Voluntariness of FERA statements upheld; belated coercion claims and Evidence Act exclusion arguments failed.

Statements recorded under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were found voluntary on the facts, because the earliest complaints of coercion and torture were not supported by the later allegations of confinement and denial of facilities. The court held that the belated embellishments did not prove coercion, duress, or illegal detention. It further held that officers acting under the Act were not police officers for Evidence Act purposes, so the statements could not be excluded in writ proceedings merely on the ground of inadmissibility or by analogy to customs law. Objections to admissibility or future reliance were left to be raised, if necessary, in the proper forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the statements recorded from the respondents under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were voluntary or were vitiated by coercion, duress, or illegal confinement; (ii) whether those statements could be excluded from use in proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or other contemplated proceedings on the ground of inadmissibility under the Indian Evidence Act or by analogy to the Customs Act.

Issue (i): whether the statements recorded from the respondents under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were voluntary or were vitiated by coercion, duress, or illegal confinement.

Analysis: The material showed that the respondents were searched, questioned, and produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. Their earliest representations complained of torture and threat, but the later allegations of confinement in separate rooms, denial of facilities, and recording of statements out of office hours surfaced only much later. Those embellishments were not supported by the earlier record. The Court held that the learned single Judge had erred in accepting the belated allegations as sufficient proof of involuntariness. On the facts, the statements could not be treated as having been obtained by coercion, duress, or illegal detention.

Conclusion: The statements were held to be voluntary and not vitiated by coercion, duress, or illegal confinement.

Issue (ii): whether those statements could be excluded from use in proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or other contemplated proceedings on the ground of inadmissibility under the Indian Evidence Act or by analogy to the Customs Act.

Analysis: The Court held that the respondents were not being tried as accused persons in criminal proceedings in the present writ appeals, and the challenge to admissibility was therefore misplaced. The Court further held that officers acting under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were not to be equated with police officers for the purpose of the Evidence Act. Proceedings under the Act were governed by the statutory scheme, and the argument based on the customs provisions and the preventive detention context did not justify interdiction at this stage. Questions about admissibility or reliance in any future adjudication or detention proceeding were left to be dealt with in the appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The statements were held not to be excluded from consideration on the grounds urged, and the writ relief restraining their use was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the injunction against use of the statements was set aside, and the respondents were left to raise any admissibility objections, if occasion arose, in the proper proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement recorded under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act cannot be excluded in writ proceedings merely on belated and unsubstantiated allegations of coercion, and officers functioning under that Act are not police officers for the purpose of the Evidence Act.

---