Mohd. at Amz1taar to Pakistan and when I v. B~!.Krt Ram

Judgment

j.--The duties of Customs officers are very·· inuch different from those of the police officers and their possessing certain powers, which may have similarity with those of police officers, for the purpose of detecting the smuggling of goods and the persons responsibe for it, would not make them police officers. Per Subba Rao, J .--C~stoms officers under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, have the powers, and they also discharge the functions of police officers and, therefore, they are police officers fur the purpose of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in so far as they exercise or discharge such powers and functiom. A customs officer is a police officer qua his police functions, and a confession made to him cannot be provided against a person accused of an ·offence, ·.

Ca~e-law Reviewed. · CRil\UNAL APPELLA'l'E JumSDICTION :Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1959. Appeal hy special leave from the jll(lgment and order dated Octoper 9, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Revision No. 599 of 1958. H. R. Khcmn(~ and JJ. Oupt(h for. the appellant. Gopal Singh, for tbe respondent. 1061. August 30. The judgment of J. L. Kapur and Raghubar Dayal, JJ., was delivered by Raghubar Dayal, J. K. Subba l~ao, .J., delivered a separate judgment. - -... - RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-'rhis appeal, by special RaghubarDt~yr~lJ. leave, raises the question whether. a Customs Officer, either under 'the Land Customs Act, 1924 {Act XIX of 1924) or under the Sea · Customs Act, 1878 (Act VIII of 1878), is a 'police officer within the meaning of that expression in s.

25 of the ·Indian .Evidence Act. }g6J t'M Stal1 oj PunjtJb v. Barf«4.R""! &qll®ar Dayal J. ,,., 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] . Ba.rka.t. Ram, respondent in thi.<i appeal, was the engine diiver of 78 Down Train which reached .A.mritsar at about 4-15 P.M., on June 8, 1957. The train came from Pakistan. In consequence of information received with respect to the smuggling of gold by the engine crew, the Land Customs staff boarded the engine at Atta.ri and ot.her staff of the Department surrounded th~ engine on its .urival at Amritsar. 'rhe engine was searched a.nd a quantity of gold was recovered, having been found lying concealed underneath the coal in the front JJ&rt of the coal tender in the engine..

The respondent was further interrogated at the·Cu.stoms· Station and, a.tl a result of further search, another quantity of gold wa.s recovered from the rear pa:r;t of the coal tender. A document, Ex. P.E., dated June ·5, 1957, was also recovered. This document was !!hown to the respon dent on June 9, 1957, and the respondent inscribed on this document the note. Ex. P. Dl to the effect: · u ••• the -letter is the se.me which TawaquaJ Shah had given to ma yesterday. The same to be delivered to Ghulam Mob d. who has come from Paki.et&n and has stayed at Gra.nd Hotel." On June 9, 1957, Bru-kat Ram, thu respondent, ma.de certain other statflments, Ex . P. K., to .Mano~&r Singh He<li, Inspector of Customs, stating therem:

''As UBUa.l on the 8th June, 1957 I took two bundles o~ Indian Currency fro~- Ghula.m Mohd. at Amz1taar to Pakistan and when I Lrought 65 ban of gold from Tawakal Shah, from Pakistan, the CU8toms Officers rooovered these 65 bnrs of gold from the engine at the Railway Station, Amritaar. I had kept con cealed these 6.5 Lara of gold in the engine in tho I,re11ence of Shri Ram Murti and Shri Jagan Nath, my two Firemen, at the Loco I waa to deliver this gold to Shad, Lahore. Ghulam Mohd. at .Amritaar," ........ ... .... - .. .. .. . . I I l as.c.R. SUPREME COUlt'l' REPORTS 341 the . same A second_ st~~.t.emcnt was made Customs Inspector on Juno 17# W57, Ex. P. G. On thia. occasion. too, he made a. similar statement, addmg that he was to got Rs. 200 against the deli very of gold. 1181 Th! Sl<!tt of Pi.njn. v, Bark; Jt R•JM Rr19hubur D.>yal J. On the complaint of the Assistant Collector of Land Customs, Amritsar, &rkat Ram wns tried for offences punishable under s. 23 ( l) of the Foreign Exchange Reguht.tion Act, 19-'7, and under s. 167(81) of the Sea Custom.s Act, 1R78,. aa -amended .in .He was oonvictecl by tho l\IaO'istra.te. The l 95.5. conviction was confirmed· by the app~llate Court, but was set aside . on r.ovision by the High Court which J1elcl that Customs Officers were police officers within the meaning of that expressioh ·in a. !?5. of the Evidence Act, that confes::;iona.l statements made to them wore consequently inadmissible in evidence anl that if they be excluded from conside ration, there wa.~ no other evidence to sustain the c.onvirtion. It further held that s. ~7 of the Evi dence Act did not apply to the facta o( the case, as the recovery of gold was the result of search made by the Customs Officers and not the result of inter rogatio" the respondent. The State of Punjab has filed t~ appeal ~gainst the acquittal order. The only contention raised for the appellant in the a.p}>('a.l is that ~he Customs Officers, to ~·hom the confe81!ional stAtements were made were not police officers within the meaning of t·hllt expression Ill a. 25 of th<' Evidence Act. It was oontendt>d thn.t the mere fact t.ha.t powers to arrest certain persons, to make acarchos and to record evidence h~ving a. bearing on the alleged contra\'ontion of the legal provisiona, are conforrt'd on <X"rta.in officers of the ?zstom.s Department, is not sufficient to make the~ ·police officers' contemplated by s. 26 · of the Evt dence Act. t)Ven if it oo usumed correct. as hE~ld by certain HiJV1 CoDrts that offic~rs on whom the powen~ of the Officer~ in-charge of a Police StAtion llnder Chapter XIV of the Code of CrimiDal 1961 TheSiale of Punjab v. B~!.Krt Ram Ragltubar Dayal J. .. 342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I962J Proccd~Re have boon conferred, were polioe officers for the purp6se of R. 2!l of the EvidcncP Act.. The contention for the respondent is that officers on whom such powcrR arc confcrrrd arc really police officers, though they arc not so called and that the difference in nomcnclatur<> iR of no effect in con~i­ clering th~m police officerR for the purpost's of R. 2:1. 'Ve arc of opinion that the ·contention for the appellant is sound and that the Customs Offi~crs are not police officcrR within tho meaning of thn.t term in s. 25 of tho EYidencc Act . 'Ve may mention, at t11if! stage, t.hat the Officers to whom the respondent made confessional statements, were Land Customs Officers appointed under the Lnnd Cuf:ltoms Act. Scetion 9(1) of this Act reads: ,. aThe provisions oftho Sea Cust-oms Act, 1878 (Vfli of 1878), which are specified in the Rchcdule, together with all notifications, orders, mJeR or iRsued, made or far as shaJI, RO thereunder, pre1cribed, they are applicable, apply for tho pnrpoac of the l~,·v of dutios of lanrl customR under this Act in like manner M> they apply for the purpose of the levy of dutieA of customs on goods imported or <>xportNl hr Rea. Among thefs('ction~ of t.hc Sen Customs Act. made applirn6lo h~· sub-A. ( 1) of A. 9 of the J..anrl Customs Act, are ChaptcrR XVI and XVIT of tht' Sea Cm~tomA Act. • ?'