1961 (8) TMI 28 - SC - Customs

Whether a Customs Officer, either under the Land Customs Act, 1924 (Act XIX of 1924) or under the Sea, Customs Act, 1878 (Act VIII of 1878), is a . police officer within the meaning of that expression in s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act? Held that - The Customs Officers are not police officers for the purpose of s. 25 of the Evidence Act. We further hold that the conviction of the respondent for the offences under s. 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and under s.167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, on the basis of his statements to the Customs Officers, was legal and was wrongly set aside by the High Court. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal of the respondent for the aforesaid offences and restore the order of conviction passed by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge. We make it clear, however, that we do not express any opinion on the question whether officers of departments other than the police, on whom the powers of an Officer-in- charge of a Police Station under ch. XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have been conferred, are police officers or not for the purpose of s. 25 of the Evidence Act, as the learned counsel for the appellant did not question the correctness of this view for the purpose of this appeal. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Customs Officer is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. Admissibility of confessional statements made to Customs Officers.
3. Legality of the High Court's decision to set aside the conviction based on the inadmissibility of confessional statements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether a Customs Officer is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The primary contention in the appeal was whether Customs Officers qualify as police officers under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Supreme Court analyzed the duties and powers of police officers versus those of Customs Officers. It was highlighted that police officers, under the Police Act, 1861, are primarily tasked with the prevention and detection of crime, maintaining public order, and bringing offenders to justice. In contrast, Customs Officers' powers are aimed at preventing smuggling, ensuring the realization of customs duties, and safeguarding the country's revenue. The Court concluded that even though Customs Officers possess certain powers similar to police officers, their primary function is not crime prevention but revenue protection. Therefore, Customs Officers do not fall under the definition of police officers within Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

2. Admissibility of confessional statements made to Customs Officers:
The Court discussed whether confessions made to Customs Officers are admissible in evidence. It was argued that the exclusion of confessions made to police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act was due to the notorious methods of extracting confessions by police officers. The Court noted that the legislative intent behind Section 25 was to prevent the use of coerced confessions obtained by police officers. Since Customs Officers do not share the same primary function as police officers and act judicially under certain provisions, their recorded statements, even if confessional, should not be considered inadmissible. The Court emphasized that Customs Officers act judicially when imposing penalties and confiscations, unlike police officers who do not act judicially.

3. Legality of the High Court's decision to set aside the conviction based on the inadmissibility of confessional statements:
The High Court had set aside the conviction of the respondent on the grounds that the confessional statements made to Customs Officers were inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, holding that Customs Officers are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25. Consequently, the confessional statements made to them are admissible. The Supreme Court restored the conviction of the respondent, stating that the High Court erred in excluding the confessional statements and that the conviction based on these statements was legal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal order, and restored the conviction passed by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge. The Court clarified that Customs Officers are not police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and thus, confessional statements made to them are admissible in evidence. The Court did not express any opinion on whether officers of other departments, with powers similar to police officers, are considered police officers under Section 25.

← Previous Next →