Customs Officers are not police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act. The confessions recorded by these officers, therefore, in our judgment, are not hit by the provisions, of section 25 of the Evidence Act.
There is no provision in the Customs Act to maintain any diary, nor are the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to investigation made applicable to inquiries under the Customs Act. In these circumstances it is not possible to say that the Customs Officers in not maintaining a diary have failed to follow the procedure prescribed by law. The principal object of the Customs Act is not detection of a crime. The Customs Officers are not primarily concerned with the detection and punishment of a crime; but the Customs Officers are mainly interested in the detection and prevention of smuggling of contraband articles and safeguarding recovery of customs dues. They are more concerned with the smuggled goods than the offenders who smuggle goods
Absence of provision in the Customs Act, requiring them to maintain a diary would not by itself be a good ground for rejecting their evidence without there being sufficient reason to discard it and none has been pointed out to us. Govind appears to be a literate person. He has signed each page of his statement and at the end of his signature he has put the date on each page, and the date is 15th August 1961. There is also other evidence on record which clearly indicates that Govind's statement must have been recorded on 15th
Bombay High Court
Laxman Padma Bhagal And Ors. vs The State on 22 December, 1964
Equivalent citations: AIR 1965 Bom 195, (1965) 67 BOMLR 317, 1965 CriLJ 616
Bench: Tambe, Palekar
Tambe, J.
