LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB versus BARKAT RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t I
j
t
J~GJ
Payart Lol
v.
Slak of Pu.job
Sarl:D~ J .
.
338
SUPREME COURT lth'POI~TS
[19G2J
bas power to rc1mmmon and examine a. witnc!!V
furthnr. We eonnot Bpecu\atu what tho ·special
J uu"e who tries tho case afresh will think fit to do
if s.
0
3GO of the Code is now applicable to the vr.oceed-
ings before him. For all these consiucmtions, we
think it fit to scn<.l the case back for retrial.
We therefore, c.~.llow ·tho appeal and set. asid~
tho conviction of the appellant and the t!entenco
passed on him. 'fh~ case \Vill nQw go Lack for retrial
a. ~cording to Jaw.
Appeal allowt:d
THE STATE 01" PUNJAB
v.
DARI~A 'f RA~l
(J. L. lure&, K. SUDBA. RAO anu
RAOUUDAlt D.U.AL JJ.)
CtUtom.t Officn-lf a puliu officer-Land CIJ;1lorM-
VJ/tT~«I tmtlu
IAe Stu CJUionl$ Acl-Oo11/e••io111 ~
to
Ov.atom• Offi~r~- C07lt;c.lion on the ba~ti& of nu:A cOIIju&ioM-
Validity-L«nd C••:OIM Act, /!J2l (19 of l !JU), &.9(1)-Foreig•
Ezcloa111Je Rtgululic-16 Act, 19-17 (7 of l!Jli) , •· 23(1~ta
Cutllm14 ~ct, ·I87S(S vf 1378), ''· G, JG7(S)-I'ulice Acl, 1S61
(5 of lliOI), 1. 1-bldian Evide11ce Ac.t, llil2 (I of I.Y72) 1. 25.
On receipt or information that some golu would be
t.muggled from Paki.stan to India by the engine crew of the
train coming from Lahore, the Land Cu3toms staff searched
the engine on the arrival of the train at Amritsar and
recovered a quantity of gold kept hidden underneath the toal
In the tender of the engine. The driver of the~ngine, the
relpondcnt, who was arr~ted and taken to the Customs O!l'icc
for luterr01,-ation, m.atle statement~ before the CU3toms offkials
admittin~ bia · guilt. On the complaint of the Assistant
Collector of Land CLC!tonu, the respondent was tried !.:Jt
offencea under s. 23( I) CJf the Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act, 19-17, and a. 161(8) of the Sea Cuatums Act, 1878, and
convlc~ed by th~ Maglstrale, _but on re\·blon the High Co~t
of PunJab set '-Side the conv1c~on on the grounds iltltt ~l~
that Cu.swm, Omccrs were f ohce otrlcc:rs within the xnc:arung
of tlat capreulon in a. 25 o the Ind i~W Evidence Act, 1872,
. .,_ . ~ --.. -
· ~ ··~ .. ~ - . ~-
\
l
'
-
-
... -
3 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORT~
339
tt-.at confessional statements made to them were consequently
inadmissible in evidence and that· if they be excluded from
consideration there was no other evidence to sustain the
coviction.
Held (Subba Rao, J,, di.s.sentiny), that Customs Officers
are not police officers for the purpose of s. 2j of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, and that the conviction of the respondent
on the Lasis of his statements to the Customs officers was
maintainable.
Per Kapur and Raghubar Dayal, Jj.--The duties of
Customs officers are very·· inuch different from those of the
police officers and their possessing certain powers, which
may have similarity with those of police officers, for the
purpose of detecting the smuggling of goods and the persons
responsibe for it, would not make them police officers.
Per Subba Rao, J .--C~stoms officers under the Sea
Customs Act, 1878, have the powers, and they also discharge
the functions of police officers and, therefore, they are police
officers fur the purpose of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in
so far as they exercise or discharge such powers and functiom.
A customs officer is a police officer qua his police functions,
and a confession made to him cannot be provided against a
person accused of an ·offence,
·.
Ca~e-law Reviewed. ·
CRil\UNAL APPELLA'l'E JumSDICTION :Criminal
Appeal No. 45 of 1959.
Appeal hy special leave from the jll(lgment
and order dated Octoper 9, 1958, of the Punjab
High Court in Criminal Revision No. 599 of 1958.
H. R. Khcmn(~ and JJ. Oupt(h for. the appellant.
Gopal Singh, for tbe respondent.
1061. August 30. The judgment of J. L. Kapur
and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.,
was
delivered by
Raghubar Dayal, J. K. Subba l~ao, .J., delivered a
separate judgment.
196"1
The Stat~ ef Pun}11b
v.
Barkae Rtirn
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-'rhis appeal, by special
RaghubarDt~yr~lJ.
leave, raises the question whether. a Customs Officer,
either under 'the Land Customs Act, 1924 {Act XIX
of 1924) or under the Sea· Customs Act, 1878 (Act
VIII of 1878), is a 'police officer within the meaning
of that expression in s. 25 of the ·Indian .Evidence
Act.
}g6J
t'M Stal1 oj PunjtJb
v.
Barf«4.R""!
&qll®ar Dayal J.
,,.,
....... ... .... - ..
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
. Ba.rka.t. Ram, respondent inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.