~z., AR. 167 to 193. In view of these provisions, WC have really to conRider whether the Cu~toms Officers under the Sea Customs Act., in view of the various powers eon f~rred on them under the Sea Customs Act, are polic(' officers contemplated by R. 25 of the Evidence Act. If they are police officers, tho Land CuRtoms Officers appointed under the Land Customs Act will also he police officers in view of Bimilar power being conferred on them. includNl all the sectionH 196i 'I'ht State o/Pun}~~ Y. . Bark, rRam l'taghubar ·Dayal J. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 343 Before we come to the interpretat1on of the expression •police officer', we would like to express what we consider to he the duties and powers of a police officer and Qf customs officers. The Police Act, 1861 (Act V of 186J),is describ ed as an Act for the regulation. of police, awl is thus an Act for the regulation of that grou.p of offii cers who come within the word 'po1ice' whatever meaning be given to that word. The prea:p1ble 'of the Act further says: •whe.reas it' is ~xpedi(mt to ~e­ organise the police and to make it a more efficient instrument for th~ prevention arid detection ·of crime, it is enacted as follows'. This indicat.es that the police is t.he i~strilment f9r the preve~tio~ and detection of crime which can be said to be the main object and purpose of having the police. Sections 23 and 25 lay down the duties of the police officers and 8, 20 deals with the authority they C{tll exer~ cise. They can exercise suc.h authority as is prcivi~ ded for .a police officer tinder the Police Act and any Act for regulating . criminal procedure. The authority given to police officers must naturally be to enable them to di~ohar_ge their duties efficiently. Of the various duties mentjoned in s. 23, the I!!Ore important duties are to collect and communiqate intelligence affecting .the pu'9lic peace, to prevent the commission of offenqes and public nuisances and to detect an~l bring .offenders to justice and to appre hend an persons wJ:l.om the pol~ce . officer is legally authorised to apprehend. It is cl~ar, therefore, i~ view of the nature of the duties imposed on ·the police officers, the 'nature of the authority conferred and the purpose of the polio~ Act, that the · powers which the police officers enjoy are powers for· th'e effective prevention and . detection of crime in order to maintain law and order. .l - .~ The powers .o( custOil1S officer~ . are really not for such purpose. Their powers ~re fqr_ the p.urpose of checking the. sm, uggling qf goods 'arid the due realisation of customs duties and to :determin6 'the SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] 1941 n. Stale •! hnjab "· Barlrtt.lRom actioil to· be taken in the interests of thli 'levenucs of ·the coWl try by way .of confiscation (){goods on which no duty had beren pail! a.nd by imposing · penalties and fines. Re!et:eilM to s~ 9 (l)le'P.the- Land CUstoms Act may. be uaefully• made· u ·.this stage. It is aooorliing to the provisions of this, sn.l:Peectibn th8t 'the provi aioort ~f the Sea Customs Act-and the orders, . rules etc.., prescribed1therewlder,;A.pply•for the purpoe~ ·of levy of duties of land ouatOms-under the Land • Cus toms Act. in like· manner· as they. apply for the purpi::J86 of levy of: .duties of customs on ·goods imported or: exported bJ sea. This makes it- cleAr bha' the . provisions conferring ·varioUs-· powers on the ~ Customs OfficerS are far ·the purpose of le'Yying and· realisation of duties of customs on goods and. that :tlmse powers are conferred on the Land Cus~s · officers al!lo fbr the same purpose. Apart- frolJ'. such An expreaaion in s. g· ( 1) of the reaaonR .in Land Customs Ac&~ there···are good ~Upport oC the :view< tha.t:the powera oon&rr6d on bhe Cnatoms OffioeDS are .difrflle.nt ill' character from .~ase of the police offieera for t~ .tle~<ition and prev~io11: ·or .crime and thAt tM power. 'JG~lfun-ed on .them ar~ mf8:ely for the purpoa& of eJl81U~ that -dutiable good& do not erfl:Jer the ctountry without payment 'of duty· add that artioles wh~~ .entry ill prohibited • are noo brougb\ iQ. It ia with respect to tll& deteotins &Od preTftnting of the smuggling of goods a.lid!ft\reldq loes. to the CenttalRe:tenues th.&tCoatom•Offioens·han been· ginct. the power to search the property·llncl person a.Dd .to detain thoro and to sttmmon persona to give evidenoe- in an en· quiry with· respect ·to tho auuggling of goo&. The preamble of tli~ S~& Customs Act. says : ''Whereas jt is expedient to consolidate and amend the law r(:ll&ting to the l~vy of Sea Cn&toma-duties''. PraotioaDy, all the provisions of the Act ar::e enacted to &ehieTe this object. Seo~on 167 gives /It long list of ofl'en008,. but it.- ia to \le noti®d tha.t ll·ith the .... c - ~- 1961 The State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram Raghubar Da}al J, 3S.C.R. ·suPREME COURT REPORTS 345 exception of certain offences, all the others are to be dealt with by the Customs Officers in view of s. 182. The Customs Officers are given the power to confiscate, to fix the duty and to impose penalties which can, in certain cases, be of enormous amounts. The offences mentioned in s. 167, which a.re to be dea1t ,,.ith by a Magistrate, are mostly of the type in which the Customs Officers have nothing to investigate. · Offences at items Nos. 23 to 28 are with respect to certain acts committed by a pilot or a master of a ves'ilcl. The Customs staff has merely to report the conduct for trial before a ~agistrate. They have nothing to invt>stigate about it. Similarly the offence at item 72 relates to a person's making a falso declaration. Offences at items Nos. 74, 73 and 76 are with respect to the conduct of the Cus· toms Officers themselves. Items Nos. 76-A, 76-B a.nd 78 deal with the obstruction by smugglers to the performance of duty by the Customs Officer. The offence at item No. 77 relates to an offence where a Item 81 police officer neglects to do his dttty. creates an offence with respect to a person doing certain things to defraud the Government. The Customs Officer, therefore, is not primarily con cerned with the detection and punishment of crime committed by a person, but is mainly interested in the detection and prevention of smuggling of goods and safeguarding the recovery of customs duties. He is more concerned with the ~:toods and customs duty, than with the offender. - Similar view was expressed by this Court in Maqbool Hussain's Case(!). It was said at p. 741 : un is clear on a perusal ofthe above pro visions that the powers of scorch, arrest and detention are given to the Customs Authori ties for the levy of sea customs duties an - proyision is made at th~ same time for a reference to the Magistrate in all cases where (1) [!953] S.C.R. 730. ---. • 34~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1062] .. 