TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the search and recovery were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory safeguard under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (ii) Whether the confession recorded by a Customs officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was admissible in evidence in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Issue (i): Whether the search and recovery were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory safeguard under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Analysis: The safeguard under Section 50 requires the empowered officer to inform the suspect of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. A mere consent memo or asking the suspect to choose between those two options does not amount to due compliance. On the facts, the accused was not informed of the right in the manner required by law, and the search proceeded on a defective basis.
Conclusion: The requirement under Section 50 was not complied with, and the recovery could not sustain the conviction.
Issue (ii): Whether the confession recorded by a Customs officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was admissible in evidence in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Analysis: The admissibility of a confession to a Customs officer depended on whether such officer could be treated as a police officer for the purpose of the exclusionary rule in Section 25. The later authority relied upon held that the matter had to be examined in the light of the police powers exercised and the effect of the statement on conviction, and the earlier view accepting such confessions could not prevail on the facts considered.
Conclusion: The confession was not treated as sufficient to uphold the conviction against the accused.
Final Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable on the combined effect of non-compliance with the mandatory search safeguard and the inadmissibility of the confession relied upon, and the accused was entitled to acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory search safeguard is mandatory, failure to inform the suspect of the protected right vitiates the recovery-based conviction, and a confession to a Customs officer cannot be relied upon if it falls within the statutory bar against confessions to police officers.
TaxTMI 
