- (1.) The petitioner is a dealer in tobacco which is a commodity liable to Central Excise Duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He keeps a warehouse at Maunath Bhanjan in the district at Azamgarh. In this warehouse he stores tobacco.
(2.) On December, 19th, 1964 a party of the officers of the Excise Department, headed by the Deputy Superintendent of the Central Excise Allahabad, carried out a surprise check of the petitioner' warehouse and found that between December 17th, and December 19th, 1964, the petitioner had removed from the warehouses 350 bags of biri tobacco without paying excise duty and in the same Period had brought into the warehouse, in an unauthorised manner, 171 bags of biri tobacco which were found to be in excess of the stock shown in his books of accounts. The petitioner's statement was recorded at the spot wherein he admitted these irregularities. The excess stock was seized. Later, on 8th of February, 1965 a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause to why excise duty should not be levied upon 350 bags of tobacco which were found short and why the stock found in excess should not be confiscated. The petitioner submitted a written explanation on 13th February, 1965 in which he admitted the shortage to the extent of 179 bags, but denied the excess of 171 bags. The Collector Central Excise after considering the material on the record demanded from the petitioner excise duty of Rs. 40,294.36 on 350 bags of tobacco and ordered the confiscation of 171 bags of tobacco which were found to have been brought into the warehouse in an unauthorised manner. He also, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. It was further ordered that the confiscated stock of 171 bags could be released to the petitioner on payment of a further fine of Rs. 5,000/- the Petitioner appealed to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, but his appeal was dismissed on April 3, 1967. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition to the Union of India which was also rejected on November 30, 1967. The petitioner has now moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for writs of certiorari and mandamus .
(3.) The principal contention raised before us is that the petitioner's statement recorded on the 19th December, 1964 was a confession which could not be used in evidence against him by reason of the provisions of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Mr. H.N. Seth, learned Counsel for the opposite party, in reply has made the following submissions : (a) That an excise officer is not a police officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. (b) That the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act would not apply to the instant case as the proceedings before the Collector are not judicial proceedings before a court. (c) That the petitioner's statement is an admission and not a confession. (d) That the decision rendered against the petitioner is not based merely on his statement but is supported by other evidence and material on the record.;