1961 Tht Stalt of PunJab v. Barkat Ram Ra~hubar Da)'al ). search warrants arc ne<'dcd and detention of arrested person is required". .4 .. In Thonws /Jmw v. '/'he State of P-unjab C) it was said: ('Thrre arc as manY~ 81 <'ntrics in the Schedule to s. IG7, besi;I<'B thoso added latrr, lmt eaeh one of thosf' ~I or more <>ntries, though an offenee, being an act infi·inging ('ertain provisions of the sect.iom and rn lfB ~ undct· the A<:t, is not. a criminnl ofrenr.c ...... They {i.e., Cw;tomF Officen-1) have been only given limitPd powers of f:;<·nr<'h. Similarly, thr)r have been giY<'ll }imitPd powNR to sum- mon p~rsons to gi\·c <'\·idcnc:l' cr to produce documents." - . ~ Further it waR CJosen.·ed at p. !!91 : ('It i:1 true tl1at the prtitionf'rs were d(·alt with by the Collectc.r of Ccntml Exei~c a.nrl Land Customs, fo1· the 'offeuce' of t::mugglinu;; were found 'guilty', and u det<·rrent 'punish fll("Ht' "·n.s imposed upon them, but as ho had not teen ,-t"'stcd with tlw power~:~ of a Magis trate or a. criminal court, his procccdiugs ngair, Rt tlH• petitioners were in the nature of ""<. Revenue prot~eeding~, with a. view to detecting the infriugcment of the pro,·ision~ of the Sea Cnstomw Act, und impo.sing pt·nalties when it was found that they had lwen guilty of thoso infringem<'nts. Those penaltictl, the Coll<'ctor had been em powered to im poRe in order not only to pre\·cnt a. rccurrmH:<.' of ~u<.:h infringe- _? ments, hut al~o to recoup the> lm;~ of such rr\'enue resulting from su<'h infringcm('nts.'· \Yo arc therefore of opinion that the duties of the Customs Officers are very much different. from thoso of the poliee ofticers and that t.heir pl)ssessing certain powers, whieh may h:we similnrit.y with those of police uflicers) for the purpose of detecting __ _ (I) [1959j Supp. 1 S.C.R. 274,289. 1961 The State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram Raghubar Dayal J, I~ - 3S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 347 the smuggling of goods and the persons responsible for it, would not make them police officers. There seems to he no dispute that a person who is a member of the police foree is a police 0fficer. A person is a member of the police force when he holds his office under any of the Acts draling with the police. ':A person may he a mrmber of the police in any otlwr country. Officers of the police in the erstwhile Indian States and an officer of the police of a foreign country have been helcl in certain decided cases to be po1ice officrrs within the meaning of s: 25 of the Evidence Act. There is no denying that these persons are police officers and are covered by that expression in s. 25. That 0xpression is not restricted to the police officers of the police forces enrolled under the Police Act of 1861. The word <police' is defined in s. 1 and ii S!l.id to include all persons who shall be enrolled under the Act. No doubt this definition i$ not restrictive, as it uses the expression 'includes', indi cating thereby that persons other than thoso enrolled under that Act can also be covered hv the word <police'. · Section!! 17 and 18 of the Police Act provi, Jc for the appointm('nt of special police officers who are not enrolled under the Act but are appointed for special occasions and have the same powers, privileges and protection and are liable to perform the same duti('s as the ordinary officera of the police. ' Section 21 also speaks of officers who are not ·3urolled as police officers and in such categories mentions hereditary or orther village police officers. The words 'police officer' are therefore not to be construed in a narrow way, but have to be construed in a wide and popular sense, as was remarked in R. v. Iiurr·ibole (1) where a Deputy Commissioner of police who was actually a (I) (187ti) I. L. R. I Cal. 207, 348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] Jf61 7 ht S/alt of Punjab v. Barkat Ram police offic cr antl was rnerely Jfagisteria power:; was right y he ( to e a po tee 1 offi(·er within the meaning of thnt <>xprc>ssion in 8. 2!) of the E\·idrnce Art. e invest 1 1 1 rl wbith ccrt1~in .4 • There has, howeycr, a.nsrn n di\·ergence of opinion about officers on whom some powers analogous to those of police ofTiccrs haYe been conferred being police officers for the purpose of s. 25 of the Eviuenf'c Ad. The view which favours i:; hasetl on their their being held police officers, possessing powers whi('h are usually possessed hy tho police and 011 the supposed intention of the legi~lature at the time of the enadnwnt of s. 2:) of the Eddence Ac:t to be that the exprrssion 'polie~ offic·er' should indudc every one who iii c-ngaged in the work of dct.eeting anrl preventing crime. 'l'hc oth('r • view is ba.sccl on the plain meaning of tre expres- sion and on the consirlemtion that the ffi(~rc far.t that an officer who, by no stretch of imagination is a poliee oflicer, 1lues not become one merely because r.ertain powers similar to qw pmri'r~ of a police officer are conferred on l1im. ._. "' \Ve now refer to certain a~pcctR which lead ~ . ·. n~ to consider that the cxpressiou 'police oftieer' haR not snrh u. wi<lr. meaning M to include prrsons on whom certain police power!'l arc eonfe1Ted. Tho ohjcet of enacting s. 2;1 of tho Evidence Act, who:st' pwvisious formerly forme<l part of the Codo of Cl'iminal ProcC'rlurc, wa~ to <·xdude> from evi- clen('e confc~:.;ions made to the reg1tlnr poli<'e which -"' ha<l a very bud reputation for t}w methods it employed in inn:stiga.tion, c~twl'ially in for<'ihly extracting eonfes:-.iow-; with tl1c' object of ~~~curing a conddion. The past <·ondnd of the lllf~mbers of the polieo •>t·ganiZ$1.tion justified the provision. It is too mt!eh to suppose that tlw Lt'gi:-.Jatun~ di<l intend that all persons, who may hnve to inve~ti- gate or arrest pt~rsou~ or ::!eize articles in pursuance - of any particular law of which at the time it had~ should ue consiclerccl no <.:onccption, to be so 1961 The State of Punjai v. Barkat Ram Raghubar Dayal J. 3 S.O.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 349 -~ unreliable that any confession made to them must be excluded just as a confession made to a regu lar police officer. If it could not contemplate the later creation of offences or of agencies to take action in respect to them under future legislation, it could not have intended the expression 'police officer' to include officers entrusted in future with the duty of detecting and preventing smuggling and similar offences with the object of safeguarding the levying and recovery of Customs duties. If t.he Legislature had intended to use the expression 'police officer' for such a wide purpose, it would have used a more comprehensive expression. It could have expressed its intention more clearly by making any confession made to any officer whose duty is to detect and prevent the commis sion of offences inadmissible in evidence. -~· .. The police officer referred to in s. 25 of the Evidence Act, need not be the officer investigating into that particular offence of which a person is subsequently accused. A confession made to him need not have been made when he was actually discharging any police duty. Confession made to any member of the police, of whatever rank and at whatever time, is inadmissible in evidence in view of s. 25 . Customs Officers can, even if the respondent's contention be accepted, be considered to be police officers only when they are exercising the limited powers which are similar to the powers of the police officers. This is clear from the