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 custody and arrest are synonymous and whether a person summoned or required by Customs authorities for enquiry, interrogation or investigation under the Customs Act can be treated as arrested merely because his liberty of movement is restrained; (ii) whether detention of such a person beyond 24 hours without production before a Magistrate attracts Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India; and (iii) whether the mode of arrest must conform to the procedure prescribed by Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): whether custody and arrest are synonymous and whether a person summoned or required by Customs authorities for enquiry, interrogation or investigation under the Customs Act can be treated as arrested merely because his liberty of movement is restrained.
Analysis: The expressions "arrest" and "custody" were held to have different content and cannot be equated in all situations. "Arrest" in its legal sense involves taking into custody by authority empowered by law for the purpose of detention to answer a criminal charge or prevent commission of an offence. A person summoned under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not, at that stage, a person accused of an offence, and Customs officers acting under those provisions are not police officers. The mere fact that a person is required to attend, answer questions, or remain under official supervision for enquiry does not by itself amount to arrest.
Conclusion: Custody and arrest are not synonymous, and a person called for enquiry under Sections 107 or 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not deemed to be arrested merely because of such attendance or restraint.
Issue (ii): whether detention of such a person beyond 24 hours without production before a Magistrate attracts Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: Article 22(2) applies only when a person is both arrested and detained in custody. Since the stage of enquiry under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not itself involve arrest, the constitutional requirement of production before a Magistrate within 24 hours is not attracted at that stage. At the same time, the Customs authorities were cautioned that they have no power to keep a person in prolonged or closed detention under the guise of enquiry or interrogation, and any confession obtained by such oppressive detention would be suspect and open to challenge on facts.
Conclusion: Article 22(2) is not attracted to a mere summons, enquiry, or interrogation under the Customs Act, 1962, but any actual arrest under the Act must be followed by production before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay.
Issue (iii): whether the mode of arrest must conform to the procedure prescribed by Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held to prescribe the legally recognised manner of effecting arrest, namely actual touching or confinement of the body, unless there is submission to custody by word or action. The view that arrest could be effected by mere words, gestures, or other symbolic indications without compliance with the statutory mode was rejected as inconsistent with the text and scheme of the provision. The Court also held that a statutory power to arrest must be exercised in the manner laid down by law and in no other way.
Conclusion: The mode of arrest must conform to Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and arrest cannot be validly effected by mere verbal or symbolic assertion of compulsion alone.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the proposition that mere Customs enquiry or interrogation amounts to arrest, while affirming that any actual arrest must comply with the statutory mode and constitutional safeguards; the matters were sent back for disposal on their merits in light of these answers.
Ratio Decidendi: A person summoned for Customs enquiry under Sections 107 or 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not arrested merely because his movement is restrained, and arrest, when it actually occurs, must be effected only in the manner prescribed by Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
TaxTMI 
