Section 25 Evidence Rule does not defeat excise action where independent admissions and stock discrepancies support demand and penalty.

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act did not bar reliance on the material considered by the excise authorities because the statement recorded during the surprise check was treated as an explanation, not a confession, and coercion was not proved. The departmental action was also supported by independent material, including the written admission of shortage, repeated admissions at the hearing, and the inability to link excess stock with any permit. As the proceedings were departmental and quasi-judicial rather than a trial before a court, strict application of section 25 was not attracted, and the excise officer was not treated as a police officer for this purpose. The demand, confiscation, and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's statement recorded by the excise officers was hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether the excise authorities' action could be sustained on the basis of other material on record.

Analysis: The statement recorded at the time of the surprise check was treated as an explanation rather than a confession, and the allegation of coercion was not proved. In any event, the impugned order was not founded on that statement alone. The written admission of shortage, the repeated admission at the hearing, and the inability to link the excess stock with any permit supplied independent and relevant material supporting the demand, confiscation, and penalty. The proceedings were departmental and quasi-judicial, not a trial before a court, so the strict application of section 25 was not attracted. The excise officer was also held not to be a police officer for this purpose in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: Section 25 did not bar reliance on the material considered by the excise authorities, and the departmental action was valid.

---