Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from criminal proceedings initiated by the Collector of Customs, Madras, against Illias and nine others for offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, Sections 23(1A) and 23B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and Rule 131-B of the Defence of India Rules, relating to the transport of 750 gold bars from Bombay to Madras. The prosecution sought to introduce confessional statements of the accused recorded by customs authorities during investigation. The Sessions Court ruled the statements inadmissible, but on revision, the Madras High Court's Full Bench held them admissible. Illias appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core issue was whether customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 are 'police officers' for the purpose of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which bars confessions made to police officers from evidence. The appellant argued that the 1962 Act conferred extensive police-like powers on customs officers, including arrest, search, and the power to grant bail, making them police officers. The respondent contended that the true test is the power to file a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which customs officers lack; instead, they must file a complaint under Section 190(a). The Court analyzed the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and compared them with the earlier Sea Customs Act, 1878. It noted that while customs officers have powers similar to those of police in respect of investigation, they do not possess the crucial power to submit a police report. Following precedents including State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram and Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore, the Court held that the absence of power to file a charge sheet is determinative. Consequently, customs officers are not police officers under Section 25, and confessional statements made to them are admissible. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.
Headnote
A) Evidence - Confessions to Police - Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Test for determining police officer - Customs Act, 1962, Sections 104, 105, 107, 108; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 160, 161, 173, 190 - The appellant contended that customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 possess powers akin to police, including arrest and grant of bail, and therefore should be deemed police officers, rendering confessional statements inadmissible. The Court examined the scheme of the Act and held that the sine qua non for being a police officer under Section 25 is the power to submit a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since customs officers must file a complaint under Section 190(a) and cannot submit a police report, they are not police officers. Held that confessional statements recorded by customs officers are admissible in evidence. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether customs authorities under the Customs Act, 1962 are police officers within the meaning of s.25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, thereby rendering confessional statements recorded by them inadmissible in evidence?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court, following previous decisions, held that customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 are not police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and therefore confessional statements made to them are admissible in evidence. The test is whether the officer can file a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; customs officers cannot do so and must file a complaint under Section 190(a) CrPC. Appeal dismissed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Test for police officer under s.25 Evidence Act is power to file charge sheet u/s 173 CrPC
- customs officers lack such power
- confessional statements to customs officers admissible despite powers of arrest
- search
- and bail
