TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (10) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at more than 7 lacs from Bombay to Madras. The statements of the accused persons were recorded by the Inspector of Customs and other Customs Authorities before the complaint was filed. After a preliminary enquiry the Second Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras committed 9 of the accused persons to stand their trial at the City Sessions Court, the charges being confined to the transaction connected with 700 bars of gold only. Seventeen charges were framed on October 29, 1965, by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant and eight other accused persons for the various offences mentioned above. 3. When the hearing before the Sessions Court commenced the prosecution sought to file the statements of the accused persons recorded by the customs authorities. Certain preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the accused to the admissibility of those statements. The first was that the officers of the Customs department who had recorded the statements must be deemed to be police officers and the statements being of a confessional nature were not admissible in evidence by virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The second objection was that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence Act and the statements to Customs Officers were admissible in evidence at the trial of persons accused of offences, inter alia, under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, hereinafter called the "old Act". It has been submitted that a later decision of this Court in Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (1964) 2 SCR 752 which related to the question whether an Excise Inspector exercising powers under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act was a police officer for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act goes a great deal in favour of the appellant particularly when the provisions of the new Act wherein substantial departure has been made from those of the old Act are kept in view. As will be presently seen there is yet a third decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore, (1966) 3 SCR 698 = 1978 E.L.T. (J 323) which related to the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act which goes against the contention passed by the counsel for the appellant. At any rate it does not appear that the majority view expressed in Barkat Ram's case, (1962) 3 SCR 338 has been shaken in any manner so far as statements recorded by a Customs Officer under the old....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case or to require any person to produce or deliver any document. Section 108 confers power on a gazetted officer of customs to summon persons for giving evidence or producing documents. 9. The substantial difference, however, between the two enactments as has been pointed out by the High Court relates to (1) the procedure after arrest; (2) the procedure for enquiry or investigation and (3) the procedure for search. 10. As regards the procedure after arrest a significant change which has been made in the new Act is contained in sub-section (3) of Section 104. It is provided thereby that where an officer of customs has arrested any person under sub-section (1) he shall, for the purpose of releasing such person, on bail or otherwise have the same power and be subject to the same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police station has and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (4), however, makes an offence under the new Act non-cognizable notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure the offences under the old Act were also non-cognizable. In the old Act there was no provision conferring the power of releasing a person on bail o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act gives power of investigation to Officers of Customs similar to those exercisable by a police officer under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure code. Now a police officer under Section 160 of the Code can, by an order in writing, require the attendance of any person within the limits of his own or any adjoining station and he can under Section 161 examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The submission of the appellant's counsel therefore is that Section 107 is similar to Sections 160 and 161 and the Customs Officer conducting an enquiry or investigation relating to offences under the new Act enjoys the same power as a police officer making an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is pointed out that under the old Act no such powers were conferred on the Customs Officer and it was with reference to Section 171A of the old Act that this Court in Barkat Ram's case, (1962) 3 SCR 338 laid emphasis on the judicial nature of the proceedings held under that section. The distinction, it is said, no longer obtains owing to the provisions of Section 107 of the new Act. 14. As regards the procedure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilt, it will be too much to say that that statement is a confession to a police officer as a police officer never acts judicially and no proceeding before him is deemed to be a judicial proceeding for the purpose of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code or for any other purpose. 16. Adverting to Raja Ram Jaiswal's case, (1964) 2 SCR 752 it is significant that by virtue of Section 77(2) read with Section 78(3) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act, 1915, an Inspector or Sub-Inspector was deemed to be an officer-in-charge of a police station and was entitled to investigate any offence under the Excise Act. He could exercise all the powers which an officer-in-charge of a police station could exercise under Chapter XIV of the Code. 17. It was, therefore, held by the majority that a confession recorded by an Excise Officer during an investigation into an excise offence could not reasonably be regarded as anything different from a confession to a police officer. Barkat Ram's case, (1962) 3 SCR 338 was distinguished on a number of grounds. One was that the Excise Officer did not exercise any judicial power just as the Customs Officer did under the Sea Customs Act, 1878. Secondly the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a police officer within the meaning of those words in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore even though the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise had acted under the power conferred on him by the Sea Customs Act, he was still a police officer and the statement made to him which was in the nature of a confession was inadmissible in evidence. 20. This Court referred to the difference of opinion among the High Courts as to the meaning of the words "police officer" used in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. One view was that those words must be construed in a broad way and all officers would be police officers within the meaning of those words if they had the powers of the police officer with respect to investigation of offences with which they were concerned even if they were police officers properly so-called or not. The narrow view was that these words in Section 25 meant a police officer properly so-called and did not include officers of other departments of Government who might be charged with the duty to investigate, under special Acts, special crimes like the excise or customs offences etc. The Court proceeded on the assumption that the broad view was correct. ....