SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 298

Supreme Court Of India
State of Punjab
Versus
Barkat Ram
Decided On : August 30, 1961

A Customs Officer is not a police officer within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act.

Headnote:

CUSTOMS ACT - S. 167 - EVIDENCE ACT - S. 25 - CONFESSION - CUSTOMS OFFICER - POLICE OFFICER - A Customs Officer is not a police officer within the meaning of that expression in S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, a confession made to a Customs Officer is admissible in evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a train engine driver, was convicted of smuggling gold under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Sea Customs Act. The conviction was based on confessional statements made to Customs Officers. The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the Customs Officers were police officers within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act and that the confessional statements were therefore inadmissible.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that Customs Officers are not police officers within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act. The Court noted that the purpose of S. 25 is to exclude from evidence confessions made to the regular police, who have a bad reputation for using force and torture to extract confessions. The Court found that Customs Officers do not have the same reputation for using force and torture, and that their powers are limited to the purpose of detecting and preventing smuggling. The Court also noted that the Sea Customs Act itself refers to police officers in contradistinction to Customs Officers.

Issues: Whether a Customs Officer is a police officer within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the term "police officer" in S. 25 of the Evidence Act should be construed in a broad and popular sense, and that it includes any person who is engaged in the work of detecting and preventing crime. The Court found that Customs Officers are engaged in the work of detecting and preventing smuggling, and that they therefore fall within the definition of "police officer" in S. 25.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the conviction of the respondent.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) 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 8/06/1957. 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 5/06/1957, was also recovered. This document was shown to the respondent on 9/06/1957, 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 9/06/1957, Barkat Ram, the respondent, made certain other statements, Ex. P. K. , to Manohar Singh Bedi, Inspector of Customs, stating therein:"as usual on the 8/06/1957, 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 17/06/1957, 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 be







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top