COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS Vs. ROTUMAL BHERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances which led to this reference to a Full Bench of this Court have been set down in some detail, in the order of reference made by one of us, and it is not necessary to recapitulate them. THE point referred to our decision is:

(2.) WE will take up first for consideration, the question as to how far statements recorded by officers of the Customs Department under Section 107 and the Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, (Act 52 of 1962) would be hit, for the purpose of admissibility in evidence in a criminal trial by reason of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act in other words, whether the officers of the Customs Department, investigating into smuggling offence, can be considered to be police officers, within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 107 of Act 52 of 1962 reads thus :

(3.) HOWEVER, learned counsel who appeared the respondents herein, who are these caused in S.C. No. 13 of 1965, urged that the revised Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962) contains so many new provisions which confer extensive powers of investigation on customs officers, that the view laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram in regard to the old Sea Customs Act, will cease to apply in the case of an investigation under new Act. For this purpose the learned counsel supplied us with a competitive statement of the different provisions of the two enactments, and he also gave extracts of the relevant provisions from the Opium Act (Act 1 of 1878), the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act (Act 2 of 1915) and the Central Excises and Salt Act, (Act 1 of 1944). We will confine our attention to the parallel provisions of the old Sea Customs Act and the revised Act (Act 52 of 1962), and refer to the other enactments in the particular contexts where such reference is necessary. First of all, the preamble to Act 52 of 1962 states that it was an act "to consolidate and amend the law relating to customs." The preamble to the old Customs Act has already been referred to earlier in this Judgment. But the modification in the preamble of the new Act has little or no effect on the question we have to consider. All that the new preamble implies is that the legislative intended to pass a consolidated Act for the purpose of dealing with matters affecting customs. The provisions which are proudly analogous, in the old and new Customs Act, can be considered under the categories of (1) Power to arrest (Section 173 of the old Act and Section 104(1) of the new Act), (2) power of search (Section 172 of the old Act and Section 105 (1) of the new Act, (3) the procedure after arrest (Section 104 of the old Act and Section 102 of the new Act), and (4) power to investigate (Section 171-A of the old Act and Sections 107 and 108 of the new Act). It is undeniable that there are differences in the working used between the old rules and the new rules under the categories mentioned above, and we examined these provisions after setting them side by side in so as to bring into greater focus the nature of these verbal alterations but it is not necessary to expect them here, because it is common ground, that the substantial differences between arrest, (ii) in the procedure for investigation and (iii) in the procedure for search.