<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1965 (8) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45778</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:22:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (8) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45778</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>