Case Note & Summary
The Assistant Collector of Customs filed a complaint against Romesh Chandra Mehta and four others for conspiracy under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, section 5 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, and specific offences. It was alleged that diamonds, jewellery, and currency notes were recovered from Mehta at the Dum Dum Airport and further recoveries were made based on his statements. During trial, the prosecution tendered confessional statements made by the accused before customs officers during an enquiry under section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act. The accused objected, arguing that the customs officer was a police officer under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, making the statements inadmissible, and that they were also hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Trial Magistrate overruled the objection and the High Court dismissed the revision petition. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide: (1) whether the statements should be deemed recorded under the Customs Act, 1962 due to repeal; (2) whether a customs officer under the Sea Customs Act is a police officer; (3) whether the statements are inadmissible under Article 20(3); and (4) whether a customs officer under the Customs Act, 1962 is a police officer. The Court held that the admissibility of a statement made under a repealed Act is governed by the law at the time of recording. It further held that a customs officer, whether under the Sea Customs Act or the Customs Act, 1962, is not a police officer. The test is whether he is invested with all the powers of a police officer qua investigation of an offence, including the power to file a report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A customs officer’s primary function is to prevent smuggling and to adjudicate confiscation and penalties; his inquiry is a judicial proceeding. Formal accusation for an offence occurs only when a complaint is lodged before a Magistrate. Hence, statements made during the enquiry before a customs officer are not hit by Article 20(3) as the maker is not an accused at that stage. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Evidence - Admissibility of Confessional Statements - Determination of Admissibility Under Repealed Act - Sea Customs Act, 1878 - A statement recorded under the repealed Sea Customs Act must have its admissibility determined by the law in force when it was made; the subsequent repeal does not affect its admissibility. B) Criminal Law - Police Officer Definition - Customs Officer Under Sea Customs Act Not a Police Officer - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s.25; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s.173 - A customs officer under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, is not a police officer for the purpose of s.25 of the Evidence Act because he lacks the power to submit a report under s.173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and does not exercise all powers of investigation of a police officer. C) Constitutional Law - Self-Incrimination - Article 20(3) of the Constitution - Person Not Accused at Custom Enquiry Stage - Constitution of India, Art.20(3); Sea Customs Act, 1878, s.171-A - A person summoned or arrested by a customs officer during an enquiry under the Sea Customs Act is not a person accused of an offence for the purpose of Art.20(3); formal accusation arises only when a complaint is filed before a Magistrate. D) Criminal Law - Police Officer Definition - Customs Officer Under Customs Act, 1962 Not a Police Officer - Customs Act, 1962, ss.104(1), 105, 137; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s.25 - Additional powers under the Customs Act, 1962, such as power to issue search warrants and release on bail, do not transform a customs officer into a police officer; he remains a revenue officer and proceedings before a Magistrate can only commence on a complaint, not a police report.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a customs officer under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and the Customs Act, 1962 is a police officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether statements made before him are hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. Held that customs officers under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Customs Act, 1962 are not police officers under section 25 of the Evidence Act; confessional statements made before them are not hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution; and such statements are admissible. The admissibility of statements made under the Sea Customs Act is to be adjudged in accordance with the law as it stood at the time of recording, unaffected by the repeal of that Act.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Customs Officer not a police officer unless invested with all powers of police investigation including power to submit report under section 173 Cr.P.C.
- Enquiry under customs acts is for purpose of adjudication of confiscation and penalties
- Formal accusation for offence under customs acts arises only when complaint is filed before Magistrate
- Person summoned under section 171-A Sea Customs Act or similar is not an accused for Article 20(3)
- Admissibility of statements is governed by law at the time of recording
- Repeal of Sea Customs Act does not change admissibility of previously recorded statements.
