SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
30th August, 1961
J.L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
The State of Punjab, Appellant
Versus
Barkat Ram, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
M/s. H. R. Khanna and D. Gupta Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. Gopal Singh Advocate, for Respondent.
CUSTOMS OFFICER - Whether a police officer within the meaning of S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act - Held, yes.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an engine driver, was convicted of offences punishable under S. 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and under S. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, as amended in 1955. He was convicted by the Magistrate. The conviction was confirmed by the appellate Court, but was set aside on revision by the High Court which held that Customs Officers were police officers within the meaning of that expression in S. 25 of the Evidence Act that confessional statements made to them were consequently inadmissible in evidence and that if they be excluded from consideration, there was no other evidence to sustain the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Customs Officers are not police officers within the meaning of that term in S. 25 of the Evidence Act.
Issues: Whether a Customs Officer is a police officer within the meaning of S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the term "police officer" is not defined in the Evidence Act, or, as a matter of fact, in any other contemporaneous or subsequet enactment. The question, therefore, falls to be decided on a fair construction of the provisions of S. 25 of the Evidence Act, having regard to the history of the legislation and the meaning attributed to that term in and about the time when S. 25 of the Evidence Act came to be inserted therein. If a literal meaning is given to the term "police officer" indicating thereby an officer desingnated as police officer, it will lead to anomalous results. An officer designated as a police officer, even though he does not discharge the well understood police functions, will be hit by S. 25 of the Evidence Act, whereas an officer not so designated but who has all the powers of a police with the result, the object of the section would be defeated. The intermediate position, namely, that an officer can be a police officer only if powers and duties pertaining to an officer in charge of a police station within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure are entrusted to him, would also lead to an equally anomalous position, for , it would exclude from its operation a case of an officer on whom specific powers and functions are conferred under specific statutes without reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not define a "police officer" and S. 5(2) thereof makes the procedure prescribed by the Code subject to the procedure that may be prescribed by any specific Act. This construction would make the provisions of S. 25 of the Evidence Act otiose in respect of officers on whom specific and incontrovertible police powers are conferred. But the third position would not only carry out the intention of the Legislature, but would also make the Section purposive and useful without doing any violence to the language of the section. A police officer within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act may be defined thus: An officer, by whatever designation he is called, on whom a statute substantially confers the powers and imposes the duties of the police is a police officer within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was set aside.
Judgment
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, by special leave raises the question whether a Customs Officer either under the Land Customs Act 1924 (Act XIX of 1924) or under the Sea Customs Act. 1878 (Act VIII of 1878), is a police officer within the meaning of that expression in S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. Barkat Ram, respondent in this appeal, was the engine driver of 78 Down Train which reached Amritsar at about 4-15 p.m., on June 8, 1957. The train came from Pakistan. In consequence of information received with respect to the smuggling of gold by the engine crew, the Land Customs staff boarded the engine at Attari and other staff of the Department surrounded the engine in its arrival at Amritsar. The engine was searched and a quantity of gold was recovered, having been found front concealed underneath the coal in the font part of the coal tender in the engine. The respondent was further interrogated at the Customs Station and, as a result of further search, another quantity of was recovered from the rear part of the coal tender. A document, Ex. P. E., dated June 5, 1957, was also recovered. This document was shown to the respondent on June 9, 1957, and the respondent inscribed on this document the note, Ex. P. D 1 to the effect :
"..the letter is the same which Tawaqual Shah had given to me yesterday. The same is to be delivered Pakistan and has stayed at Grand Hotel."
On June 9, 1957, Barkat Ram, the respondent, made certain other statements, Ex. P. K., to Manohar Singh Bedi, Inspector of Customs, stating therein:
"As usual on the 8th June, 1957, I took two bundles of Indian Currency from Ghulam Mohd. at Amritsar to Pakistan and when I brought 65 bars of gold from Tawakal Shah, from Pakistan, the Customs Officers recovered these 65 bars of gold from the engine at the Railway Station, Amritsar. I had kept concealed these 65 bars of gold in the engine in the presence of Shri Ram Murti and Shri Jagan Nath, my two Fire men, at the Loco Shed, Lahore. I was to deliver this gold to Ghulam Mohd. at Amritsar."
A second statement was made to the same Customs Inspector on June 17, 1957, Ex. P. G. On this occasion too, he made a similar statement, adding that he was to get Rs. 200 against the delivery of gold.
3. On the complaint of the Assistant Collector of Land Customs, Amritsar, Barkat Ram was tried for offences punishable under S. 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and under S. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, as amended in 1955. He was convicted by the Magistrate. The conviction was confirmed by the appellate Court, but was set aside on revision by the High Court which held that Customs Officers were police officers within the meaning of that expression in S. 25 of the Evidence Act that confessional statements made to them were consequently inadmissible in evidence and that if they be excluded from consideration, there was no other evidence to sustain the conviction. It further held that S. 27 of the Evidence Act did not apply to the facts of the case, as the recovery of gold was the result of search made by the Customs officers and not the result of interrogating the respondent. The State of Punjab has filed this appeal against the acquittal order.
4. The only contention raised for the appellant in the appeal is that the Customs Officers to whom the confessional statements were made were not police officers within the meaning of that expression in S. 25 of the Evidence Act. It was contended that the mere fact that powers to arrest certain persons, to make searches and to record evidence having a bearing on the alleged contravention of the legal provisions, are conferred on certain officers of the Customs Department, is not sufficient to make them police officers contemplated by S. 25 of the Evidence Act, even if it be assumed correct, as held by certain High Courts, that officers on whom the powers of the officer-in-charge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been c
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.