Roshan Beevi

7/22/2019 Roshan Beevi

1/28

MANU/TN/0028/1983

Equivalent Citation: 1984(15)ELT289(Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

W.P. Nos. 5016, 5244, 6192, 6193 and 6800 of 1983

Decided On: 09.11.1983

Appellants: Roshan Beevi and Ors.

Vs.

Respondent: Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:K.M. Natarajan,S.A. KaderandS. Ratnavel Pandian,JJ.

Counsels:For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:M.R.M. Abdul Kareem,M.M. Abdul Razack,K.A. Jabbar,M.

Abdul Nazeer,P.M. Jummakhan,P.M. Prem Nazirkhan,Rangavajjula KrishnamurthiandA.A.

Lawrance,Advs.

For Respondents/Defendant: Public Prosecutor

Subject: Criminal

Subject: Law of Evidence

Catch Words

Mentioned IN

Acts/Rules/Orders:

Constitution of India - Article 20(3), Constitution of India - Article 21, Constitution of India -

Article 22, Constitution of India - Article 22(2), Constitution of India - Article 226; Indian PenalCode 1860, (IPC) - Section 99, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 193, Indian Penal Code

1860, (IPC) - Section 225, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 228, Indian Penal Code

1860, (IPC) - Section 241, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 339, Indian Penal Code1860, (IPC) - Section 342; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 2, Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 36(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) -

Section 43, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 45, Code of Criminal Procedure,
http://fncitation%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983');http://fncitation%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983');http://fnopenjudges%28%2712229%27%29/http://fnopenjudges%28%2712229%27%29/http://fnopenjudges%28%2712259%27%29/http://fnopenjudges%28%2712259%27%29/http://fnopenjudges%28%2712259%27%29/http://fnopenjudges%28%2712185%27%29/http://fnopenjudges%28%2712185%27%29/http://fnopenjudges%28%2712185%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27108899%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27108899%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27108899%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27110346%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27110346%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27110346%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111057%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111057%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111057%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111337%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111337%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111337%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111337%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27110016%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27110016%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27110016%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111338%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111338%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111338%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111339%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111339%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111339%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111340%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111340%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111340%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111340%27%29/http://fnopencatch%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983')http://fnopencatch%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983')http://fnmentionedin%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983');http://fnmentionedin%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983');http://suggestcitationaddbtn%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983',%221%22)http://fnsavedoc%28%29/http://fnnewemail%28%29/http://showprint%28%29/http://suggestcitationaddbtn%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983',%221%22)http://fnsavedoc%28%29/http://fnnewemail%28%29/http://showprint%28%29/http://suggestcitationaddbtn%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983',%221%22)http://fnsavedoc%28%29/http://fnnewemail%28%29/http://showprint%28%29/http://suggestcitationaddbtn%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983',%221%22)http://fnsavedoc%28%29/http://fnnewemail%28%29/http://showprint%28%29/http://fnmentionedin%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983');http://fnopencatch%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983')http://fnopencounsel%28%27111340%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111340%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111339%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111338%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27110016%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111337%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111337%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27111057%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27110346%27%29/http://fnopencounsel%28%27108899%27%29/http://fnopenjudges%28%2712185%27%29/http://fnopenjudges%28%2712259%27%29/http://fnopenjudges%28%2712229%27%29/http://fncitation%28%27manu/TN/0028/1983');


2/28

1973 (CrPC) - Section 45(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 46, Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 160(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) -

Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 167(1), Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 439;

Indian Evidence Act - Section 24, Indian Evidence Act - Section 25, Indian Evidence Act -

Section 26, Indian Evidence Act - Section 27

Case Note:

Criminal - detention - Articles 20 (3), 21, 22, 22 (2) and 226 of Constitution of India,

Sections 99, 193, 225, 228, 241, 339 and 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 2, 36 (1),

43, 45, 45 (1), 46, 160 (1), 438 and 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 24 to 27

of Indian Evidence Act and Section 104 (1) of Custom Act - whether detention of any

person by Custom Official beyond 24 hours without producing him before Magistrate

violative of Article 22 - Article 22 (2) requires arrester to produce arrestee beforeMagistrate within period of 24 hours excluding time necessary for journey from place of

arrest to Magistrate - once person arrested either by Customs Officer under Section 104 (1)

or by any other persons authorised Article 22 (2) would come into play and anything

contrary to that would be violative of Article 22 (2) - held, Custom Officers when acting

under Customs Act should see that procedural safeguards which are indispensable essence

of liberty of citizen are not impaired in any manner.

