Customs Act statements are not police diaries, but copies may still be refused when sealed and treated as confidential.

Section 108 Customs Act statements are distinct from Section 161 CrPC statements, so the confidentiality bar in Section 172(3) CrPC cannot be imported to deny copies on that basis. However, where such statements were produced in sealed cover, treated as confidential, and considered within the court's control, Rule 222 of the Criminal Rules of Practice did not confer an automatic right to copies. The copy-issuing power could be refused under the applicable confidentiality rules, and the refusal of copies of the Section 108 statements was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the accused was entitled to obtain copies of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act from the jurisdictional court, and whether the bar under Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied; (ii) whether, on the facts, the statements kept in sealed cover and treated as confidential were documents in the custody of court liable to be copied under Rule 222 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.

Issue (i): Whether the accused was entitled to obtain copies of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act from the jurisdictional court, and whether the bar under Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied.

Analysis: A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The interdiction in Section 172(3), which protects police diaries from disclosure to the accused, therefore cannot be imported to deny copies of Section 108 statements. The statutory scheme governing customs investigation and the precedents relied on support the distinction between customs statements and police statements.

Conclusion: The bar under Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be relied on to refuse copies merely because the statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the statements kept in sealed cover and treated as confidential were documents in the custody of court liable to be copied under Rule 222 of the Criminal Rules of Practice.

Analysis: Rule 222 applies to proceedings or documents filed in or in the custody of court, while Rule 225 permits refusal of copies of confidential or strictly judicial matters except under court orders. The statements were produced in sealed cover for perusal and were treated as confidential. In those circumstances, they were not treated as ordinary copies liable to be issued as of right under Rule 222, and the court's discretion to refuse copies was upheld.

Conclusion: The refusal to issue copies of the Section 108 statements was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order refusing copies of the Section 108 statements did not succeed, and the dismissal was sustained on the footing that the statements were confidential and not copyable as of right under the applicable copy rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not govern statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, but copies of such statements may still be refused where they are placed in sealed cover and treated as confidential under the copy rules governing court records.

---