1968 (10) TMI 48 - SC - Customs

Customs Officers' Statements Deemed Admissible Under New Customs Act

The Court held that under the new Customs Act, Customs Officers are not considered police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Statements ... Admissibility of statements recorded by Customs officers - police officer for the purposes of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act - powers of officer in charge of a police station - charge sheet filing power as determinative test for 'police officer' under Section 25 - investigatory, arrest and search powers under the Customs Act, 1962 - judicial character of departmental enquiriesAdmissibility of statements recorded by Customs officers - police officer for the purposes of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act - charge sheet filing power as determinative test for 'police officer' under Section 25 - Whether statements of the accused recorded by Customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 are inadmissible as confessions to a 'police officer' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the changes in arrest, search and enquiry powers under the new Customs Act, 1962 but adhered to the principle established in Barkat Ram that Customs officers are not to be equated with police officers merely because they possess certain investigatory powers. The Court reviewed subsequent decisions distinguishing statutes where departmental officers were expressly deemed officers in charge of police stations (Raja Ram Jaiswal) and the decision that an officer has not become a 'police officer' for Section 25 unless he is empowered to file a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even though the new Act confers additional powers (including limited powers of release on bail and expanded powers of search and examination), those provisions do not, by necessary implication, confer the power to submit a charge sheet; and it would be contrary to principles of statutory construction to read such a power into the Act. Consequently, the Court held that under the Customs Act, 1962 a Customs Officer is not a 'police officer' within Section 25 and statements made before him are not excluded by that provision. The Court noted and followed recent decisions reaffirming this view under the new Act. [Paras 5, 21, 22, 23]Statements recorded by Customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 are not excluded by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act because Customs officers are not police officers for that purpose; the absence of power to file a charge sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC is decisive.Testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution - Disposition of the contention based on Article 20(3) of the Constitution regarding testimonial compulsion. - HELD THAT: - The appellant conceded before the High Court that when the statements were recorded the investigation had not reached the stage at which the persons were 'accused' within the meaning of Article 20(3). In consequence the Court did not decide the constitutional contention on the merits and left the matter open so that the appellant could make submissions at the trial if and when the statements were formally tendered in evidence. [Paras 4]Article 20(3) point left undecided; appellant may advance submissions before the Trial Court when relevant statements are formally tendered.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed: statements recorded by Customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 are not barred by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and are admissible; the Article 20(3) contention was left open for trial stage consideration. Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of statements recorded by Customs Authorities under the Customs Act, 1962.2. Whether Customs Officers are deemed to be police officers under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.3. Applicability of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.4. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution regarding testimonial compulsion.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of Statements Recorded by Customs Authorities:The main point in this appeal is whether statements of the appellant and other accused persons recorded by the Customs Authorities under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962), were admissible in evidence at their trial for the alleged offences. The accused were charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the new Act, Sections 23(1A) and 23B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and Rule 131B of the Defence of India Rules. The prosecution sought to file these statements during the trial, but the admissibility was contested on several grounds.2. Whether Customs Officers are Deemed to be Police Officers:The first objection raised was that the officers of the Customs department who had recorded the statements must be deemed to be police officers, and the statements being of a confessional nature were not admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Full Bench of the High Court answered this question against the accused, holding that Customs Officers are not police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. This view was supported by previous decisions, including State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram (1962) 3 SCR 338, where it was held that Customs Officers were not police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.3. Applicability of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code:The second objection was that the investigation conducted by the Customs Officer must be deemed to be under Chapter XIV read with Section 5(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, making the statements inadmissible under Section 161 read with Section 162 of the Code. However, this point was not pressed by the appellant's counsel during the appeal.4. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:The third objection was based on Article 20(3) of the Constitution, involving testimonial compulsion. It was conceded before the Full Bench of the High Court that when the statements were recorded, the investigation had not reached the stage when the particular persons had been accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, this matter was left undecided, allowing the appellant to make submissions before the Trial Court when any such statement is formally tendered for admission into evidence.Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:Comparison of Provisions under the Old and New Customs Act:The judgment compared the relevant provisions of the old and new Customs Act. Under the old Act, Section 173 allowed Customs Officers to arrest persons reasonably suspected of offences. The new Act, under Section 104, allows Customs Officers to arrest persons believed to be guilty of an offence punishable under Section 135. The powers to search and summon under both Acts were also compared, highlighting the procedural changes.Judicial Precedents:The judgment discussed previous decisions of the Supreme Court, including Barkat Ram's case, Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, and Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore. These cases examined whether officers under special Acts, such as the Customs Act, could be deemed police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Court reaffirmed that even if an officer under a special Act has powers similar to those of a police officer, they do not become police officers within the meaning of Section 25 unless they are empowered to file a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Conclusion:The Court concluded that under the new Customs Act, a Customs Officer cannot be regarded as a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The statements made before Customs Officers are not covered by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the admissibility of the statements recorded by the Customs Authorities.This comprehensive analysis ensures that all relevant issues are covered in depth, preserving the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.