JUDGMENT

Ratnavel Pandian, J.

1. The above five writ petitions under Article226of the Constitution of India, have been filed

challenging the legality and validity of the orders of detention in the respective cases, passed

under Section3(1)of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling

Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act).

2. One of the main grounds raised in all these writ petitions on the strength of an observation

made by a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Balasubrahmanyan, J. and M. N. Moorthy,J. in Kaiser Otmar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1981 MLW 158 : 1981 Cri LJ 208 is that the detenu

should be deemed to have beenarrested

from the moment they were taken into custody by the

Customs officials, even if it be under the guise of any enquiry or interrogation, and that their

subsequent custody with the Customs Department without being produced before the Magistratewithin 24 hours as envisaged in Article22(2)of the Constitution of India, would amount to an

illegal detention and any statement or statements recorded from those persons by the Customs

officials during this prolonged period of custody should be held to have been made by thedetenues not on their own volition or free will and hence such statements cannot be made use of

by the detaining authorities for drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction for passing the
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17163','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17163','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17163','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','56099','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','56099','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','56099','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','56099','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17163','1');


3/28

orders of detention.

3. As two of us constituting a Division Bench viewed that the interpretation of the term 'arrest'and the observation regarding the formal mode of arrest, given by the earlier Division Bench of

this Court in Kaisar Otmar's case 1981 Cri LJ 208 are not in consonance with Section46,

Criminal P.C. and the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Collector of Customs v.Kothumal, MANU/TN/0218/1967: AIR1967Mad263 and the decision of a Division Bench of

the Bombay High Court in Harban Singh v.State, MANU/MH/0011/1970: AIR1970Bom79 and

that such an interpretation and observation need reconsideration by a Full Bench of this Court,we placed the matter before the Honourable the Chief Justice for necessary orders. Accordingly,

this batch of writ petitions have now been referred to this Full Bench.

4. The relevant portion of the judgment in Kaisar Otmar's case 1981 Cri LJ 208 which led to this

reference to this Full Bench, reads thus :-

"Our legal system does not require that an arrest should be attended with any ritual of even that it

should be ostentatious. It is not necessary that a man in order to get arrestedshould be takenprisoner; nor does the law regard as arrest only the ceremonial hand-cuff or manacle. An

authority is said to arrest another man if it prevents the latter from willing his movements andmoving according to his will. Under enlightened modern conditions it seldom becomes necessary

for any police officer or other authority empowered to make arrests to actually seize or even

touch a person's body with a view to his restraint. Utterance of a guttural word or sound, agesture of the index finger or hand, the sway of the head or even the flicker of an eye are enough

to convey the meaningto the person concerned that he has lost his liberty."

5. In Kaiser Otmar's case 1981 Cri LJ 208, according to the detenu, he was taken forinterrogation by the preventive officers of the Customs Department on the evening of 15th

January, 1981 and thence forward was under their custody continuously till 4 p.m. on 18-1-1981when he was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and remanded to judicialcustody, after 70 hours from the time of his being taken into custody i.e., his arrest. It was

submitted on behalf of the respondents therein that the detenu was taken into custody on the 15th

evening for inquiry and interrogation till 18-1-1981, during which he made a confessionalstatement leading to the recovery and seizure of smuggled goods and that he was actually

arrestedonly at 11 a.m. on 18-1-1981 under Section104(1)of the Customs Act, and that as the

detenu was produced before the Magistrate on 18-1-1981 itself within 24 hours of the arrest, thesubmission made on behalf of the petitioner that there was an illegal detention violative of

Article22(2)of the Constitution, was not correct. In other words, according to the respondents,

the detenu could not be said to have been 'arrested' within the meaningof the said term from

the moment when he was taken into custody for interrogation. The Bench rejecting thecontention of the respondents and accepting that of the petitioner, held that the detenu in that

case was arrestedfrom the time when he was taken into custody by the customs officials, i.e.,

on the evening of 15-1-1981 and kept for a prolonged period in violation of Article22(2)of the

Constitution.

