1968 (10) TMI 48 - SC - Customs

Whether statements of the appellant and other accused persons recorded by the Customs Authorities under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter called the new Act, were admissible in evidence at their trial for the alleged offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the New Act and Sections 23(1A) and 23B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and under Rule 131B of the Defence of India Rules? Held that - It is difficult and indeed it would be contrary to all rules of interpretation to spell out any such special power from any of the provisions contained in the new Act. In this view of the matter even though under the new Act a Customs Officer has been invested with many powers which were not to be found in the provisions of the old Act, he cannot be regarded as a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Thus as with reference to the old Act has been reaffirmed on the question under consideration and it has been held that under the new Act also the position remains the same. This appeal fails and it is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of statements recorded by Customs Authorities under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether Customs Officers are deemed to be police officers under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
3. Applicability of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution regarding testimonial compulsion.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Statements Recorded by Customs Authorities:
The main point in this appeal is whether statements of the appellant and other accused persons recorded by the Customs Authorities under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962), were admissible in evidence at their trial for the alleged offences. The accused were charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the new Act, Sections 23(1A) and 23B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and Rule 131B of the Defence of India Rules. The prosecution sought to file these statements during the trial, but the admissibility was contested on several grounds.

2. Whether Customs Officers are Deemed to be Police Officers:
The first objection raised was that the officers of the Customs department who had recorded the statements must be deemed to be police officers, and the statements being of a confessional nature were not admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Full Bench of the High Court answered this question against the accused, holding that Customs Officers are not police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. This view was supported by previous decisions, including State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram (1962) 3 SCR 338, where it was held that Customs Officers were not police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

3. Applicability of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The second objection was that the investigation conducted by the Customs Officer must be deemed to be under Chapter XIV read with Section 5(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, making the statements inadmissible under Section 161 read with Section 162 of the Code. However, this point was not pressed by the appellant's counsel during the appeal.

4. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:
The third objection was based on Article 20(3) of the Constitution, involving testimonial compulsion. It was conceded before the Full Bench of the High Court that when the statements were recorded, the investigation had not reached the stage when the particular persons had been accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, this matter was left undecided, allowing the appellant to make submissions before the Trial Court when any such statement is formally tendered for admission into evidence.

Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:

Comparison of Provisions under the Old and New Customs Act:
The judgment compared the relevant provisions of the old and new Customs Act. Under the old Act, Section 173 allowed Customs Officers to arrest persons reasonably suspected of offences. The new Act, under Section 104, allows Customs Officers to arrest persons believed to be guilty of an offence punishable under Section 135. The powers to search and summon under both Acts were also compared, highlighting the procedural changes.

Judicial Precedents:
The judgment discussed previous decisions of the Supreme Court, including Barkat Ram's case, Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, and Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore. These cases examined whether officers under special Acts, such as the Customs Act, could be deemed police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Court reaffirmed that even if an officer under a special Act has powers similar to those of a police officer, they do not become police officers within the meaning of Section 25 unless they are empowered to file a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that under the new Customs Act, a Customs Officer cannot be regarded as a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The statements made before Customs Officers are not covered by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the admissibility of the statements recorded by the Customs Authorities.

This comprehensive analysis ensures that all relevant issues are covered in depth, preserving the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.

← Previous Next →