Customs statements admissible under Section 25 bar; prior notification survived amendment and convictions were upheld.

A prior general notification authorising customs officers to lodge complaints remained effective after the amendment, as it was not repealed and was preserved by the saving principle. The statutory opportunity to show permission was satisfied because notice was served and replies were received, so the prosecution was not invalid on that ground. Statements made to Customs authorities were not barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, since customs officers are not police officers for that purpose, and the statements were admissible. With that evidence, the concealment and illicit import of gold were proved, and the convictions and sentences were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaint for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was competent in the absence of a fresh notification after amendment; (ii) whether the prosecution was vitiated for non-compliance with the proviso requiring an opportunity to show permission; (iii) whether statements made before Customs authorities were inadmissible as confessions made before police officers; and (iv) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction and the sentence called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was competent in the absence of a fresh notification after amendment.

Analysis: The complaint was held to be properly instituted. The earlier general notification authorising customs officers to lodge complaints continued to operate after the amendment, since the amendment did not repeal the earlier notification and the relevant saving principle under the General Clauses Act preserved prior appointments and notifications so far as they were not inconsistent with the re-enacted provision.

Conclusion: The complaint was competent and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution was vitiated for non-compliance with the proviso requiring an opportunity to show permission.

Analysis: The record showed that notice was served on the petitioners and replies were obtained from them. They never asserted that they possessed any permit or authority to import the gold. The statutory opportunity contemplated by the proviso was therefore afforded before prosecution.

Conclusion: There was compliance with the proviso and the prosecution was not invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether statements made before Customs authorities were inadmissible as confessions made before police officers.

Analysis: The view that customs officers are police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act was rejected. Since customs officers are not officers in charge of a police station and do not exercise police powers of investigation in that sense, statements made to them are not barred by Section 25 and may be used in evidence.

Conclusion: The statements were admissible and could be relied on against the petitioners.

Issue (iv): Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction and the sentence called for interference.

Analysis: Once the statements to Customs authorities were treated as admissible, there was ample material to show that the gold was brought into India concealed in the vessel without permission and with knowledge of its illicit import. The concurrent findings on fact were not open to interference in revision, and the sentences were not shown to be excessive.

Conclusion: The convictions and sentences were sustained and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed in its entirety, and the convictions and punishments imposed on the petitioners were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements made to Customs authorities are not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act merely because the maker is later prosecuted, and a prior general authorization to customs officers to lodge complaints continues after amendment unless it is inconsistent with the later enactment.

---