Customs enquiry statements remain admissible where officers lack police powers and the maker was not yet an accused.

Statements recorded by Customs officers during enquiries under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were treated as admissible because Customs officers were not held to be police officers and were not vested with police powers of investigation under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code. The statutory bar in Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and the related objection under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore did not apply. Article 20(3) also did not exclude the statements, because testimonial protection applies only when the maker is already an accused at the time of the statement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded by Customs officers during an enquiry under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. (ii) Whether such statements are protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded by Customs officers during an enquiry under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: The powers conferred on Customs officers under the 1962 Act were examined against the settled test whether the officer is, in law, a police officer or is invested with the powers of investigation of an officer in charge of a police station under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The enquiry under Section 107 was held to be a less formal enquiry, while Section 108 contemplated a more formal enquiry and treated the proceedings as judicial proceedings, but neither provision conferred on Customs officers the powers of investigation characteristic of a police officer. The decision distinguished cases where special enactments expressly deemed the investigating officer to be an officer in charge of a police station. Since the Customs Act did not so provide, the statutory bar under Section 25 was not attracted, and the consequential objection under Section 162 also failed.

Conclusion: The statements were not inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and were not excluded by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Issue (ii): Whether such statements are protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The constitutional protection against testimonial compulsion applies only when the person making the statement stood in the character of an accused at the time the statement was made. The statements in question were recorded during a Customs enquiry before the deponents had become accused persons. Earlier observations suggesting a broader view were read in light of the later Supreme Court clarification that subsequent accusation does not retrospectively attract Article 20(3). On that basis, the statements could not be excluded on constitutional grounds.

Conclusion: Article 20(3) did not bar the use of the statements.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the objection to admissibility was rejected, leaving the criminal trial to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements recorded by Customs under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are admissible in a criminal trial unless the statute expressly confers police powers of investigation or the maker was already an accused when the statement was made.

---