observations in the cases relied upon on behalf of the respondent. In Ameen i::Jharif v. Emperor (1) Mukerji, J., made the following observations in this connection, at p. 630: "As militating against the view which I am inclined to take as stated above, two points have been raised .......... And the other (1) (1934) I. L. R. 61 Cal. 607. - 1961 '1/u SttJtt of l'1V1jab v. BtJtlral Ram .4 350 SUPHE)lE COURT HEPOH1'S [J9{12J is that in seetion 25 of thP Act, in r<~i)prct of an offil'er of the poliec, then~ is a pc•rRoU:ll disability implied irrespectin· of tbe questio11 whether b(~ is holding an inn:Htiga.tion or not, whiln no .such di~aiJilitv <"·~n be said to hoYc been intended in the <·<tse of au exciS(\ ofl1cer . . . . . . . . . . And as regards the st'roud poiut, I need only obs<'ITe that, wh('reas poliee oflircrs, by reason of :srction 22 of Ad\' of 1861, are always to Lc cnusidered ou duty for the pmpose:s of the Act, all rn·<·Jllte ofiicers, 011 the othrr hand, are not police ofticcrs a11<l it is only sueh of thPm as may Lc cxcreising the puwrn; of poliec oflieers and only when exerciFo:in~ 1'5U<'h po\H'r:> that they may be regar·dcd as police officers." f-:lim ilar \' iem; were expreSS(·d in JIN·alt i 111 , •• E111.pcror(l) and P.ublir. Prosr'cutor v. Pamm(tsinPJ'eJ. But, ill our opinion, merely because si~il:tr p<J\ren; in regard tiJ de.te(•tiOll Of infraetj()j}S r.f Cu~t(Jlll~ laws hM·c be('n eunft·rrecl on Uffi<·<'rl'\ of t]H: ~u:-;tomP Dnpartmt·nt as at·t· eonf<•t-rerl OJl Oilic·c·rs of the Polict~ is not n suffteiL'IIt grounrl for hulcling th<.>m to Lc police offieNS withiil thl' mean ill~ of;-;, 2.1 of the Evidellr'<.' ....\e:t. Thl' pO\\'<·rs of ~o;ear('h etc. conferrt'd on thr. formN ;1rr•, a:; w;ts obt:ieryeu in 1'honws J)c~nJ."8 Cast e), of a limited dw.ructor and have a limited objvd uf safcguardi11g the rovcnuos of the St..a te. £t i:s ahw to be uotieed that the St\1, Customs Act itself refer's to police ollicc:r in cuntradistinc:tion to the Customs OHke:r. Section 1~11 t•mpowor~; a pol ice officor to seize artie IPs 1 iahlc to con1iseation under the- Act, on suspicion that they had been !)to len. Sect ion IS-! provides the officer adjudging confi~ea tion sha II talw a.nd hold posses· sion of the thinn confisrated anrl enry officer of })Olice, on rNJH<'~t .of such ofliccr,. sha.ll, ;t~Ri8t him lhts leave~ in taking and holdmg such poRE;eR!:non. (l) A. I. R. 1944 lah. 57. (2l A I. R. 1!.153 Mad. '117. (3) [19.59] Supp. ! S.C R. ~·- ·• l '1961 T!u St«te of Punjd v. Barkat Ram Raghr1bar Dayal J. 4 j._ \ _...,.. 3 s.c.n. SUPREME COtlR'l' REPORTS 351 no room for doubt that a Customs Officer is riot an officer of the Police. Section 171-A of the Act empowers Customs Officer to summon any person to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any enquiry which he be making in connec tion with the flmuggling of any goods. It is well-settled that the Customs Officer, when they act under the Sea Customs Act to pro vent the smuggling of ~ouds by imposing confisca tion and penalties, act judicially: Leo Roy Prey v. The S·uperintendent, Distfict Jc~il, Amritsar(l); Shewpujamai Jndrasanrai Ltd. v. 1'he Collector of Oustorns( 2 ). Any enquiry under s.l71-A is deemod to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of ss.l93 and 228, [ndian Penal Code, in· view of its It is under the authority given by this sub s.(4). section that the Customs Officers can take evidence and record statements. If tho statement which is recorded by a Customs Officer in the exercise of his powers under this Section be an admission of guilt, it will be too much to say that that statement is a confession to a police officer, as a police officer never acts judicially and no proceeding before a police officer is deemed, under any provision so far as we are aware, to be a judicial proceeding for the purpose of ss.l93 and 228, Indian Penal Code, or for any purpose. It is still less possible to imagine that the Legislature would contemplate such a person, whose proceedings are judicial for a certain purpose, to be a person whoso record of statements made to him could be suspect if such statement be of a confessional nature. It would be highly incongruous that most of the offences under s.l67 be disposed of by the Customs Officers themselves and that such confes sional statements recorded by Customs Officers b3 take action and to good material for them to (l) [1958] S.C. R. 822, 826. (2) [1959] S. C. R. 821, 830. 352 SUPRE~IE COURT REPOirl;S (I UG2] ]fJ()J Tilt Stolt of Pwljab v. lJttrkal Ram }lclltl.liZe the offender to nuy <LlllUl!Ut of fine and yet the same fltatenwnt~ he 'helcl to be not ;ulmi~­ ~iblc in eviden~e if thP\' have to be used at a trial for a. <..:riminal offence i~1 a rogular Court of law. ~ 'Ve therefore hold that t.hc Cu:-;toms OfticerR are not police officers f(lr the purpm;e of~-:!~; of the Evidem·e Art. \V(l further huhl that the com·il't.iou of the re~ponrlcnt for th'\ offcnt'('S undor !';. 2:3( J) of the Foreign E~cha.11gc Hegulation Act, 1~,47, RlHl under H.l67(81) uf the Sea Cul5tom~ Ad, 187~, ou the bahis of his statements tu the Cu:-;tums Olliccn;, was legal and wa!:i wrongly of't :1.-l:'idc hy the High "~(~ therdure allow tlw appPal, :-;d a8idc Court. the order of ac·quittal of the respondent for the nfurc~aid uff(!IJ(·es and re:-;torC! the C.JJ'd<'r of <·ou\·i<'· tioll pasioil'd by the ~Iagi~tr:!te and cuufirmt•d hy the ::)cs:;ion~ J udw·. \\'r makl' it. dear, hO\renT, that 'n~ do nut cX}H'<~f>:< any opiniiJil em the question "·hethcr oftict.•rs of departmentti oth<'r than the polie(•, 011 whom tho powers of an Oflict·r-in-dtargc of a Police ~ta.tiun nuder <·h. XlV ofthe Code ufCriminal Procr~dnn·, han• lwcn conferred, are police otli<.:en; or not for the }JIIl'])Oi'<~ of s. 2[) of the Bviden<..:o Act, a~ the leamecl ccnmscl for tho appellant did not question t.he corrt'dnens of this ,·iew for the purpose of this appeal. SunnA JL\0 ,J.-[ regret my inability to agree. I cannot bring m.nwlf to hold that, "·bile a confes sion mad(~ by an <H·cusecl to n. polic·o ofli(·cr iR not admissible in cviuence in a Court of law, the same if made, under exactly similar circumstances, to a eustoms officer can be relied and acted upou. 'fhc reasons for excluding the one from evidence would equally apply to the othPr. Briefly stated, tl1c <..:at>e of the prosecution is as follows : On June 8, 1 U57, the Superintendent, Land Cu::~tonu;, Amritsar, information that some gold woulu be smm'_Ldrcl from Pnli:i~t r'n received ,Q 196( The Stale of Pu'!jafl v. Ba. kat Ram Subba Rao ]. 