The Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, although the special police officer's search did not follow Section 15(1) and (2): his grounds of belief were not properly recorded and the search witnesses were not local inhabitants (paras 4, 7). The breach was an irregularity; without prejudice the conviction stands under Section 537 CrPC, but courts must weigh such evidence with care (paras 5, 8).
A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that a customs officer, under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 or the Customs Act, 1962, is not a "police officer" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, because he cannot submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (paras 4, 9, 24-26). A person questioned or arrested in a customs enquiry is not "accused of an offence" under Article 20(3) until a complaint is filed before a Magistrate (paras 10, 13, 27-28).
The Supreme Court upheld a gold-smuggling conspiracy conviction resting on an accomplice's evidence. A co-accused's voluntary statement to customs officers under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act can be considered under Section 30 of the Evidence Act against an accused jointly tried, and can lend assurance to accomplice evidence once false implication is excluded (paras 6, 11, 13). A retracted confession is a weak link that calls for great caution (paras 10-11).
A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that an Assistant Collector of Customs authorising a search under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 need not record the reasons for his belief, and that Section 165(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not import that requirement (paras 7, 9). Section 105 lays down a policy and effective checks, so it does not offend Article 14 (para 9). The appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition failed (para 11).
The Supreme Court held that a law made applicable to "all suits pending on or instituted after the commencement of this Act" also reaches a suit whose appeal was pending, so the High Court rightly cut the interest in a mortgage decree to 7 1/2 per cent under the amended Usurious Loans Act (paras 4, 10). If a new law expressly or by clear intendment takes in pending matters, an appeal court may apply it even after the trial court's judgment (para 9).
By a majority, the Supreme Court held that an appellate or revisional court can act under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for an offender under 21 convicted before the Act reached his district, and sent the case back to the High Court (paras 8, 30). "But an ex post facto law which only mollifies the rigour of a criminal law does not fall within the said prohibition" of Article 20 (para 6). Justice Raghubar Dayal dissented (para 29).
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court acquitted two men sentenced to death for dacoity with murder, holding that a co-accused's confession under Section 30 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence: "the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution" (para 13). The remaining blood-stain evidence was insufficient (para 15).
The Supreme Court restored a booking clerk's conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. A Sub-Inspector had investigated before getting a magistrate's permission under Section 5A, but a fresh investigation followed and no prejudice was shown; "there must be a sufficient nexus, either established or probabilized, between the conviction and the irregularity in the investigation" (paras 10-12). Justice Mudholkar held the preliminary enquiry was not investigation at all (para 16).
The Supreme Court held that under Section 24 of the Evidence Act a court need only form a prima facie opinion, not strict proof, that a confession was caused by a threat, inducement or promise (para 4). A retracted confession may found a conviction, but as a general rule of practice it should be true, voluntary and corroborated in material particulars (para 6). Taking a file from an office and returning it the next day is theft, because temporary dispossession causes wrongful loss (paras 7-8).
The Supreme Court set aside a postman's conviction for secreting registered letters under Section 52 of the Post Office Act, 1898, because the almirah where they were found was not shown to be in his exclusive possession; his father produced the key (paras 11, 13). It held that "even assuming that the search was illegal the seizure of the articles is not vitiated" (para 5), and that entrustment is not an ingredient of secreting (para 7).
By a 2:1 majority, the Supreme Court held in 1961 that Customs Officers are not "police officers" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so an engine driver's confessional statements to Land Customs officials about smuggled gold were admissible, and his conviction was restored (paras 25-26). Their powers serve the levy of customs duties, not the prevention and detection of crime (paras 8, 10-11). Subba Rao J. dissented, holding a Customs Officer a police officer for his police functions (para 39).
An eleven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that compelling an accused to give specimen handwriting, signatures or finger, palm or foot impressions does not make him a witness against himself under Article 20(3) (paras 18, 36). Mere police custody or questioning is not compulsion (paras 16-17). Section 27 of the Evidence Act is valid unless the information was compelled (paras 10, 37). Article 20(3) needs the person to be an accused when he made the statement (para 20).