9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (3) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taken down from the loft in the kitchen. On opening, a belt, with four pouches stitched to it, was found in the big steel trunk. Inside the pouches, four gold bars with foreign marks and labels of Goa Customs authorities were found. Besides these, a large sum of money and three small cut pieces of gold were also found in the box. In the other two boxes also various sums of money in currency notes were found. The weight of the gold bars was 343 tolas. 2. On November 30, 1960, the appellant was arrested and interrogated by the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Excise. The answers given by him were reduced in writing and his signature was taken on the writing after it had been read over to him. During this interrogation, the appellant admitted that the four gold bars had been given to him on November 27, 1960 in the morning by one Vittal Morajkar of Goa so that he might deliver them back to Morajkar on the motor-stand at Belgaum or near there, and he had kept them in his house. As the gold was foreign gold and as under the notification under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, import of gold into India had been forbidden except with the general or specia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay not be concerned with actual import of prohibited goods. The view taken by the Mysore High Court is in accordance with the view taken by this Court in that appeal and in view of that, learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that the appellant would be guilty within the meaning of s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. 5. This leaves only the second question, and it has been urged on behalf of the appellant that a Central Excise Officer under the Central Excises and Salt Act, No. 1 of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a police officer within the meaning of those words in s. 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore even though the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise may have acted under the powers conferred on him by the Sea Customs Act, he was still a police officer, and the statement made to him by the appellant on November 30, 1960 which is in the nature of a confession would be inadmissible under s. 25 of the Evidence Act. It may be added that the High Court had in this connection relied on the judgment of this Court in the State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram [1962]3SCR338 where it had been held by majority that a Customs Officer under the Sea Customs Act w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be accepted and that requires an examination of the various provisions of the Act to which we turn now. 8. The main purpose of the Act is to levy and collect excise duties and Central Excise Officers have been appointed thereunder for this main purpose. In order that they may carry out their duties in this behalf, powers have been conferred on them to see that duty is not evaded and persons guilty of evasion of duty are brought to book. Section 9 of the Act provides for punishment which may extend to imprisonment upto 6 months or to find upto ₹ 2,000 or both where a person (a) contravenes any of the provisions of a notification issued under s. 6 or of s. 8 or of a rule made under clause(iii) of sub-section (2) of s. 37; (b) evades the payment of any duty payable under the Act; (c) fails to supply any information which he is required by rules made under the Act to supply or supplies false information; and (d) attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences mentioned in cls. (a) and (b) above. Under s. 13 of the Act, any Central Excise Officer duly empowered by the Central Government in this behalf may arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r proviso (a) to sub-s. (2) of s. 21 if the Central Excise Officer is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall either admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or forward him in custody to such magistrate. It does not however appear that a Central Excise Officer under the Act has power to submit a charge-sheet under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under s. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate can take cognizance of any offence either (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, of (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer, or (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed. A police officer for purposes of clause(b) above can in our opinion only be a police officer properly so-called as the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows and it seems therefore that a Central Excise Officer will have to make a complaint under clause(a) above if he wants the Magistrate to take cognizance of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deemed to be a police station. All that s. 21 does is to give him certain powers to aid him in his enquiry. In these circumstances we are of opinion that even though the Central Excise Officer may have when making enquiries for purposes of the Act powers which an officer-in-charge of a police station has when investigating a cognizable offence, he does not thereby become a police officer even if we give the broader meaning to those words in s. 25 of the Evidence Act. The scheme of the Act therefore being different from the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, the appellant cannot take advantage of the decision of this Court in Raja Ram Jaiswals' case 1964CriLJ705 taking even the broader view of the words police officer in s. 25 of the Evidence Act. We are of opinion that the present case is more in accord with the case of Barkat Ram [1962]3SCR338 . In this view of the matter the statement made by the appellant to the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and excise would not be hit by s. 25 of the Evidence Act and would be admissible in evidence unless the appellant can take advantage of s. 24 of the Evidence Act. As to that it was urged on behalf of the appellant in the High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