3 S.C.R. SU:i?R:ffiM:ffi COURT REPORTS :~53 to India by tho engine crow of the train coming to Amritsar from Lahore that evening. On onquit·y by the Customs officials, the engine crew stated that I 00 to las of gold was kept hidden underneath tho coc:tl in the tender of the engine. After recover ing tho said gold, Barkat Ram, the respondent, who was the driver of the engine, was arrested and taken to the Customs office for interrogation. On interrogation, it was disclosed that the gold ':l_lwo days was for delivery to one Ghulam Mohd. later Ghulam 1\lohd. was also arrested at Amritsar. During the enquiry, Barkat Ram and Ghulam. Mohd. made statements before the Customs offi · cials on different occasions admitting their guilt. In due course, the Assistant Collector, Land Customs, Amritsar filed a complaint against the said two persons before the Additional District Magistrate Amritsar, con·dc· the said Magistrate ted and sentenced them under s. 23 15-,oreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 (Act No. 7 of 1947) and also under s. 167 (81) of the Sea Cus toms Act, 1878 (Act No. 8 of 1878). On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge) Amritsar) confirmed the said order of conviction and sentence. Against the said order) the accused filed revisions to the High Court of Punjab. Apart from the confes· sions alleged to have been made by the accused, there was no other evidence to prove that they were guilty of the offence with which they were · charged. It was contended before the High Court that the said confessional statements were hit by s. 25 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, they were inadmissible in evid~nce. The High CourtJ accept ing the contention} held that, if the statements were excluded, there was no other evidence to sustain the conviction. On that finding, the High Court set aside the conviction of the accused. The State has preferred the present appeal against the acquittal of Barkat Ram. Learned counsel for the State contended 1!161 1 f.t Stoll oj 1':11,/ah v L'a, fat I Rmr1 354 SUPRE:\IE COtJR11 RtPOR'tS [1062] that Customs ofliciah.; an~ not poli!"(~ officers within the nwaning of s. 2G of tl1c EYidenee Act, and, t hcrefnn·, thL' statPm<'nts madt: by the r<'spon ('ollfcst:;ing 1 heir guilt were admissible in <lcnts CY idn1ce and thl· eou y iet iom.; Lase<l t.IH.·reou were ~ust aiua blc. Hefurc eousi<lcring the dr<..:i~ions eitc<l at thO' Bm·, ld us look at the mntel'i:d pro\"i8ious of the rC>!cnmt Acts. . - 'J'hc indian En"denre Act, /.~·; ::. Sec/ ion :!,j X o. con ft's~ion ma.clo a, politl' (lllitcr !:ihall be Jn·ovetl as agaillst a person avcused of auy offl'nce. Code of Criminall'roc.alw·e, I.ws. Sectiun 5. ( 1) All offcncPR under the lud i~m Pemtl Code (4fl of 18GO) shall be illvestign ted, inquired into, tried anrl othc1·wise dealt with ncc:orcliug to the provisiow:1 herC>inaftcr conta inu.l. (2) All ofrl'nces under auy other Jaw slmll be invcstigatPd, iuquired into, tried and othenvisc rlea.lt with according to the same pro·1isionl'l, but subject to any enact ment for the time being in force rrgulating the matmer of plaee of investigating, inquir iuto, trying or otherwise dea.ling with such offe11ees. Police Act IsGJ . ' Section 1 ............ the word "police'' shall include all persons who sha.ll Le enrolled under this Act. Se(t Customs Act, 1878, Section 6. The Central Govemmcnt mav appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be officers of Customs, a.nd tho dutie::J powers eoJ&•rrcd, and J>crform imposed} by this Act on such officers. to exerciso 1161 The State of l'wlj«b . v. Barkal Ram 3 S.d.It. SVERPME COVR'.r REPOR'rS 355 is whether a customs officer also contemplates into, offences under other is a The question police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evidenc:} Act. The Evidence Act does not define thu term "police officer''. The Sea Customs Act does not designate any officers appointed under as police otlicers. The police Act of 1861 gives an inclusive definition of the word "police" and therefore, it is not exhaustive; and ('it compre hends not only svch things as it signifies accord ing to its natural import, but also enlarges tho meaning of the said word so as to take in otlwr things.'' S~ction 5 (2) of the Code of Criminal Pro investigation of, or cedure enactments inquiry regulating the manner or pJace of in vestigatiou, that is, if an act creates an offence and regulates the manner aud place of investigation or inquiry in regard to the said offence, the procedure pres cribed by the .Code of Criminal Pr9cedure will that Act. If the give place to that provided in said Act entrusts investigation to an officer other than one designated fl.S police officer, he will have to make the investigation and not the police officer. In this situation, the mere use of the ((police officer" in s. 25 of the Evidence Act does not solve tho problem, having regard to permiss1ble rules of interprBtation of the term "police officer" in that section. It may mean any one of the following categories of officers : (i) a police officer ·who is a member of the police force constituted under the Police Act; (ii) though not a mem bor of the police force constituted under the Police Actt an officer who by statutory fiction is deemed to be a police officer in charge of a police station u~der the Code of Criminal Procedure; and (iii) an officer on whom a statute oonfers powers and imposes duties of a police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure, without describing him as a police officer or equa ting him by fiction to such a:q. officer. No":, which lh( S;u/e of 1'11niul• \'. Bllfl.ai R<ml Subba Rao ). 356 StJPHE~IE COURT nEPORTS ffi('il.llill!! b to he attributed to the term "police 1 ' iu s. ~:; of the Edclcw:e Aet ? In the ofliePJ' abs(:nev of :t definition in the Evidencr. A('t it is permi!:isiole to tmvel oeyond the four corners lcgisla t i ,.o inteu· oft h(~ statute to as(:(.!rtain tlw the le"isla· t ion. Wlmt was the meaning which turc iut<·nded to give to the term "police otliccr" ~t the time the said scctiuu wa,-; enacted ? That lSCttion was takrn out of the Ct·irninal Procedure Codr, EvidPnc:e Act of lSI:! as s. ;!.). ~tephen in hil-3 Tntro ductiuu to th" Eddenec Aet states at p. 171 thus: :?i3 of IHGI) and ins~~rt!·d iu l8Gl (Act '· I:"> tlJlOII to them, '' [ nH.y observe, the provi~iOIJS that sections ~:;, ;.?(j and rc ld.t iug ;!.7 wer1~ tmnsferred to the Evidenec Act ·verlmt-i m from the Co do of Crimina! Pro· c:edurc, Ad XXV of JSul. They differ widely fl'om tho law of England, aml wcr<' jnserted in the Act of lSlH in ordE-r tu prevent the praetice of purpose of extracting confe:;sions per:;or1s in their custody." too, Mahmood, torture hy the po]i('c for ,J., So lJalmh'l ( 1 ment. of a. :.!.5 of the Evidence Act at p. ~32:3. in (l~teen Emzm::s8 v. ) gave the following reasons for the enact " ............ t11C legisla turo had in view tho malpracticcR of police officers in extorting confessions from accused personH in order to gain credit hy securing conYictions, and that those malpractices went to the length of poaiti\·e torture; nor do I doubt that the J...egisla.t urc, ill laying down such stringent rules, regarded tho evidence of police officer3 as untrustworthy, and the object of the rules was to put a stop to the extortion of confes sion, by taking ~way from the police officers as the advantage of proving such exported trial of accused confessions ,, pcn!Ons. tluring (I) (1884) I. L. R. 6 All. 509. