BADKU JOTI SAVANT versus STATE OF MYSORE

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 698 · Decided: 01-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BADKU JOTI SAVANT 
I'. 
STATE OF MYSORE 
March I, 1966 
[P. B. GAJE1'DRAGADKAR, C. J .• K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. l-IIDAYATULLAll, J.C. SHAH AND 
S. M. SJKRI, JJ.) 
Sta Customs Act (8 of 1878), s. 167(81)-0ffence under-Offender 
whether must be directly concerned in the ilnport of smuggled gofd. 
Central Excise and Salt Act (I of 1944), s. 21-Deputy Superinten-
dent of Customs and Excise given certain powers of an 'officer-In-char~ 
of a police station'-Such officer 1vhe1her a police officer lvithiti the niean-
ing of Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872), s. 25. 
The appellant who lived in a village near Goa was found in possession 
of contraband gold. 
He was prosecu1ed under s. 167 ( 81 ) of the Sea 
Customs Act read with s. 9 of the Land Customs Act (9 of 1924). The 
trial Magistrate convic1ed him but lhe Sessions Judge relying on the de-
cision of the Calcutta High Court in Sitaram Agarwala's cue acquitted 
him. The High Court of Mysore, in appeal against the acquittal, consi-
dered the evidence and relying, inter a/ia, on the statement made by the 
apP.ellant to the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Excise held him 
guilty. 
With certificate the appellant came to this Court. 
The questions 
that fell for consideration were : ( i) whether the view taken by 
the 
High Court differing from the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in 
Sitaram Agl1.rwa/a's case 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 & E.cise was admissible in view of 
s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 
HELD : (i) The High Court was right in not following the view of 
the Calcutta High Court in Sltaram Agarwala's case, the correct view a.. 
to the interpretation of s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs being that the 
section takes in even those persons who may not be concerned with the 
actual import of the prohibited goods. 
[700 G.H] 
Sachidananda Banerjee, Assistant 
Collector of Cu.rtomr v. 
Sitararn 
Agarwal, (1966] 2 S.C.R, I, followed. 
Sltaram Agarwal v. State. (1962] Cr. L.J. 43, disapproved. 
(ii) The Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 does not confer all tho 
powers of a police officer on Central Excise Officers. The powers con-
ferred on them bys. 21(2) of the Act are only for the purpose of inquiry 
under s. 21 (1); they would not entitle the said officers to file a charge-
sbeet under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore even 
though a Central Excise Officer may have when making enquiries for 
purp06e8 of the Act, powers which an officer-in-<:hargo of a police station 
bas when investigating a cognizable offence. he does not thereby become 
a police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 
and the statement of an accused person recorded by him is not hit by that 
sec:lion. 
(704 B-C, F-GJ 
Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (1964] 2 S.C.R. 752 and NQ/loo 
Sheikh Ahmed v. Emperor, (1921) I.L.R. 51 Born. 78, distinguished. 
State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram., (1962) 3 S.C.R. 338, relied on. 
A 
B 
c 
' 
D 
• 
E 
... ' 
G 
••• 
• T(
H 
• 
A 
B 
' 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B. J. SAVANT v. MYSORE (Wanchoo, J.) 
699 
Radha Klshun Marwari v. King-Emperor, ( 1933) I.L.R. 12 Patna 46, 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
26 of 1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 20, 
1963 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 
1963. 
B. R. L. Iyengar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. 
A. K. Sen, D. R. Prem, R.H. Dhebar and B. R. G. K. Achar, 
for the respondent. 
Niren De, Additional Solicitor-General and B. R. G. K. Achar, 
for the intervener. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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. 19 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 oflndia but was Portuguese territory. The 
Deputy Superintendent of Customs, Goa Frontier Division, Bel-
gaum 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. Aft
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.