6. In order to answer the reference, the following questions are framed for consideration :
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0011/1970','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0011/1970','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0011/1970','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0011/1970','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');


4/28

(1) When is a person said to be under arrest ?

(2) Are the terms 'custody' and 'arrest' synonymous ?

(3) Are the customs officials vested with powers under the Customs Act, 1962 to detain any

person for any period and at any place for the purpose of an inquiry, interrogation orinvestigation ?

(4) Will the detention of a person by the customs officers for the purpose of inquiry,

interrogation or investigation, amount to an 'arrest' of the said person ?

(5) Is detention of a person by the customs officers for the purpose of inquiry or interrogation or

investigation beyond 24 hours without producing him before a Magistrate, violative of Article22

of the Constitution of India ?

7. Mr. Abdul Kareem, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in W. P. Nos. 5016/83

and 5244/83, drew our attention to the various provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and thecorresponding and other allied provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, as well as the variousProvisions relating to arrest coming under Chapter IV, Cr.P.C., and submitted that the moment

the personal liberty of a person and the freedom of his movement are restrained consequent upon

his being brought under the custody of an authority clothed with the power of arrest, he shouldbe deemed to have been arrestedwithin the meaningof Section46,Cr.P.C., and that though the

subject of preventive detention is specifically dealt with in Article22of the Constitution, the

requirement of Article21has nevertheless to be satisfied and that Sections107and108of theCustoms Act vest an uncontrolled and unbridled power in an arbitrary, unreasonable and

unguided manner, on the executive in implementing these provisions at their sweet will, which

vesting is violative of the principles of natural justice and Article21,and so the procedure

attending upon such power of detention should conform to the mandate of Article21in thematter of fairness, justness and reasonableness and that the moment a person is arrestedunder

Section104(1)of the Customs Act, he must, without unnecessary delay, be taken to a Magistrate

and that any prolonged delay in violation of Article22(2)makes such detention illegal and henceany statement recorded from such arrestedperson or persons should be held to have been

tainted with illegality as having been extorted under duress, coercion or undue influence and

such a statement should not form the basis of the subjective satisfaction to be drawn by thedetaining authority.

8. Mr. P. M. Jumma Khan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P. Nos.

6192/83 and 6193/83, would adopt the argument advanced by Mr. Kareem.

9. Mr. Rangavajjula, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. 6880/83, took us very

meticulously through the various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Indian penalCode and the Customs Act and also the various text books written by renowned authors, in

which terms 'arrest' and 'custody' appear, and also referred to various dictionaries with reference

to the meaningof those two terms, and urged that the words 'arrest' and 'custody' aresynonymous and therefore, once a person is taken for inquiry either under S.107or under S.

108,of the Customs Act, such a taking would amount to an arrest and the customs officials are
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');


5/28

not at all justified in keeping and detaining a person as taken into custody for over the statutory

period authorised under law, under the guise of inquiry or interrogation. According to him, the

interpretation of the term 'arrest' and the observation of the term 'arrest' in Kaiser Otmar's case1981 Cri LJ 208 represent the correct position of law and as such there is no warrant for

reconsideration of the principles laid down therein.

10. The learned Advocate-General, appearing at the instance of this Court, posed three points as

arising for discussion and answered the same stating (1) that the mere questioning of a person by

a customs officer either under Section107or under Section108of the Customs Act resulting ina voluntary statement which may ultimately turn out to be incriminatory, is not compulsion,

attracting the application of Section20(3),because that person, while making that statement at

that stage, is not an accused of any offence; (2) that as Sections107and108of the Customs Act

provide ample sanction for inquiry or interrogating or investigation by the officers of theCustoms Department without specifying the place and time for such inquiry etc., such exercise of

the powers is in accordance with the procedure established by law within the meaningof Article

21and as such there is no question of any violation of the provisions of Article21of the

Constitution, and (3) that to attract Article22(2)two essential ingredients, viz., 'arrest' and'detention in custody' should be satisfied and therefore, the mere custody will not amount to

arrest within its legal sense and as contemplated under Section46,Cr.P.C.

