Customs statements under Sections 107 and 108 remain admissible; customs enquiry is not police investigation, and Article 20(3) is inapplicable before accusation.

Customs officers recording statements under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act are not treated as police officers for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act or Section 162 CrPC, because the customs scheme is directed to revenue enforcement and does not amount to police investigation or authorise a police report. Statements recorded in such proceedings are therefore not excluded on that ground. Article 20(3) protection also does not apply unless the person was already an accused when the statement was made; statements recorded before that stage are not barred merely because the maker later becomes an accused. The result is that such statements are admissible, subject to ordinary evidentiary rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded by customs officers under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are inadmissible in evidence in a criminal trial under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the footing that such officers are police officers; (ii) Whether such statements are protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded by customs officers under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are inadmissible in evidence in a criminal trial under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the footing that such officers are police officers.

Analysis: The powers conferred by the Customs Act were examined against the test whether the officer was vested, in law and in substance, with the powers of investigation of an officer-in-charge of a police station under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The enquiry under Section 107 was held to be a less formal departmental enquiry without compulsion, while Section 108 contemplated a judicial proceeding but still did not amount to a police investigation. The Act did not confer on customs officers the power to submit a police report for cognizance under the criminal procedure law, and the statutory scheme showed that customs powers were directed to customs enforcement and revenue protection, not the investigation of offences as such by police officers.

Conclusion: The statements were not hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act or Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether such statements are protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 20(3) was held to be unavailable unless the person making the statement stood in the character of an accused at the time the statement was made. The statements in question were recorded during customs investigation before the deponents had become accused persons. On that footing, the constitutional protection against testimonial compulsion did not attach to the statements when recorded, and they could not be excluded merely because the makers later became accused at trial.

Conclusion: The statements were not protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: Statements recorded by customs officers under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were held to be admissible, and the constitutional and statutory objections to their use failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs enquiry under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not become police investigation merely because the officer possesses certain coercive or ancillary powers, and Article 20(3) applies only if the maker stood as an accused when the statement was made.

---