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 357 (. L c1ear that s. 2n of It is, therefore, to subservc a high Evidence Aet was enacted purpose and that is to prevent the po]ice from obtaining confessions by force, torture or induce ment. The salutary principle underlying section would apply equally to other officers, by whatever designation they ma.y be known, who have tho powdr and duty to detect and investigate into crimes and is for that purpose in a position to extract confessions from the accused. In the Oxford Dictionary, the word up1Iice" is defined thus : v 1961 Th! State of Punjai v. Barkal Ram Subpa R•• J. "The department of government which is conc~rnecl with the maintenance of public order and safety, and the enforc0ment ilf the the extent of its functions ,-arying law; greatly in different countries and at cliff Jrent periorls. The civil force to which is entruqted the duty of maintD.ining public order, enforcing regulations for the prevention and punishment of breaches of the law, and detecting crime; construed as plural, the mom hers of a police force; the constabulary of a locality.') Shortly stated, the main duties of the police are the prevention and detection of crimes. A police officer appointed under the Police Act of 1801 has such powers and duties under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but they arc not confined only to snell police officers. As the State's power and (luties increased manifold, acts which were at one time considered to be innocuous and even praiseworthy have become offences, and the police power of the State gradually began to operate on different subjects. Various Acts dealing with Customs, Excis~, Prohibition, Forest, Taxes etc., came to be passed, and the prevention, detection and investi gation of offences created by those Acts came to be entrusted to officers with nomenclatures appropriate 19~1 Tlu Stn/t af Prmj:r~ v. lJarka! Ram Subba Ra~ ]. , 358 SID)REME -COURT REPORTS [IOG2J to the subject with reference to ,,-]Jich thev function C'rl. It. is not the gru·h under which the}• function that matters, hut. the~ nnturr of thr. powrr thcv f'XfTeiso or the chnract('r of t]w function the\r perform is. <l<"cisi\'('. TlH' (}llf':'ition, thcrcf,;n', ii1 f'~H·h f'll!iC' i~, rl0<'8 the offiecr llll(lcr :1 p<uti<·ulnr Aet <'Xerc·ise the powPrs ancl di~dungc' tiw duties of pr<'nntion .1.nd dctN·.ticn of crim<' ? If lw doc!>. he will he a pol ice offirr.r, Th<.>rc is a conflic-t of jll(licial opini(,n on th13 question raisf'd. The f'a.rlirst d('('ision, which wns follo\n,d hv other latC'r clecisionH, is tl1at of the Call'utta iiigh Court in Thr Qw:tn v. llu1'ribole ('km1d1r Olwsf'e). Thf' <lf'cisirm in that cas<' wns gin'n in lRiu. Tt indicnt('t; in n. way how tlw courts understood the tNm "poli(·e oHl('N" in or ahout the time \rhe11 s. !!:i wa:; ill:i('Itecl in t.hr. Evidenen Act. Tlwr,·, tlw qm·'5tion was wl1etlwr a n~~put.v Commis!->ionrr of Po1ie(' hr•fl,l't' whom a pri~O!H'I' m:vl<· a r-;tat.cnwnt. was a poliee uffi<:<·r witl1in the It "·as meaning nf R. 25 of tlw Evid<'JH'C' Ad. argnNl that tlw tr.rm ''policf' officrr'' eompris.t>d only that class of p<'rsons n·ho are r·'lll<'d umlf'r the Brngal Police Ad tht~ mf"'mbcrP. of t]w policr· fore~. An s \rering thnt f]Uestioll, thr lean; rd Ch irf .} ustice ohst-rnd at p. ~1 ;j thus : u .. . . . . . . . . in ronstming the 2!'ith .sretion of tlw E'·idcnr.p .Aet of J 872, I con:'ii(kl' that the term "police offirrr" 1;hould be rf'a<l not in :my t<:c·hnical H'llS<', hut- nec·orcling to its more In rt}mprrhcnsivc and popular meaning. common padancc and nmong~t th<~ grn<'mlity of JWnp]e, the Commisl1ioner m.d Deputy Cumm i:'l.,iOnC'r of 1'(11 icc :u·<· undel8t oocl to lw ofliecn; of Police, or in otlwr words "polie~ ofliecr~", f]Hite n . ., mueh as the more ordinary ml·mb<.'rs of the forre ............... •· It is true that in th~tt ca:-;o the court was coneerned with the questiou whether the Deputy Commissio:ucr of Police was a police oflicer. But that deeision laid (J) 1 J8i6) I.L.R. J Cal. ~ 07,. 1961 The Stale of PunJab v. Barkat Rfl:n Suilha Rao ]. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 359 down that to be police officer within the mean~g of s. 25 of the Evidence Act one need not be a, member of the police force under the Act of 1861. This decision stood the test of time and indeed it represented tho contemporaneous jndicial opinion of the time. In 1926 a full bench of the Bombay High Conrt in N(moo v. Emperor(!) held that an Abkal'i Officer tmdor tho Bombay Abkari Act, who, in the conduct of investigation of an offence punishable under the Bombay Abkari Act exercised the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, upon an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of a cognizable offence, was a police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Ac~. Marten C .• J., after considering the relevant provisions and the case law on the subject came to the following conclusion, at p. 9-! : ,, . ')I': ((After giving then my best attention to the arguments, which have been addressed to us, in my judgment, we should hold that as the Bombay Legisla.ture has deliberately conferred upon thcs0 Abkari officers F>ubstanti ally all the powers of a Police officer, they have thereby in effect made them Police 'th. o ccrs Wl m f e meanmg o s. _o ... ....... .. Shah, J., stated much to the same effect at p. 97 : "It seems to me a perfectly fair inter pretation of section 25 to say that the Police officer within the meaning of that section is an officer, who exercises tho powers of police conferred upon him by law, whether he is called a Police officer or he is called by any other name and exercises other funrtions also under other provisions of law. He is a Police officer within the meaning of section 25, if in the investigation of offences under pn.rticular Act he exercises the powers of an officN in charge of a police station for the investigation cf a . cognizable offence conferred upon him by that Act." (I) (1927) I. L. R. Sl Born. 78. 3GO SUPREME COURT 'REPORTS [1002] 1961 Tilt Siolt of Pu11jnh v. lJnrkal Ra''l Suhtll Hnt ] . Thi,:; dceiRion, therefore, acccpt~tl the principle tJ1a.t nomenclature gin~n to a particular oflie<•r Wa.\l Hot dccisin' of the queBt.ion whether he was a pt4lice vffiecr, hnt the pcnn~rs collfenwl uprm hirn affonlcd the critt·rion. It is tnte that s. 4 l of t 1H' Bom h:t ,. Ahlmli Act statPd, · "E\'CIY Rnch officer sha II in the condurt fnvrst igat ion cxoreise th0 powers nf such canferrcd hy the Code of Criminal Proeedur(>, 1898, upon an officrr in charw· of a police· ~tntirm for tlu' im·estignti(Jn of a rogniZf\blf' offcr1 ee." .\full fbnch of the Cnlcntta High Ccnnt Rnt eon ferment of pow<'r on an offiet•r by refcrenrc to a not her AC't in only one of the h·gi~ lat i \'e d .~v icri-\ an<l s1wh couft, rmcnt also c·oulcl !,(• made hy SJH·cifit• prm·isi•ms in au ~ht without l'<·ferenr.n to another Act. A mrrn Shun] , .. Hmpr-ror(i) adopted thc~ samP tc1it fur de<"idiJJ!! w1H't.]Jer an oflic·cr was a polic·e offir:er or not. That. dnci~i1.111 related to an excise oflicrr, and tlw Bm~gal Excis<' Act conferr<'cl pmn·rs ou the cx<·i~r offi<'<'l'!i Fiimilar to those confern·rl IJ\' !'. 41 of the Bnmb:n· Ahkari Act on tl1c Abkari O.flic·crs. JTukerji ,J., wh~> dcliven·d the leading judgment, after sr~rutinizing thi' relevant provi::,ions ancl th<' ca~c·~ eonc:lurled his cliscu~sion thus at p. U:?D : "It is the nn.tur<• of the dutic.·s pPrfcr· mancc of whi('h war-; )ik<'ly to gin.· oeeasion for impropet· inflttenees being (•xerei;o;<'d or f~.