9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of statements recorded by Customs Officers under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, in light of: - Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act - Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Article 20(3) of the Constitution Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility Under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act The primary issue revolves around whether Customs Officers can be considered police officers under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which would render statements recorded by them inadmissible in criminal trials. The court examined the powers conferred by the Customs Act, 1962, and compared them with those under the old Sea Customs Act, 1878. - State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram: The Supreme Court held that Customs Officers under the Sea Customs Act were not police officers for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The rationale was that the powers conferred on Customs Officers were for checking smuggling and not for maintaining law and order, which is the primary function of police officers. - New Provisions in Customs Act, 1962: The court noted that the new Act conferred broader powers on Customs Officers, such as powers of arrest, search, and investigation. However, these powers did not equate them to police officers as defined under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court emphasized that the primary test is whether the powers of investigation conferred are the same as those of police officers under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Admissibility Under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code The court concluded that if the statements are not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, they are also not inadmissible under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This section pertains to statements made to police officers during an investigation, which are inadmissible in criminal trials. 3. Protection Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution The court examined whether the statements recorded by Customs Officers during an investigation could be protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which provides that no person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. - Rainbow Trading Co. v. Assistant Collector of Customs: The court referred to this case where it was held that the protection under Article 20(3) applies only when a person stands in the character of an accused at the time of making the statement. The court noted that the statements in the present case were recorded during an investigation when the individuals were not formally accused. - M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra: The Supreme Court held that the protection under Article 20(3) would be available only if the person stands in the character of an accused at the time of making the statement. The court also noted that compelled testimony obtained at a stage when the individual is not an accused cannot be excluded under Article 20(3) during subsequent trials. - State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu: The court reaffirmed that the protection under Article 20(3) is not available if the individual was not an accused at the time of making the statement. The court emphasized that the test is whether the individual was compelled to be a witness against himself at the time of making the statement. Conclusion The court held that the statements recorded by Customs Officers under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are not inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the broader powers conferred on Customs Officers under the new Act do not equate them to police officers for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, the protection under Article 20(3) is not available as the individuals were not accused at the time of making the statements.
|
