Judgment Intelligence
Petition Dismissed- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 18 October 1968
- Bench
- Justices J.C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, G.K. Mitter, K.S. Hegde and A.N. Grover
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 25; Constitution of India — Article 20(3); Sea Customs Act, 1878 — Sections 171-A, 167(81); Customs Act, 1962 — Sections 104, 107, 108, 135, 137, 160; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 — Section 173
The Supreme Court dismissed all four appeals, leaving the orders refusing to exclude the statements in place; any question of inducement, threat or promise was left to be decided at the trials (para 29).
Key holdings
- Statements recorded under the repealed 1878 Act are judged by their position when they were made (para 3).
- The power to submit a report under Section 173 CrPC is the decisive test, and customs officers lack it under both Acts (paras 9, 24, 26).
- Arresting a person and informing him of the grounds of arrest is not a formal accusation of an offence (paras 13, 27).
- Statements under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not statements of a person accused of an offence (para 28).
- Whether particular statements were obtained by inducement, threat or promise is a question for the trial (para 29).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- The State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram [1962] 3 S.C.R. 338
Held (Subba Rao J. dissenting) that a Customs Officer under the Land Customs Act or the Sea Customs Act is not a police officer for Section 25 of the Evidence Act; its reasoning was adopted.
- Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar [1964] 2 S.C.R. 752
An Excise Inspector invested with all the powers of a police officer, including power to investigate and submit a charge-sheet, is a police officer under Section 25; noted as distinguishing Barkat Ram.
- Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore [1966] 3 S.C.R. 698
A Central Excise officer with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station but no power to report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is not a police officer; relied on for the Customs Act, 1962.
View all precedents (13)
- P. Shanker Lall and Ors. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras Criminal Appeals Nos. 52 and 104 of 1965, decided on 12 December 1967
A confession made before the Assistant Collector of Customs was not inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
- The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad [1962] 3 S.C.R. 10
Its expression that the person "must have stood in the character of an accused person" did not set out a different test for when a person is accused of an offence under Article 20(3).
- Maqbool Hussain v. The State of Bombay [1953] S.C.R. 730
Confiscation proceedings by customs officers are not a prosecution, and confiscation is not punishment, for Article 20(2).
- M.P. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors. [1954] S.C.R. 1077
Article 20(3) is available to a person against whom a formal accusation (there, a First Information Report) has been made.
- Raja Narayanlal Bansilal v. Maneck Phiroz Mistry and Anr. [1961] 1 S.C.R. 417
A formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence is an essential condition for invoking Article 20(3).
- Bhagwandas Goenka v. The Union of India Criminal Appeals Nos. 131 and 132 of 1961, decided on 20 September 1963
Information collected under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act before a show-cause notice was not protected by Article 20(3); held to lay down no principle inconsistent with this judgment.
- Calcutta Motor and Cycle Company v. Collector of Customs A.I.R. 1956 Cal. 253
The view that a statement procured in a Section 171-A proceeding is inadmissible under Article 20(3) was held not correct.
- Collector of Customs & Ors. v. Calcutta Motor and Cycle Company A.I.R. 1958 Cal. 682
The opinion that Article 20(3) avails even where a person is not formally accused was held inconsistent with the Supreme Court's judgments and not accepted.
- Collector of Customs, Madras v. Kotumal Bhirumal Pihlajani A.I.R. 1967 Mad. 263
Statements recorded under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, when the deponents were not accused, are not barred by Article 20(3); approved as substantially correct.
- Laxman Padma Bhagat v. The State 67 B.L.R. 317
A person examined under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act does not stand in the character of an accused person; approved as substantially correct.
