1966 (7) TMI 73 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of statements recorded by Customs Officers under Section 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act to statements recorded by Customs Officers.
3. Applicability of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to statements recorded by Customs Officers.
4. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India to statements recorded by Customs Officers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Statements Recorded by Customs Officers
The primary issue revolves around whether statements recorded by Customs Officers under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are admissible in a criminal trial. The court examined the nature of these sections, noting that Section 107 involves a less formal inquiry without compulsion, while Section 108 involves a more formal inquiry with penalties for non-compliance and is deemed a judicial proceeding.

2. Applicability of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act
The court considered whether Customs Officers could be deemed "police officers" under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which bars the admissibility of confessions made to police officers. The court reviewed several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in *State of Punjab v. Barkatram* and *Rajaram v. State of Bihar*, which clarified that unless a special law specifically deems an officer as a police officer for the purpose of investigation, Section 25 does not apply. The Customs Act, 1962, does not confer such powers on Customs Officers, and thus, Section 25 does not apply to statements recorded by them.

3. Applicability of Section 162 CrPC
Section 162 CrPC prohibits the use of statements recorded by police officers during an investigation as evidence in court. The court noted that the Customs Act, 1962, is a self-contained code for inquiries under the Act and makes all offenses under it non-cognizable, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of police officers. Consequently, Section 162 CrPC does not apply to statements recorded by Customs Officers under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution
Article 20(3) of the Constitution provides that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The court examined whether this protection extends to statements made during inquiries under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra* and *State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu*, which clarified that the protection under Article 20(3) applies only if the person stood in the character of an accused at the time of making the statement. Since the respondents were not accused at the time their statements were recorded, Article 20(3) does not apply.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that:
1. Statements recorded by Customs Officers under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are admissible in evidence.
2. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to such statements.
3. Section 162 CrPC does not apply to such statements.
4. Article 20(3) of the Constitution does not bar the admissibility of such statements in the current context, as the respondents were not accused at the time of making the statements.

The order of the learned Sessions Judge was set aside, and the case was directed to be disposed of in accordance with the law and the Full Bench's decision. The stay on the trial was vacated.