11. Mr. P. Rajamanickam, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents 1 and 2,

counters the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, inter alia

contending that the mere taking of a person to a place convenient for all for the purpose ofinquiry, interrogation or investigation, will not amount to 'arrest' though there is restraint of that

person. According to him, when a statute becomes impossible of compliance and the duty

imposed by that statute cannot be discharged, the doctrine of implied terms can be invoked andsome auxiliary or incidental power can be permitted to exist lest the statutory provisions would

become a dead letter and hence in an inquiry under S.107or Section108of the Customs Act,

the authorities concerned can, by the application of the said doctrine, take persons suspected of

having committed any offence to any place at any time for inquiry; interrogation etc., and suchtaking in the circumstances and context, would not amount to 'arrest' of the person concerned.

12. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing on

behalf of the third respondent, viz., the Assistant Director, Revenue, Intelligence, Madras,

impleaded as per order of this Court dt. 9-9-1983 made in W.M.P. Nos. 12822 to 12824 of 1983,

made reference to the scheme of the Customs Act and stated that a customs officer is not a policeofficer and the persons summoned for inquiry either under S.107or under S.108of the Customs

Act is not an accused of an offence and hence at the stage of such an inquiry, when there is no

formal accusation, the mere physical restraint of that person is not an arrest and in such a case

there is no testimonial compulsion. He would further state that as the person summoned forinquiry does not have the character of an accused, the protection given under Articles20(3),21

and22(2)of the Constitution cannot be availed of.

13. In support of their respective submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the various

petitioners and the respondents and the learned Advocate-General took us very meticulously

through a catena of decisions and also drew our attention to various provisions of the Customs
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22570','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22570','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22570','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16917','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16917','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16917','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16917','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16918','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22570','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');


6/28

Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure and other allied enactments and certain renowned text

books.

14. Meaningof the term 'arrest' : The term 'arrest' is not defined either in the procedural Acts or

in the various substantive Acts, though Section46,Cr.P.C., lays down the mode of arrest to be

effected.

15. The word 'arrest' is derived from the French 'Arreter' meaning'to stop or stay' and signifies a

restraint of the person. Lexicographically the meaningof the word 'arrest' is given in variousdictionaries as follows :

a) In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the various meaningsof the word used under

various contexts are given. Those which are relevant for our purpose read thus :

"As verb : 5. gen. to catch, lay hold upon;

6. Esp. to lay hold upon or apprehend by legal authority.

As a noun : 3. The act of laying hold of; seizure. 4. Spec. The apprehending of one's person, in

order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime.

5. Custody, imprisonment."

b) The 'Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Vol. I, at page 121, gives the meaning

thus :

"1. arrest ........... 2. to catch or to take hold of; seize, capture. Specify : to take or keep in custody

by authority of law. 3. a : to catch and hold ...................... 2 - arrest ........... 2.a : the act of seizingor taking hold of; seizure ......; the taking or detaining of a person in custody by authority of law;legal restraint of a person; custody, imprisonment ............."

c) Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, IV Edition, Volume I, at page 184, defines the word as follows :

"'arrest', is when one is taken and restrained from his liberty."

d) In the Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914 Edition, Vol. I, the meaningis given thus :

"Arrest : to deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. The taking, seizing or detaining the

person of another, touching or putting hands upon him in the execution of process, or any actindicating an intention to arrest ............"

e) In the Dictionary of English Law (1959) by Earl Jowitt, Vol. I, the meaningof the word is

given at page 152 as follows :

"The restraining of the liberty of a man's person in order to compel obedience to the order of aCourt of Justice, or to prevent the commission of a crime, or to ensure that a person charged or
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');


7/28

suspected of a crime may be forthcoming to answer it. To arrest a person is to restrain him of his

liberty by some lawful authority.

f) The Wharton's Law Lexicon, 12th Edition (1916) has defined the word 'arrest' in the above

lines.

g) Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition (1979), gives the following definitions :

"Arrest : To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real or assumed

authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal

charge or civil demand. ................ Arrest involves the authority to arrest, the assertion of thatauthority with the intent to effect an arrest, and the restraint of the person to be arrested.............

