Customs officers are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and therefore, statements recorded by them under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not inadmissible in evidence.

Headnote:
CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - SECTIONS 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110 - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 25 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLE 20(3) - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTIONS 5(2), 162 - Whether Customs officers are Police officers under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Applicability of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to statements made to Customs officers - Interpretation of various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Applicability of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to statements made to Customs officers.
Fact of the Case:

Three revision applications were filed against interlocutory orders passed by the trial court in cases involving alleged offences under the Customs Act, 1962. The accused in each case challenged the admissibility of statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Act, arguing that such statements were hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which prohibits the admission of confessional statements made to police officers.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that Customs officers are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and therefore, statements recorded by them under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not inadmissible in evidence. The court further held that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950, which prohibits the use of compelled testimony against an accused person, does not apply to statements made to Customs officers because such statements are not recorded during a formal accusation against the person concerned. Additionally, the court held that Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which regulates the recording of statements by police officers during an investigation, does not apply to statements made to Customs officers because they are not police officers.
Issues: 1. Whether Customs officers are police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? 2. Whether statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950? 3. Whether Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to statements made to Customs officers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Customs officers are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, because: - The primary purpose of Customs officers is to safeguard the revenues of the State and its economy, not to maintain law and order or prevent crimes. - Customs officers are not equated with police officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and are not required to make reports to Magistrates. - The powers of search, seizure, and investigation granted to Customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 are limited and specific, and do not give them the same level of authority and control over citizens as police officers. 2. The court held that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 does not apply to statements made to Customs officers because: - The statements were not recorded during a formal accusation against the accused persons. - Customs officers are not police officers, and therefore, the safeguards provided by Article 20(3) do not apply to them. 3. The court held that Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply to statements made to Customs officers because: - Customs officers are not police officers. - Section 162 applies only to statements made during an investigation under Chapter 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which does not apply to investigations conducted by Customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule in all three revision applications and vacated the interim stay granted by the court. The court also directed that the writ be sent to the trial court immediately.

JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

1. These three revision applications arise out of the complaints made by the Customs authorities against the respective accused regarding offences under the Customs Act, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1962). In Criminal Revision Application No. 368 of 1967, the offence is alleged to have taken place on March 1, 1966 on which date five hundred tolas of gold were seized from the accused Pukhraj Shah. Immediately after detention a summons was served upon him under S. 108 of the Act of 1962 and the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Customs officer. Eventually, a complaint was filed on August 19, 1966, charging him with several offences. On March 13, 1967, the petitioner made an application to the learned Magistrate before whom the case was being heard contending that the statement recorded by the Customs officer under S. 108 of the Act of 1962 was not admissible in evidence as being hit by S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. In Criminal Revision Application No. 447 of 1967 the offence is alleged to have occurred on December 26, 1964, when five hundred forty watches were seized from the petitioner, Dady Fatakia. In his case also he was served with a summons under S. 108 of the said Act and his statement was recorded by the Customs Officer. Eventually, a complaint was filed against him also on September 21, 1966. He also filled an application contending that his statement was not admissible in evidence because it was hit by S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. In Criminal Revision Application No. 475 of 1967 the offence is alleged to have occurred on May 30, 1965, when eleven thousand tolas of gold, were seized from the Petitioner, Punamchand Chopra. In this case the petitioner was accused No. 2 He also raised a similar contention. We are told, in his case, the statement was recorded under S. 107 of the Act of 1962. When the statement was being relied upon before the trial Magistrate, he raised a similar objection contending that his statement before the Customs officer was not admissible in evidence because of S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. These revisional applications are filled against interlocutory orders and normally it is not the practice of this Court to interfere with such interlocutory orders. Criminal law, in order to be effective, must be quick in its administration. No punishment can be effective if it is delayed. By making such interlocutory applications it is possible for the accused to delay the proceedings as far as possible, particularly when there is plenty of money. In all these three cases, it is alleged that except those statements, it is alleged that except those statements, there is no material which could be relied upon by the prosecution. If that is so, it could have been easier to come to this Court from the final order of conviction, if any. At first, we were inclined to reject these revisional applications in limine. But, we were told that there are quite a few matters where this point is involved. We, therefore, reluctantly heard these matters on merits.

5. The question is raised not because it had become before this court for the first time, for under the Sea Customs Act of 1878, the question has arisen very frequently. Decided cases have held that confessional statements made before the Customs officers are not hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and they are, therefore, admissible. It is argued now in these cases that the Act of 1962 makes a departure from the earlier Act, viz., Sea Customs Act, 1878, is much wider in its scope and given much larger powers to the Customs officers and, therefore, those decisions become inapplicable. It is argued that the Customs officers become Police officers under the Act of 1962. Therefore, S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act is attracted and confessional statements made to them are not admissible.

6. In State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 SC 276, the question of applicability of S. 25 of the Evidence Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document