1967 (11) TMI 118 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act to statements recorded by Customs officers.
3. Whether Customs officers can be considered as "police officers" under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
4. Impact of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India on statements recorded by Customs officers.
5. Applicability of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code to statements recorded by Customs officers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Statements Recorded by Customs Officers Under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The primary issue in these revision applications was whether statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are admissible in evidence. The accused in all three cases contended that their statements were inadmissible as they were hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. Applicability of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act to Statements Recorded by Customs Officers:
The Court examined whether Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which excludes confessions made to police officers from being admissible in evidence, applies to statements made to Customs officers. The Court noted that historically, confessional statements made before Customs officers have not been considered inadmissible under Section 25. The Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram was referenced, which held that Customs officers are not police officers and thus, Section 25 does not apply to statements recorded by them.

3. Whether Customs Officers Can Be Considered as "Police Officers" Under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The Court evaluated the argument that the Customs Act of 1962 conferred broader powers on Customs officers, making them akin to police officers. However, it reaffirmed the Supreme Court's stance in Barkat Ram's case and Badaku Joti v. State of Mysore, which distinguished the primary functions of Customs officers from those of police officers. The Court concluded that the primary purpose of Customs officers is to safeguard revenue and prevent smuggling, not to maintain law and order, and thus they do not fall under the definition of "police officers" for the purposes of Section 25.

4. Impact of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India on Statements Recorded by Customs Officers:
The argument that statements recorded under compulsion by Customs officers are hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination, was also considered. The Court cited precedents, including State v. Devsi Dosa, and Narayanlal Bansilal v. M. P. Mistry, which held that Article 20(3) applies only when a formal accusation exists at the time of recording the statement. Since the statements in question were recorded before any formal accusation, Article 20(3) was deemed inapplicable.

5. Applicability of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code to Statements Recorded by Customs Officers:
The contention that Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C.), which bars the use of statements made to police officers during an investigation, applies to statements made to Customs officers was rejected. The Court clarified that Customs officers are not police officers, and the Customs Act, 1962, provides its own procedure for investigation, making Section 162 Cr. P. C. inapplicable. Additionally, the offences under the Customs Act are non-cognizable, further negating the applicability of Section 162 Cr. P. C.

Conclusion:
The Court ultimately held that statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are admissible in evidence and are not hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, Article 20(3) of the Constitution, or Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The rule was discharged in all the applications, and the interim stay was vacated.