Section 25 of the Evidence Act lays down in no uncertain terms that a confession made to a police officer cannot be proved against a person accused of any offence. Thus, a confession made before a police officer is not admissible in courts against the accused person who made such confession.
Though there is one small exception to this general rule, relating to discovery of a material fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, we are not concerned with that here. We are dealing with the main rule that a confession made before a police officer is not admissible under Section 25 of the said Act.
There are many offences declared under various special Acts, such as under the Customs Act, Income Tax Act, etc. Punishment of imprisonment is also applicable in many of such offences. Such offences are investigated by officers of other departments, and powers or arrest, search, investigation, etc., are conferred on them.
Now, the question that arises is whether Section 25 of the Evidence Act is applicable to a confession made before a Customs Officer, for example? So, is a confession made before a Customs Officer inadmissible in a court of law against the accused person?
Well, decades back, this question was answered in the negative by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a confession made before a Customs Officer is admissible in a court of law and it can be relied upon for convicting an accused person.
In the case of State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 SC 276 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 217, the Supreme Court held by a 2:1 majority that the expression “police officer” in Section 25 of the Evidence Act does not have a wide meaning as to include persons on whom certain police powers are conferred. The Customs Officer is not primarily concerned 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 the customs duties. He is more concerned with the goods and customs duty than with the offender, he is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25. It was held by the majority decision that the conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, on the basis of his statements to the Customs Officers, was legal.
However, in his minority decision, Justice K. Subba Rao held that a confession made to a Customs Officer cannot be proved against a person accused of an offence. Of course, the majority decision of 2 judges prevailed over his minority decision.
Subsequently, in Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of W.B., AIR 1970 SC 940 : 1970 Cri LJ 863, a Constitution bench of 5 judges also held that the test for determining whether an officer of customs is to be deemed a police officer is whether he is invested with all the powers of a police officer qua investigation of an offence, including the power to submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held that a Customs Officer exercising power to make an enquiry cannot submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was therefore held that Section 25 of the Evidence Act is not applicable to a confession made before a Customs officer, meaning thereby that such confession is admissible in evidence.
Similarly, in the case of Assistant Collector, Bangalore v. C. Fernandez, (1982) 3 SCC 512, it was held by the Supreme Court that confession made by an accused in custody of Customs officials for the purpose of enquiry pursuant to Magistrate’s order was admissible in evidence and was not barred under law.
Likewise, in the cases of Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore, (1966) 3 SCR 698, and Om Prakash v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1, it has been held that Excise officers are not police officers for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore a confession made before Excise Officers may be admissible in court of law against the accused person who made such confession.
Therefore, the general legal position is that Section 25 of the Evidence Act has been interpreted narrowly and officers of other departments such as Customs and Excise are not considered as “police officers” for the purposes of this section. And, thus, the confession recorded by such officers of Customs and Excise is admissible in evidence in offences under such special Acts.