·Jt., n!ld not any particu)ar awrsion for a parti· (~\liar tlepartnH'Ilt of"pnblic ~en·i<'e that mur-;t. have m()v<'d tlw legislature in enacting the I am, thcrdorl', of opinion that JH'o\·ision. if mattcrrs whi<"h pr<'viouf;]~· did not fall withiu the category of ('rime snhReqtu'Ht)y came to he recugniz.e<l as sur.h and on that om{'e\'~ have been appointed to di~r:hargc or l1a n.~ lwen vestNl with pow('rs of dischargin.f clutieH • ' IS34) I. L. R. Gl Cal. 607. 3S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 361 which a police officer had to discharge in 1872, then whatever may be the name of the depart· ment to which such officers may have been attached, sueh officers must bo regarded as coming within the term apolicc officer", with regard to whom section 25 of tho Evidence Act was intended to be applied." 1961 The Stale of Pwy't v. Barkat Ram Subba Rao J. 'I~his passage neatly summarises the law on t he snbjec:t, and I entirely agree with it. Ghose, J ., in a sep~:uate judgment came to t he same conclusion and he stated at p. 654 thus : "Since 1872, not only have new offences been created by later Acts, but new bodies of officers have been created who are vested with powers of police with regard to these offences." Then the learned Judge posed tho question, "Would that make any difference to tho application of the section to these officers ?" and answered it thus at p. 656: {(The words {(po1ice officer" may be plain, but they are not defined in the E vidence Act. The contention that the term applies only to members of the police force is not borne out by authority. On the other hand, it is quite consistent with the scheme of the Act that a person, who exercises the powers of a police officer, should be hit by the prohibitive provi sion of 8ection 25." Turning to Madras decisions, it would be enough if only one decision of the Madras High Court is noti ced, for the other decisions were made by single Judges and were also considered in the said deci sion. A division bench of the Madras High Court in Public Prosecuto-r v. Paramasivam (1) was considering the status of an excise officer under t he Opium Act. The learne~ Judges held that an excise officer inves· ted with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for investigation of offences under (I) A.I.R. 1953 Mad . 917. ~62 SUPR-E:\IE COCRT RF.PORTS [I9u2J 1961 The Stalt Qj Punja~ v. Bar/ill/ Ram Sutba H~' ]. s. 20A oft he Opium Act was a apo lice officer" eomi1ig within the purview of s. 25 of the E\· idence Act. Bala, kri~hna Ayyar, J., maclc th(• following obsrn·a tiow~ nt p. 91R: If Jw 'Police Officrr' ''Thcr<' is no exhaustin~ cldinition of t]HJ iu any of om rxprcs8iou . ........ In the absenrc of a t:itatntorv statutes. Urfinition, nml, apart from all authority, Oll~e would he temptell to say that a pt)liee officer is a periWll whom any statute or otlH•r proYi c·all::~ su<·h or, ou whom it ronf(·r~ sion of law all or snhstant iall~· nil the powl·rs nll<l impo srs the dutie~ of a policr officf'r. expressly <·allPcl a poliee oflicer llwn• is no diffieult.v whatsocn·r. If he is not so caliPu t.h~n tl;e Jlf'Xt strp is to a8l~ : what do<~s the law require him to do ? "rhat are the duti<>s impo!-;cd on him ? :mel wlw.t arc I he powers ronfrrr~d on him ? If these an~ substantial]\· those of a poliec officer there ll<'f'd be no qw~­ Ims in regarcling him as one. [f his pom.·rs and cluti<'s are confinru to a particular extPnt ofterritory or to a. particular :mbj~·ct matter he will be a polie(~ offieer only in rrsp<•rt of that territor~· or that su hject-mn t ter. 'T'he mat-e ria 1 thing to eonsider would b(' not the nn me given to him, nor the c~olour of tlw uniform he is rNJuircd to wear, but his functions, pmn~rs 1md duties. ;\ polif'<' offi<~t·r cloefl not cease to he such mNdy ht>caw;e he is put into a whit'~ kha(lder uniform iw; tt'ad of on<' in khal>i drill; a mrdi<'ine will lH· just the Rnmc whether it is pae\.:agrcl in a glas~ jar or a plaf'lt ie ('ontaiuer." This passage, in my \'icw, Jay!) clown with c~larity the rca 1 t<'st for cletcrmin ing whet hera part icn ]a r officer is a police oflicer or not. within tlw mcall I am in full ac·<·orrl with the sl\id ing of a statut(•. statement. 1961 Tht State 9J Pur!}ab v. Barkat Ram 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 363 ..,....,.,.. A full bench of the Patna High Court in R('rlha Kishun Marwari v. King Emperor (I) struck a different note. That Court swung to the other extreme and held that "the distinction between a person who Is nothing but a Police Officer and one who is primarily not a Police Officer but merely invested with the powers of a Police Officer is mate rial and cannot be ignored for the purpose of ~ construing section 25 of the Evidence Aet." On t.he basis of the said principle, it came to the conclusion that an Excise Officer was not a "Police Officer'' within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evidence Act. With great respect to the learned Judges, who decided that case, I think that "they looked too narrowly at . the appearance of things and declined to look at the substance behind the appearance". If that inter • ~ pretation be correct, an officer, who is simply desig- ... nated as a police officer, will come under the mis~ chief of s. 25 of the Evidence Act, whereas an officer, who is not described as a police officer but who is entrusted with all the police powers and duties would not be hit by it. This adherence to the Jetter )n derogation of the spirit of a st.atute would I, therefore, "'" _, defeat the object of the statute itself. cannot accept this judgment as correct. • It is not necessary to multiply decisions discu ~ing the general principles. But I would notice a few decisions relating to Customs Officer. Yahya Ali, J., in In re J.tlayalavahrmam (~) expressed the view .. that an Assistant Inspector of Customs was not a -~ · police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evidence Act. In coming to that conclusion, the ]earned Judge distinguished a decision of a division bench of the Madras High Court on the ground tliat the Ordinance on which that decision turned specifi cally mentioned that. in conducting the investigation particular office~s ~'~u.ld have all the P.mvers, duties, privileges and hab1htxes of an officer m charge of a -{ ):>Olice station under the Crimmal Procedure Code. - , ' 1 1\ ( !932) I.L.R. 12 Pat. 46. (2) I.L.R. [194:7] Mad. 78~. 19t)l Till Statt of Punjab v. BJJrJ:ot Ram 364 • SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1902] T do not see how that circumstanee makes a Jiffc- renec in the applic:ation of s. :?;) of tho .Rvidcneo ~ "'~ Act. Tho r .... ct that that Ordinance, by refen~nce to the Code of Criminal Procedure, conferred pow(•rs on the Commercial Tax Officers, but the Sea Customs Act conferred similar powers not by referenc0 to any Code, but. by express enactment. could not make any difference in the application of the principle. I shall tonsitler at a later stage the scope of the powers conferrt'd hy the Sea Customs Act on a Cus- tom~ Officer in· the matter of prE>n~ntion, detretion a.nd inv<'stigation of crimeH. ;,._ .,. ~ • . The Punjab High Court, on tlw other hand, in Gopal Dass v. The State ( 1 ) held tlnt a Custom~ Officer under the Sea Cnstomii Aet ha!l powers ana- logous to police powers relating to pre,·cnt ion or detection of crimes anu, thC'refon·, he was a police offieer within the meaning of H. 2;") of the E,•idenr.e Act. The C<tlcutta High Court iu Fcrnande-=. v _ Stat~(~) helcl that a Customs Officer was a police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the F.vidcnc<~ Act, whereas the J[ysore High Court in /.c~.qa Y ac1tb v. State of Mysore e) took a eontrary view. 