Customs statement admissibility under Section 108 upheld; Section 164 CrPC does not apply, and coercion challenge failed.

A statement recorded by a customs officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not subject to Section 164 CrPC and is not excluded by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, because a customs officer is not a police officer. The statement remains admissible in evidence, but its inculpatory parts must still be tested for voluntariness under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. On the facts, the finding that the statement was voluntary was concurrent, and the challenge based on coercion, threat or physical assault failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a statement recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is inadmissible for want of compliance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the impugned confession was vitiated by coercion, threat or physical assault.

Analysis: Section 108 authorises a gazetted customs officer to summon a person in connection with an inquiry relating to smuggling and to require truthful statements; it does not contemplate magisterial recording of confessions. A statement recorded by a customs officer is not governed by Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and is not excluded by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 because the customs officer is not a police officer. Such a statement remains admissible, but the Court must scrutinise whether its inculpatory parts were made voluntarily or are vitiated under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On the facts, the finding that the statement was voluntary was concurrent and no ground for interference was made out.

Conclusion: The statement under Section 108 was admissible in evidence and the challenge based on Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and alleged coercion failed.

---