All that is required for an 'arrest' is some act by officer indicating his intention to detain or take

person into custody and thereby subject that person to the actual control and will of the officer,

as formal declaration of arrest is required.

h) 'A Dictionary of Law' by L. B. Curzon (1979) gives the meaningof the word 'arrest' at page22, as follows :

"To restrain and detain a person by lawful authority .........."

i) Mitra's Legal and Commercial Dictionary, Third Edition (1979), gives the following definition

of the word at page 77 :

"Arrest means the restraining of the liberty of a man's person in order to compel obedience to theorder of a Court of Justice, or to prevent the commission of crime, or to ensure that a person

charged or suspected of a crime may be forthcoming to answer it."

"Arrest consists of the actual seizure or touching of a person's body with a view to his detention.The mere pronouncement of words of arrest is not an arrest, unless the person sought to be

arrestedsubmits to the process and goes with the arresting officer. An arrest may be made either

with or without warrant ............"

) Words and Phrases legally defined,

Second Edition (1969), Volume 1, at p. 114, gives the following definition :

"Arrest consists of the actual seizure or touching of the person's body with a view to his

detention. The mere pronouncement of words of arrest is not an arrest, unless the person soughtto be arrestedsubmits to the process and goes with the arresting officer ......... Arrest ........... is

the apprehending or restraining of one's person, in order to be forthcoming to answer an allegedor suspected crime ............"

k) The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, Vol. 1, at page 540, states as follows aboutarrest :


8/28

"Arrest, placing of a person in custody or under restraint, usually for the purpose of compelling

obedience to the law. If the arrest occurs in the course of criminal procedure, the purpose of the

restraint is to hold the person for answer to a criminal charge or to prevent him from committingan offence. In civil proceedings, the purpose is to hold the person to a demand made against him

........"

l) Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition (1955), Vol. 10, at page 342, states as follows :

"631. Meaningof Arrest : Arrest consists of the actual seizure or touching of a person's bodywith a view to his detention.

The mere pronouncement of words of arrest is not an arrest, unless the person sought to be

arrestedsubmits to the process and goes with the arresting person."

m) Halsbury's Laws of England, IV Edition, Vol. II, in para 99 at page 75, states thus :

"Meaningof arrest : Arrest consists in the seizure or touching of a person's body with a view tohis restraint; words may, however, amount to an arrest if, in the circumstances of the case, theyare calculated to bring and do bring, to a person's notice that he is under compulsion and he

thereafter submits to the compulsion."

(In the footnote, the following example is given for the second view mentioned above : Where a

person is caught red-handed. (R. v. Howarth, (1828) 1 MCC 207). Also Gelberg v. Miller, (1961)1 All ER 291.)

n) The Corpus Juris Secondum, Vol. VI, at page 570, gives the meaningof the word 'arrest'

when used in criminal charges, as follows :

"In criminal procedure, an arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may beheld to answer for or be prevented from committing a criminal offence .......... consists in the

taking into custody of another person under real or assumed authority for the purpose of holding

or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or of preventing the commission of a criminal

offence ........... The terms 'arrest' and 'apprehension' have been by some Courts usedinterchangeably as meaningthe same thing when employed in connection with the taking of a

person into custody. The effect of facts as constituting an arrest is a question of law. Whether the

particular circumstances have been established which constitute an arrest is ordinarily, however,a question of fact."

According to this text book, "to constitute an arrest, there must be an intent to arrest, under a realor pretended authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person, which is so

understood by the person arrested".

o) In "A Hand-Book in Criminal Procedure and the Administration of Justice" by Alien P.

