ROMESH CHANDRA MEHTA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 18-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 19 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
" 
A< 
• 
, 
.,; 
.... 
A 
B 
c 
ROMESH CHANDRA MEHTA 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
October 18, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE AND 
A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Sea Customs Act (8 of 1878), and Customs Act (52 of 1962)-Cus-
toms Officer-If police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evi-
dence Act (1 of 1872). 
The accused were charged with some offences under s. 120-B Indian 
Penal Code read with s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, s. S of 
the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, for specific offences under the 
Sea Customs Act, and for offences under ss. 108 and 135 of the Customs 
Act, 1962. Statements made by the accused to an officer of customs in an 
enquiry under s. 171-A of the Sea Customs Act and statements made 
were tendered in evidence. 
On the questions : ( 1) Whether the statement made by the person 
D 
accused of offences under the Sea Customs Act should also be deemed te> 
h..-e 'been recorded under the Customs. Act, 1962. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2) Whether an officer of customs under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 
is a police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evidence Act and 
hence the confessional statements made to him 
were 
inadmissible 
in 
evidence. 
(3) Whether the statements were inadmissible nnder Art. 20(3) of 
the Constitution; and 
( 4) Whether an officer of customs, acting under the Customs Act, 
1962 is, in. any event, a police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of 
the Evidence Act and hence confessional statements made to him were 
inadmi.s.sible in evidence. 
HELD : (I) Even after the repeal to the Sea Cust<>ms Act, 1878, 
admissibility e>f a statement in a trial on a complaint made before a 
Magistrate for contravention of the provisions of that Act, must 
he 
judged in the light of the taint, if any, attaching thereto when the 
statement was made; the determination of the question depends only on 
s. 25 of the Evidence Act and Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. [466 BJ 
(2) A castoms officer under the 1878 Act, had the power to detain, 
to arrest, obtain a search warrant to produce the person arrested before 
a Magistrate and to obtain an order for remand and to keep him in 
cnste>dy with a view to collect evidence. 
He may therefore have oppor-
tnnities, which a police officer has- of extracting a confession from a 
suspect, but a customs officer is not on that account, a police officer. 
The test for determin.ing whether an officer of customs is to be deemed 
a police officer is whether he is invested with all the powers C>f a. police 
officer qua investigation of an offence, including the power to submit a 
report under s. 173, Cr. P.C. An officer of customs may exercise the 
various powers conferred on him for preventing smuggling of goods duti· 
able or prohibited and for adjudging confiscation of those goods. The 
enquiry made by him is a judicial proceeding for the purpose of ""· 193 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 
and 228 I.P.C., and his orders are subject to appeal and revision. He 
doe1 not exercise, when enquiring into a suspected infringement of the 
Sea. Customs Act, powers of investigation which a police officer may, 
- ~n m~eshgatlng the com.mission of an offence. 
He has no power 
to 
mves!Jgate an offence tnable by a Magistrate nor the power to submit 
a report under s. 173 Cr. P.C. [467 C--D; 469 A~B] 
State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 338, 
Raja Ram 
Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 752, Badku Joti Savant v. State 
of Mysore, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 698 and P. Shankar Lall v. A.sstt. Collector 
of Customs, C.A. Nos. 52 & 104/65 dated 12-12-1967, referred to. 
( 3) The statements are not inadmissible because of the protection 
granted by Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. 
In order that the guarantee against testimonial compulsion incorpo-
rated in Art. 20(3) may be claimed by a person it must be established 
that when he made the statements sought to be tendered in 
evidence 
against him, he was a person accused of an offence. 
Section 171 of the 
Sea Customs Act, refers to 'any person' and includes a person who is 
smpected or believed to be concerned in the smuggling of goods. 
But 
a person, arrested by a customs officer because be is found in possession 
A 
B 
c 
of smuggled goods or on suspicion that he is concerned in smui.-
glinu. is not, when called upon by the customs offii;er to make a state-
ment or to produce a document or thing, a person accused of an offence 
D 
within the meaning of Art. 20(3) of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.