Customs confession admissible; concealed currency and border movement constituted an attempt to smuggle, sustaining confiscation and penalty.

A confession made to a customs officer was admissible because such an officer is not treated as a police officer for the purpose of Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act; the appellant's later statement also adopted the earlier version and admitted recovery and ownership of the currency. The facts further showed an attempt to export Indian currency illicitly: the appellant and another moved towards the border with a concealed tin box, retreated on seeing the nakabandi, fled, and the box was found hidden in wheat. On those proved facts, the prohibition under the foreign exchange and land customs law was breached, so confiscation and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's statement recorded by the customs authorities was admissible in evidence and could be relied upon as a confession; (ii) Whether the proved facts established an attempt to smuggle Indian currency across the border so as to justify confiscation and penalty under the foreign exchange law.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's statement recorded by the customs authorities was admissible in evidence and could be relied upon as a confession.

Analysis: The statement relied upon was made to a customs officer and not shown to have been made in the presence of police officers. Confessional statements made to customs officers do not attract the bar under Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since such officers are not officers for that purpose. The later statement also expressly adopted the earlier version and admitted the recovery and ownership of the currency.

Conclusion: The statement was admissible and could be acted upon against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the proved facts established an attempt to smuggle Indian currency across the border so as to justify confiscation and penalty under the foreign exchange law.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the appellant and Gopal Dass were seen moving towards the border with a tin box containing Indian currency, turned back on noticing the nakabandi, fled to the appellant's house, and the appellant was caught concealing the box in wheat. The customs evidence, including the statements of the witnesses and the appellant's own admissions, proved overt acts amounting to an attempt. Under Section 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, read with Sections 23A and 23B, and the permit requirements under Section 5 of the Land Customs Act, 1924, taking currency out without permission was prohibited and an attempt to do so attracted confiscation and penalty.

Conclusion: The facts established an attempt to export currency illicitly and the confiscation and penalty were justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the challenged findings on admissibility of the customs confession and on attempted illicit export were upheld, leaving the confiscation and penalty undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession made to a customs officer is admissible because a customs officer is not a police officer for the purpose of the evidence law, and overt acts showing movement towards the border with concealed currency, followed by retreat and concealment on detection, are sufficient to constitute an attempt to smuggle.

---