Back
1966 Supreme(SC) 75
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Badaku Joti Svant, Appellant
Versus
State of Mysore, Respondent;
Attorney-General of India, Intervener.
Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
M/s. B. R. L. Iyengar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi Advocates, for Appellant; M./s. A. K. Sen and D. R. Prem, Senior Advocates, (M/s. R. H. Dhebar and B. R. G. K. Achar Advocates, with them), for Respondent; Mr. Niren De, Solicitor-General of India; Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, with him), for Intervener.
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, A.K.SEN GUPTA, B.R.G.K.Achar, B.R.L.Iyengar, D.R.Prem, NIREN DEY, R.H.Dhebar
A Central Excise Officer is not a "police officer" under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the conferment of investigative powers for inquiry does not equate to being a police officer, especially when the power to submit a charge-sheet under the Code of Criminal Procedure is absent.
Headnote:(A) Sea Customs Act - Section 167(81) - Land Customs Act - Section 9 - Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Sections 9, 13, 18, 19, 21 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 24 and 25 - Liability for prohibited goods - Admissibility of confession made to a Central Excise Officer - Definition of "police officer" - Whether a Central Excise Officer is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act - Mere conferment of powers of investigation into criminal offences does not make an officer a police officer - Absence of power to submit a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Distinction between having the "powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station" and being "deemed to be an officer-in-charge of a police station". (Paras 4, 8, 9, 11)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 25 - Interpretation of "police officer" - Broad view (all officers with investigation powers) vs. Narrow view (only properly so-called police) - Even under the broad view, a Central Excise Officer is not a police officer if they lack the power to submit a charge-sheet and are not deemed to be an officer-in-charge of a police station. (Paras 6, 7, 11)
Facts of the case:
Contraband gold bars were recovered from the house of the appellant. The appellant had admitted to a Central Excise Officer that the gold was received from a person in a foreign territory for delivery. The appellant was convicted, and the conviction was subsequently restored by the High Court. The appellant challenged the admissibility of the confession, arguing that the officer to whom the statement was made was a police officer, rendering the confession inadmissible under the Evidence Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the interpretation of the Sea Customs Act includes persons not directly involved in the actual import of prohibited goods. Regarding the admissibility of the statement, the court held that a Central Excise Officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act applies to persons not directly concerned with the import of prohibited goods; and (ii) Whether a statement made to a Central Excise Officer is inadmissible as a confession under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that while Section 21(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act confers powers similar to an officer-in-charge of a police station for the purpose of inquiry, it does not deem the officer to be an officer-in-charge of a police station, nor does it grant the power to submit a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, such an officer does not fall within the definition of a "police officer" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, making the confession admissible. (Paras 9, 11)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
WANCHOO, J.: This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Mysore High Court. The appellant was prosecuted under S. 167 (81) of the SEA CUSTOMS ACT (No. 8 of 1878), read with S. 9 of the Land Customs Act (No. XIX of 1924). The appellant lives in a village which is close to Goa. The incident out of which the present appeal has arisen took place on November 27, 1960 when Goa was not a part of India but was Portuguese territory. The Deputy Superintendent of Customs, Goa Frontier Division, Belgaum, received information that contraband goods would be found in the house of the appellant. Consequently he raided the house in the company of three panchas. The appellant was not present in the house when the raid took place, but his mother and sister-in-law were there. After necessary formalities the house was searched and a big steel trunk, cane-box and another steel trunk were taken down from the loft in the kitchen. On opening, a belt, with four pouches stitched to it, was found in the big steel trunk. Inside the pouches, four gold bars, with foreign marks and labels of Goa Customs authorities were found. Besides these, a large sum of money and three small cut pieces of gold were also found in the box. In the other two boxes also various sums of money in currency notes were found. The weight of the gold bars was 343 tolas.
2. On November 30, 1960, the appellant was arrested and interrogated by the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Excise. The answers given by him were reduced in writing and his signature was taken on the writing after it had been read over to him. During this interrogation, the appellant admitted that the four gold bars had been given to him on November 27, 1960 in the morning by one Vithal Morajkar of Goa so that he might deliver them back to Morajkar on the motor-stand at Belgaum or near there, and he had kept them in his house. As the gold was foreign gold and as under the notification under S. 8 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, import of gold into India had been forbidden except with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India, the appellant was prosecuted on a complaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Goa Frontier Division, Belgaum.
3. The Magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine and also ordered confiscation of the four gold bars. On appeal to the Sessions Judge, the appellant was acquitted relying on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sitaram Agarwala v. State , 1962 (2) Cri LJ 43. Then followed an appeal by the State to the High Court. The High Court disagreed with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Sitaram Agarwal s case, 1962 (2) Cri LJ 43, and held that even a person like the appellant who might have no direct concern with the import of gold in any way was liable under S. 167 (81) of the SEA CUSTOMS ACT . The High Court then considered the evidence and relying on the statement made by the appellant to the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Excise and also on the other evidence produced in the case held that the appellant was guilty. In consequence, the acquittal of the appellant was set aside and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate was restored. The appellant then applied to the High Court for a certificate to appeal to this Court, and as two questions of law of general importance arose in this case, the High Court granted the certificate. The two questions were: (i) whether the view taken by the High Court differing from the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Sitaram Agarwal s case, 1962 (2) Cri LJ 43, with respect to the interpretation of S. 167(81) was correct, and (ii) whether the statement made by the appellant to the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Excise was admissible in evidence in view of S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, (No. 1 of 1872). These are the two questions which have been argued before us on behalf of the a
