Customs statements remain admissible where revenue-oriented powers do not make officers police officers under evidence law.

Statements recorded by Customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 were held not to be confessions made to a police officer for section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, because Customs officers exercise limited, special powers aimed at revenue protection and prevention of smuggling rather than police-like control for detecting crime. Section 104(3) and the power to grant bail did not make a Customs officer equivalent to an officer in charge of a police station, so section 25 did not apply. Article 20(3) also did not bar the statements on the facts, as they were recorded before any formal accusation, and section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not apply because Customs officers are not police officers.

---

---

Issues: Whether statements recorded by Customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 were inadmissible in evidence as confessions made to a police officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether such statements were also excluded by article 20(3) of the Constitution of India or section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, including the powers of search, seizure, arrest, inquiry and summons under sections 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108 and 110, were examined to determine whether Customs officers had become police officers for the purpose of section 25 of the Evidence Act. The controlling principle applied was that a person is not a police officer merely because some powers analogous to police powers are conferred upon him; the decisive consideration is whether the powers are primarily directed to detection and prevention of crime and whether they place the officer in a position to obtain a confession by reason of police-like control. The Act of 1962 was found to be directed to protection of revenue and prevention of smuggling, and the powers conferred were held to be limited, special and incidental to that purpose. Section 104(3) was held not to equate a Customs officer with an officer in charge of a police station, and the power to grant bail was not treated as creating the kind of ascendancy that would attract section 25. The contention based on article 20(3) failed because the statements were recorded before any formal accusation, and the contention based on section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 failed because Customs officers are not police officers and the Customs Act provides its own special procedure.

Conclusion: Statements recorded by Customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 are not hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not attract article 20(3) of the Constitution of India on the facts stated, and are not barred by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenges to the admissibility of the Customs statements failed and the interim protection granted by the Court was vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: A Customs officer exercising powers under the Customs Act, 1962 is not a police officer for section 25 of the Evidence Act unless the statutory powers are of such a character as to create police-like control directed to extracting confessions; revenue-oriented investigative powers do not by themselves attract the exclusionary rule.

---