Customs officers are not police officers under section 25, so confessions to them may be admissible in evidence.

A customs officer is not a "police officer" under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act unless the statute substantially confers the ordinary powers and duties of the police for prevention and detection of crime. Officers under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Land Customs Act, 1924 were held to exercise primarily revenue-oriented and anti-smuggling functions, with limited, specific powers of search, seizure, arrest, summons and confiscation. Their statements recorded in customs proceedings were therefore not hit by section 25 and were admissible. The respondent's acquittal was set aside and the conviction restored. A dissenting view treated the customs powers as sufficiently akin to police powers and would have excluded the confession.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Customs Officer acting under the Land Customs Act, 1924 and the Sea Customs Act, 1878 is a police officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, so that confessional statements made to such officer are inadmissible in evidence.

Analysis: The majority held that the expression "police officer" in section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not confined to persons formally enrolled in the police force, but it does not extend to every officer who is given some powers resembling those of the police. The decisive test is whether the statute substantially confers on the officer the powers and duties of the police. Customs officers under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and the Land Customs Act, 1924 are primarily concerned with preventing smuggling, safeguarding revenue, searching, seizing, arresting, summoning witnesses, confiscating goods and imposing penalties. Those functions are revenue-oriented and judicial in character, not the ordinary powers and duties of the police for prevention and detection of crime. The statutory scheme itself distinguishes customs officers from police officers, and the powers conferred under the customs enactments are limited and specific to customs enforcement. On that basis, statements recorded by customs officers in the course of customs proceedings are not confessions made to police officers within section 25.

Conclusion: Customs officers are not police officers for the purpose of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the respondent's confessional statements to them were admissible; the acquittal was wrongly granted and the conviction was restored.

Dissenting Opinion: Subba Rao J. took the view that the nature of the powers and duties under the customs law was substantially akin to police powers in relation to prevention, detection and investigation of offences, and that a customs officer exercising such powers should be treated as a police officer for section 25. On that view, the confession was inadmissible and the acquittal should have been sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An officer is a police officer within section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 only if the statute substantially confers on him the powers and duties of the police for the prevention and detection of crime; customs officers whose functions are primarily revenue and anti-smuggling functions do not fall within that expression.

---