Bristow and John B. Williams, at 834 P.C., it is stated that an arrest is taking a person into

custody in a case and in the manner authorised by law. At 835 P.C., it is stated that an arrest is


9/28

made by an actual restraint of the person or by submission to the custody of an officer.

p) In another text-book "The Criminal Prosecution in England" by Patrick Devlin, at page 68, theauthor has expressed his view as follows :

"The police have no power to detain any one unless they charge him with a specified crime andarrest him accordingly. Arrest and imprisonment are in law the same thing. Any form of physical

restraint is an arrest and imprisonment is only a continuing arrest. If an arrest is unjustified, it is

wrongful in law and is known as false imprisonment ..........."

q) Winn, L.J., in R. v. Palferey; R. v. Sadler (1970) 2 All ER 12, when delivering the judgmentof Court of which Lord Parker, C.J., was a member, said, in explaining the term 'arrest' :

"It is not a question whether or not certain conditions precedent have been satisfied. The question

is merely whether or not he is a person who is under arrest; whether he is under arrest or notdepends on whether he is free to go as he pleases, or has been told that he is in a state of

custody."

r) In Spicer v. Holt (1976) 3 All ER 71, Viscount Dilhorne, following the above view of Winn,L.J., has observed thus :

"'Arrest' is an ordinary English word and its natural meaningis that given to it by Winn, L.J.,

which I have cited. Whether or not a person has been arresteddepends not on the legality of thearrest, but on whether he has been deprived of his liberty to go where he pleases."

16. From the various definitions which we have extracted above, it is clear that the word 'arrest',when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension or restraint or the

deprivation of one's personal liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not,depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether he has been deprived of his personal

liberty to go where he pleases. When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected withcriminal offences, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority

empowered by law, for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or of

preventing the commission of a criminal offence. The essential elements to constitute an arrest inthe above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a

seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the

person arrested. In this connection, a debatable question that arises for our consideration is

whether the mere taking into custody of a person by an authority empowered to arrest wouldamount to 'arrest' of that person and whether the terms 'arrest' and 'custody' are synonymous.

17. (a) The term 'custody' appears in a number of enactments. However, we are not giving anexhaustive list of the provisions of enactments containing the said expression 'custody'. In

Sections439,442(heading alone of the section) and S.451of the Criminal Procedure Code,

Section223of the Indian Penal Code, Sections26and27of the Indian Evidence Act, S.45ofthe Customs Act, 1962 and Sections 19(c) , 25(b) and (c), 29(2) and (3) and 40 of the Tamil

Nadu Children Act, etc., the said term is used. However, it may be noted that the said word is not
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17460','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17460','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17460','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17472','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17472','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17472','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16034','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16034','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16034','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22616','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22616','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22616','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22616','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16034','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17472','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17460','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');


10/28

defined in any of these enactments.

(b) The meaningof the term 'custody' is given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, asfollows :

"1. Safe-keeping, protection, charge, care, guardianship.

2. The keeping of an officer of justice, confinement, imprisonment, durance.

3. Guardianship."

(c) In Webster's Third International Dictionary, Vol. I, at page 559, the word 'custody' is given

the following meanings:

"1.a. The act or duty of guarding and preserving, safe-keeping, b. Judicial or penal safe-keeping,

control of a thing or person with such actual or constructive possession as fulfils the purpose of

the law or duty requiring it; imprisonment or durance of persons or charge of things." ........ Theterm 'custody' implies and signifies various meaningsdependent upon the context in which the

term is used."

(d) The Corpus Juris Secondum, Vol. 25, at page 69 when it is applied to persons, it implies

restraint and may or may not imply physical force sufficient to restrain depending on the

circumstances and with reference to persons charged with crime, it has been defined as meaningon actual confinement or the present means of enforcing it, the detention of the person contrary

to his will. Applied to things, it means to have a charge or safe-keeping, and connotes controland includes as well, although it does not require, the element of physical or manual possession,

implying a temporary physical control merely and responsibility for the protection and

preservation of the thing in custody. So used, the word does not connote dominion or supremacyof authority. The said term has been defined as meaningthe keeping, guarding, care, watch,

inspection, preservation or security of a thing, and carries with it the idea of the thing beingwithin the immediate personal care and control of the prisoner to whose custody it is subjected;

charge; charge to keep, subject to order or direction; immediate charge and control and not the

final absolute control of ownership.

