is contended in that case that if the statement is to be considered at all it must be taken as a whole and the Court could not act upon one portion of it while rejecting the other. After referring to passages from Taylor in his Law of Evidence (11th edition) Article 725 at page 502, roscoe s book on Criminal Evidence (16th Edition, page 52), Archhold s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (Thirty-sixth Edition, page 423), In Hanumant s case the Supre case the Supreme Court held that the aforesaid proposition was so widely stated that it could not be accepted. It came to the conclusion that the Court could reject part of the statement, which in that case was exculpatory, while accepting the inculpatory part and keeping the same with the other evidence to come to the conclusion that the person was responsible lor the crime. Again in Keshoram Bora Vs. State of Assam, AIR 1978 SC 1096 . it has been held by the Supreme Court as follows:- "lt is submitted that admission can be taken either as a whole or not at all. It is well settled that where a confession or an admission is separable there can be no objection to taking inculpatory part into consideration which appears to be true and reject the exculpatory part which is false. " ( 14 ) EARLIER it was also observed as follows;- "it is now well settled that principle Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus does not apply to criminal trial and it is the duty of the court to disengage the truth from falsehood, to sift the grain from the chaff instead of taking an easy course of rejecting the prosecution case in its entirety merely on the basis of a new infirmities. " ( 15 ) FROM the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court it must follow that even if the statement of the petitioner was not used literatim-et-verbatim, the said part of the statement could still be used by the Tribunal for deciding the case against the petitioner. ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid our answer to the said question is in the affirmative and against the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.