Customs statements remained admissible: customs officers are not police officers, and Article 20(3) applies only after formal accusation.

Statements recorded by customs authorities remained admissible despite repeal of the Sea Customs Act because their legality had to be judged by the position when they were made. A Customs Officer is not a police officer for Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as customs powers are revenue-oriented and do not include police functions such as filing a Section 173 report. Article 20(3) did not apply because a person summoned or arrested in customs proceedings is not an accused until a formal complaint is filed before a Magistrate. The statements were therefore not excluded and the customs appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether statements recorded by Customs authorities under the repealed Sea Customs Act remained open to challenge on the footing of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether a Customs Officer is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (iii) whether a person summoned or arrested in customs proceedings is a person accused of an offence for the purposes of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether statements recorded by Customs authorities under the repealed Sea Customs Act remained open to challenge on the footing of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The repeal of the Sea Customs Act by Section 160 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not alter the character of the statements when made. Their admissibility had to be judged by the legal taint, if any, attaching at the time the statements were recorded. The controlling questions therefore remained whether the maker stood protected by Section 25 or Article 20(3) when the statements were obtained.

Conclusion: The challenge failed; the statements were not rendered inadmissible merely because the Sea Customs Act had been repealed.

Issue (ii): whether a Customs Officer is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: A Customs Officer acts for collection of customs duty, prevention of smuggling, confiscation and penalties. He is not charged with maintaining law and order, does not investigate offences in the manner of a police officer, and has no power to submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Although customs law confers powers of search, arrest, summons, examination and seizure, those powers remain revenue-oriented and do not make the officer a police officer for Section 25 purposes.

Conclusion: A Customs Officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the statements were not excluded on that ground.

Issue (iii): whether a person summoned or arrested in customs proceedings is a person accused of an offence for the purposes of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The protection against testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) applies only when the person making the statement stands in the character of an accused at the time of the statement. In customs enquiries under Section 171A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the proceedings are primarily for enquiry, confiscation and penalty. Arrest or summons at that stage does not amount to a formal accusation; such accusation arises only when a complaint is filed before the competent Magistrate.

Conclusion: The persons examined in customs enquiries were not persons accused of an offence at the relevant time, so Article 20(3) was not attracted.

Final Conclusion: Statements recorded by Customs authorities in the course of customs enquiries were held admissible, and the appeals were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs officer engaged in revenue enforcement and smuggling enquiries is not a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and Article 20(3) is attracted only when the person making the statement is already in the character of an accused by reason of a formal accusation.

---