17-A. Therefore, it is clear that we have to take the meaningof the term 'custody' with reference

to the context in which it is used.

18. Mr. Rangavajjula would submit that when a person is said to have been taken into custody by

an authority empowered to arrest, it implies the imposition of actual physical restraint or thedetention of the person concerned, resulting in the loss of his personal liberty and therefore it

amounts to 'arrest'. A contention similar to this was raised in State of Punjab v.Ajaib Singh

MANU/SC/0024/1952: 1953CriLJ180 . In that case, the point for consideration was whether thetaking into custody of an abducted person by a police officer under Section 4 of the Abducted

Persons' (Recovery and Restoration) Act, 1949 (Act 65 of 1949) and the delivery of such person

by him into the custody of the officer in charge of the nearest camp can be regarded as arrest and

detention within the meaningof Article22(1) and (2). It was contended in that case, after
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0024/1952','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0024/1952','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0024/1952','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0024/1952','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0024/1952','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0024/1952','1');


11/28

referring to the various definitions of the word 'arrest' given in several well known law

dictionaries and urged in the light of such definitions, that any physical restraint imposed upon a

person must result in the loss of his personal liberty and must accordingly amount to his arrestand that it is wholly immaterial why or with what purpose such arrest is made and the mere

imposition of physical restraint, irrespective of its reason, is arrest and as such attracts the

application of the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article22(1) and (2). Whilemeeting that argument, the Court observed :

"That the result of placing such wide definition on the term 'arrest' occurring in Article22(1)willrender many enactments unconstitutional, is obvious. To take one example, the arrest of a

defendant before judgment under the provisions of O. 38, R.1,C.P.C. or the arrest of a

udgment-debtor in execution of a decree under S.55of the Code will, on this hypothesis, be

unconstitutional inasmuch as the Code provides for the production of the arrestedperson, notbefore a Magistrate but before the Civil Court which made the order."

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in Harban Singh v.State ( MANU/MH/0011/1970

: AIR1970Bom79 , wherein the interpretation of the terms 'arrest' and 'custody' arose for decisionwhile dealing with Section104(2)of the Customs Act, held as follows :-

"Arrest is a mode of formally taking a person in police custody, but a person may be in the

custody of the police in other ways. What amounts to arrest is laid down by the legislature in

express terms in S.46,Cr.P.C., whereas the words 'in custody' which are to be found in certainsections of the Evidence Act only denote surveillance or restriction on the movement of the

person concerned, which may be complete, as, for instance, in the case of an arrestedperson, or

may be partial. The concept of being in custody cannot therefore be equated with the concept of

a formal arrest and there is difference between the two. Where, after the statements recorded bythe Customs Authorities, due to the night-fall, the accused are put up before a Magistrate only

next morning, it cannot be said that the accused were arrestedand as such any statement madeby them cannot be said to be in violation of Section24of the Evidence Act. ........

In my opinion, however, the mere fact that there may be some restriction on the movements of

the accused or that the accused person may be in some sort of surveillance at the time when hemakes the confession would not ipso facto vitiate the confession as being involuntary."

