Investigatory statements under foreign exchange law are not Magistrate-recorded confessions, so section 164 caution is unnecessary.

Statements recorded from a person summoned under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 are not confessions recorded by a Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The caution mandated by section 164(2) therefore does not apply to such investigatory statements, which remain admissible if voluntary. The trial court erred in excluding them on the ground that no Magistrate-style caution had been given. The appeal succeeded, the acquittal was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the recorded statements in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether statements recorded from a person summoned under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 are to be treated as confessional statements requiring the caution contemplated by section 164(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the trial court was right in excluding those statements from evidence.

Analysis: A person summoned for examination in an investigation under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is not an accused at that stage. The statutory scheme of section 40 empowers the enforcement officer to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents, and the statements recorded in that setting are not statements recorded by a Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The caution required under section 164(2) applies to confessions recorded by a Magistrate, not to such investigatory statements. The earlier view excluding such statements for want of section 164 caution was distinguished in light of Supreme Court authority holding that comparable statements recorded under customs and excise enactments are admissible if voluntary and are not hit by the Magistrate's confession procedure.

Conclusion: The statements recorded under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were not inadmissible merely because no caution under section 164(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was administered; the trial court's contrary view was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the acquittal was set aside, and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration of the recorded statements in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements made by a person summoned under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 are not confessions recorded by a Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, so the statutory caution requirement for Magistrate-recorded confessions does not apply to them.

---