Customs inquiry powers upheld: FIR procedure does not apply, Section 108 summons is valid, and DRI officers are proper officers.

Where the Customs Act provides its own machinery for arrest, inquiry, summons and prosecution, Customs and DRI officers acting under that special statute are not police officers and need not first register an FIR or comply with Sections 154 to 157 and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before proceeding. A summons under Section 108 is a valid part of the customs inquiry process and is not invalid merely because it may support later prosecution. The court also treated DRI officers as proper officers under the Act in light of the statutory definition and assigned functions. The earlier decision in Om Prakash was held inapplicable because it arose under a different statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Customs or DRI officers are police officers and are required to register an FIR and follow Sections 154 to 157 and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before arresting or proceeding under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether a summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, is without jurisdiction; (iii) Whether a DRI officer is a proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962; (iv) Whether the decision in Om Prakash had any bearing on the controversy.

Issue (i): Whether Customs or DRI officers are police officers and are required to register an FIR and follow Sections 154 to 157 and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before arresting or proceeding under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The Customs Act contains its own mechanism for arrest, inquiry, summons, and prosecution. The officer acting under Section 104 arrests on reason to believe and must produce the arrested person before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay. The court relied on settled precedent that Customs officers are revenue officers and not police officers, and therefore the procedural regime applicable to police investigation, including FIR registration under Sections 154 to 157 and submission of a report under Section 173(2), does not govern action taken under the Customs Act. The special statute prevails to the extent it provides a contrary or complete procedure.

Conclusion: The Customs and DRI officers are not police officers and are not obliged to register an FIR or comply with Sections 154 to 157 and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before acting under the Customs Act.

Issue (ii): Whether a summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, is without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 108 empowers the customs authority to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents in aid of customs inquiry. The summons is part of the statutory investigative process directed towards detection of customs violations, confiscation, and prosecution where warranted. The court held that this power does not depend on magisterial intervention and is not invalid merely because the summoned person may later be proceeded against for an offence under the Act.

Conclusion: The summons issued under Section 108 was not without jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): Whether a DRI officer is a proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The court noted the statutory definition of proper officer and the relevant notifications assigning functions to DRI officers. In light of the amendment and the notifications assigning customs functions to DRI officers, the court concluded that such officers are competent to act as proper officers for the purposes of the Act.

Conclusion: A DRI officer is a proper officer for the purposes of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (iv): Whether the decision in Om Prakash had any bearing on the controversy.

Analysis: The court distinguished Om Prakash as turning on a different statutory setting in which the offences were deemed non-cognizable and the special statute expressly required compliance with the Code. The Customs Act, as amended, did not contain the same scheme. Therefore, the earlier decision could not control the present controversy.

Conclusion: Om Prakash had no bearing on the present case.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the customs inquiry, arrest powers, summons, and jurisdiction of the DRI failed, and the writ petition was disposed of without granting the principal reliefs sought.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special fiscal statute provides its own procedure for arrest, inquiry, and summons, the police-investigation provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply unless the statute so requires, and officers assigned functions under the statute act as proper officers rather than police officers.

---