LexILLIAS versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[A B c fD E F ' l G ' H ILLIAS v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS October 31, 1968 613 [J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAM!, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] . Evidence Act (I of 1872), s. 25-Police officer-If customs officials und£r Customs Act 52 of 1962 are police officers-Test for determining. The appellant along with others was charged with various offences relating to traosport of gold. Their confessional statements recorded by customs authorities under ss. 107 aod 108 were sought to be given in evidence at the trial. On the question, whether the customs authorities should be deemed to be police officers, and therefore, the statements were inadmissible by reason of s. 25 of the Evidence Act, HELD : Under Customs Act, 1962, the customs authorities have been invested with many powers of a police officer in matters relating to arrest, investigation and search, which the customs. officers did not have under the repealed Act namely, the Sea Customs Act, 1878. For example, under s. 104(3) after arrest, the customs officer has the power of releas- ing the arrested person on bail and for that purpose has the same powers as an officer in charge of a police station. Under s. 107 a customs officer empowered by the Collector of Customs can require any perscn to produce any document, which power is similar to those exercisable by a police officer under ss. 160 and 161, Cr. P.C. Under s. 105, if the Assistant ·collector of Customs has reason to believe that any goods liable to confiscation are secreted in any place be may authorise any customs officers or may himself search for the goods. But, customs officers have not been invested with ·an the powers which an officer in charge of a police station can exercise under Chapter XV, Cr. P.C. The ptawers con- ferred do not include the power of submittiilg a charge sheet under s. 173, Cr. P.C., either expressly or by necessary implication. Therefore, in order to enable a magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under the Customs Act, (the offences under the Act are non-cognizable), the customs officer will have. to file a complaint before the ma~istrate under· s. 190(a), Cr. P.C .. and cannot, like a police officer, submit a report under s. 190(b). Hence, even though the customs officers have been in- vested with 1nany of the oowers which an officer in charge of a police station e~ercises when invec.:tigatine a cognizable offence. he does not thereby become a police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evi- dence Act and so the confessiorial statements made bv accused person~ to customs officials would be admi">">ible in e,vidence again">t them. [617 C-D; 618 B-C, F-G; 621 G-D; 622 G-D] Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. Stote of West Benoa/. [1969] 2 S.C.R. 461 and Dad,v Adarii Fatckia v. K. K. G·rrnoulv, A.i::stt Cnllertor of Customs & Anr., Cr. A. No. 46 of 1968 dated October 18, 1968, followed. State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram. [19621 3 S.C.R. 338, Raja Ram faiswa/ v. State of Bihar, [19641 2 S.C.R. 752. Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 698 and P, Shankar Lal & Ors. v. Asstt. Co/Z.ctor of Customs, Madras, Cr. As. Nos. 52 & 104/65 dated 12-12-1967, referred to. 614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1969] 2 S.C.R. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the judgment ai;id. order .d_a~ed September 9, 1966 of the Madras High Court m Cnmmal Rev1S1on Petition 13 50 of 1965. A N. H. Hingorani, R. Jethamalani and K. Hingorani, for the n. appellant. Niren De, Solicitor-General, N. S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for the inter- vener. The Judgment of the Conrt was delivered by Grover, J. The main point in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the statements of the appellant and other accused persons recorded by the customs authorities under the provisions of the Customs Act 1962 (Act 52 of 1962), hereinafter called the "New Act'', were admissible in evidence at their trial for the alleged offences under s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with s. 135 of the new Act and ss. 23(1A) and 23B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 and under Rule 131-B of the Defence of India· Rules. The facts need not be stated in great detail. A complaint was laid by the Collector of Customs, Madras, against 10 persons for having committed the above offences.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.