- (1.) The Assistant Collector of Customs filed a complaint against Ramesh Chandra Mehta and four others in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, charging them with offences under Section 120B 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 for specific offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy. It was the case of the complainant that when Mehta was searched on December 13, 1962, at the Dum Dum Airport, Calcutta, diamonds and jewellery worth Rupees 1,91,000/- were found on his persons and currency notes of Rs. 27,000/- were found in a suit-case with him and that pursuant to a statement made by Mehta diamonds, pearls and jewellery of the value of Rs. 2,61,800/- and correspondence, telegrams and cables bearing upon the conspiracy to smuggle gold, precious stones etc., into India form foreign countries were recovered from different places.
(2.) The complainant tendered in evidence at the trial certain confessional statements which he claimed were made before the Customs Authorities in an enquiry under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, by Mehta and the other persons accused. Counsel for the accused objected to the admissibility of that evidence but the objection was over-ruled by the Trial Magistrate. The High Court of Calcutta rejected a petition invoking 'their revisional jurisdiction against the order of the Trial Magistrate. With special leave, Mehta has appealed to this Court.
(3.) Counsel for Mehta urged three contentions in support of the appeal: (1) that the statements tendered in evidence by the Customs Officer must be deemed by virtue of Section 160 of the Customs Act 52 of 1962 to be recorded under the provisions of that Act and their admissibility may be adjudged in the light of that Act alone; (2) that an Officer of Customs is a "police officer" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and a confessional statement made before him is inadmissible in evidence at the trial of the appellant and his co-accused; (3) that the statements made before the Customs Officer were otherwise inadmissible, because Mehta and others being persons accused of an offence were compelled by the provisions of Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, to be witnesses against themselves within the meaning of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution.;