'l'hc ronflicting views were mainly based upon the aile- ged circumstance thnt un!lcr the Sea Customs Act, though power~ of prevention and d(~tcction "·ere conferred on a CuRtomH Officet•, 110 powerR of inveH tigation was given to him. I shall consider this a.spect at a. lat"er Htage. • The foregoing consideration of the case law ..... • and the statutory provisions yield:-; tht· following results : The term "police offieer'· i.s not defined in the Evidence Act, m, as a matkr of fact, in an~· oth~·r eontemporancous or ~mhsNlncnt enac:tnwnt. The quest ion, therefore, f.1.lls to be dceidecl on a fair the pl'ovisions of s. 25 of the construction of Evidence Act, having regard to the history of the logiAlation and the meaning attributed to thn~} (I} A.t.R. 1959 Punjab 113. l2) A.I.R. 1953 Cal. 219. , ' (3) A.l.R. 1961 Mywre 7. 1961 The State of Punj11b v. Barkat Ram Subba Ra, J. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS 365 ., - _. -"' '\. term in and about the time when s. 25 of the therein. If Evidence Act came to be inserted a literal meaning is given to the term <(police officer" indicating thereb.y an officer designated as police officer, it will lead to anomalous results. An officer designated as a police officer, even though he docs not discharge the well understood police func tions, will be hit by s. 25 of the Evidence Act, .---'- whereas an officer not so designated but who has all the powers of a police officer would not be hit by that section; with the result, the object of the section would be defeated. The intermediate posi tion, namely, that an officer can be a police officer only if powers and duties pertaining to an officer . in. charge of a police station within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure are entrusted to • him, would also lead to an equally anomalous posi- tion, for, it would exclude from its operation a case of an officer on whom specific powers and functions are conferred under specific statutes with out reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure. does not The Uode of Criminal Procedure thereof define a "police officer" and is 5(2) .. " "' - ,. _t - ..,.. _.. makes the procedure prescribed by the Code sub ject to the procedure that may be prescribed by any specific Act. This construction would make the provisions of s. 25 of the Evidence Act otiose in respect of officers on whom specific and incontro vertiblr. police powers are conferred. But the third positicn would not only carry out the inten- tion of the Legislature, but would also make the section purposive and useful without doing any violence to the language of the section. A police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evidence Act may be defined thus: An officer, by whatever designation he is called, on whom a statute substan tially confers the powers and imposes the duties of the police is a police officer within the meaning of - ~ • s. 25 of the EvideiJ.ce Act. With the provisions background the Sea us scruti- Custom~t 1961 1 ht Stale of P1ul)d v. Bar~:GI Ram Subba Ra~ J. 366 SUPRE~IE COURT REPORTS [19fi2J .,. __ iu the t<tl.mlar fir~:~t column of :;. Act to asoortain wlwt.her :;uoh power~ )un·e been ~ ---- .... conferred and duties impo:;ed ou a Custom:; uHiC('r. Section lUi of the Sea Cuijt(Jms Ad opcn!i out with the following "·onls: ''Th0 offenees mentioned in the firRt column of the followiug schedule shall be punishable to the cxterat mcnt.ioned iu the third column of tlw Ha.nw with reforcuce tu ouc·h offences respectively:" Cha}Jter XVI of tlw Act !leal~ with offenees an!l penalties. ~cction ltii providPs penal· form. Tho first tics for offt~IH:es ill a column give!:'! the ])<Lrieulars of offt'necs, the 6oeond column gives the :;ee:t.ion to which tho ofTcnec ha.s referenee an!l the third column gives the pcnaltios in respect of ca<'h offence. Apart from the facts that the sta.tute itself, in clear terms, desc:l'ibo~ the lUi us aet::; detailed oifoncef5 ag<~in:-;t particuhu· la \\·s, the actH described therein clearly fa.Jl within the definition of "off· enccs': iu th~· Gmwt·<.d Clauses Act and the Indian Peual Curle, Therefore, any contra.wntioH of any of tlw pro\'i;.;ious of the Act mentioned in l-i. lUi of the Sea Custom~ Aet is an offeJH:<'. Cha.pter XV II prescribes the procedure to offences, appeals, ete. SPction Hm conf(·r~ oll an officer of • ~ Customs, duly employeu u1 the prevention of stnuggliug, the power to seareh oH rea~otmh1e i:iUf-ipieion any j)(.'I'Mlll on Lourd of any vcstsc l in nuy port in India or within the Imlian customs watern ot· any ~~er~on who ha::; landed from any \'CS!Scl. Scetiou l iOA <.·nabl<-,.; the said Customs offier~r, for dete<:ting secreted goods to have tho borly of a pon; on suspected of smuggling X·ruyed a.ftt·r obtain- ing the order of a. ::\fa.gistrate. Section 1 i I t•m- powers such officer to hoard a vessel for sear(:hing it an order to aRcertain whethf."r anv Lrcnch of the Act or any other law relating to ('U;t.oms ha~ been or is being or is lihly to be l:ommitt<·d. Section l71A, which was inf'OI'trrl by Art 21 of 1955, gives power to the said ofliccr to fo; Ummon prrsow~ to give· . .l. evidence and produce documents, }Jresumahly to facilitate investigation of the offence. Under s. 173 relatillg .., ._ ·. - 1961 The State of PU!ljab v. Barkat Rnm Suhba Rao J, ; a s.c.n.. SUPREME COURT R:mPORTS 361 an officer of Customs may arrest a person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has been guilty of <tn offence under the Sea Customs Act. Under s. 178, anything liable to confiscation under tho Act may be seized in any place by a Customs officer. The said sections, therefore, create offences, and, for the purpose of prevention and detection of such offences, confer specific powers on the Customs officers to search persons or places, to arrest persons suspected of suctl offences and to make necessary investigation in respect thereof. The Customs officers under the Act have the p0wers, and they also discharge the functions, of police officers and, therefore, they are police officers for the purpose of the Evidence Act in so far as they exercise or discharge such powers and func tions. I, therefore, hold that a Customs officer is a police officer qua his police functions. If so, it follows that a confession made to him cannot be proved against a person accused of an offence. In the present case, it is not disputed that if the confession made by the respondent to the Customs officers was excluded, there would be no other evidence on which the conviction could be sustained. Therefore, the order of the High Court is correct. In the result, tha appeal fails and is dis missed. BY CouRT : In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.