https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45154 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. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2014 08:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45154 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. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 12 Sep 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45154