In support of his proposition, Mr. Rangavajjula would draw the attention of this Court to the

decision of the Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh v.Prabhakar, MANU/SC/0182/1980:

1980CriLJ426 , wherein S.439,Cr.P.C. came up for consideration. In that case, the Supreme

Court posed a question for consideration and answered the same as follows :

"When is a person in custody within the meaningof S.439,Cr.P.C. ? When he is in duress

either because he is held by the investigating agency or other police or allied authority or isunder the control of the Court, having been remanded by judicial order or having offered himself

to the Court's jurisdiction and submitted to its order by physical presence. No lexical dexterity or

precedential profession is needed to come to the realistic conclusion that he who is under thecontrol of the Court or in the physical hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for the

purpose of Section439.This word is of elastic semantics and its core meaningis that the law
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','288400','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','288400','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','288400','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16450','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16450','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16450','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0011/1970','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0011/1970','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0011/1970','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15602','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15602','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15602','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0182/1980','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0182/1980','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0182/1980','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0182/1980','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15602','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22703','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0011/1970','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16450','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','288400','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16920','1');


12/28

has taken control of the person. Equivocatory quibblings and the hide-and-seek niceties

sometimes heard in Court that the police have taken a man into informal custody but not

arrestedhim, have detained him for interrogation but not taken him into formal custody and theother like terminological dubieties (sic) are unfair evasions of the straight-forwardness of the

law. We need not dilate on this shady facet here because we are satisfied that the accused did

physically submit before the Sessions Judge and the jurisdiction to grant bail thus arose. Custodyin the context of S.439(we are not, be it noted, dealing with anticipatory bail under S.438)isphysical control or at least physical presence of the accused in Court with submission to the

urisdiction and order of the Court. He can be in custody not merely when the police arrests him,

produces him before a Magistrate and gets a remand to judicial or other custody. He can bestated to be in judicial custody when he surrenders before the Court and submits to its

directions."

19. In order to fully understand the above view expressed by the Supreme Court, let us have a

cursory glance of Section439,Cr.P.C. (which corresponds to S. 498 of the old Code). The

unfettered discretionary power of the High Court and the Court of Session under Section439of

the Code in granting bail can be exercised only on the satisfaction of two conditions : Firstly, theperson who moves for bail must be a person accused of an offence, bailable or non-bailable, and

secondly he must be in custody. The Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh's caseMANU/SC/0182/1980: 1980CriLJ426 , on being satisfied that the first condition has beenfulfilled, gave the meaningof the term 'in custody' while considering the fulfilled of the second

condition. Be it noted that in the said case their Lordships did not express the view that the mere

taking of a person into custody by an authority empowered to arrest, or the mere presence of theaccused is enough to constitute the arrest of the accused, but only emphasized that the physical

control or at least physical appearance of the accused in Court should be coupled with the

submission to the jurisdiction and orders of the Court. In other words, the person who is accused

of an offence should submit himself to the jurisdiction or orders of the authority empowered toarrest.

20. Coming to the Customs Act, a person who appears before any officer of Customs on beingrequired for an enquiry in connection with the smuggling of any goods, under Section107of the

Customs Act, or a person who attends before any gazetted officer of Customs on summons in

connection with an enquiry relating to the smuggling of any goods, under S.108of the said Act,is not a person accused of an offence at that stage. Therefore, the submission of Mr.

Rangavajjula that since the person so required or summoned under the above said provisions

comes under the custody of the Customs Officials, he must be deemed to have been arrestedinthe light of the interpretation by the Supreme Court of the term 'in custody' occurring in S.439of

the Code in Niranjan's case (1980 Cr LJ 426), cannot be accepted. In fact, their Lordships

themselves have pointed out in that judgment that there is a shady facet in the expression of the

term in 'custody'. Hence, this decision cannot be availed of by the learned counsel in support ofhis contention that the mere taking of a person into custody would amount to arrest.

21. Now, We shall pass on to discuss about the interpretation of the same term 'in custody'occurring in Sections26and27of the Evidence Act. In Laymaung v. Emperor, AIR 1924 Rang

173 : 1924 Cri LJ 381, it was said by the learned Judges in that case that the correct

interpretation of the term 'police custody' would be that 'as soon as an accused or suspected
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0182/1980','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0182/1980','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0182/1980','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17459','1');


13/28

person comes into the hands of a police officer, is, in the absence of any clear and unmistakable

evidence to the contrary, no longer at liberty and is therefore in custody within the meaningof

Sections26and27of the Evidence Act." See also Paramhansa v.State of Orissa,MANU/OR/0057/1964: AIR1964Ori144 . It has been held in Gurdial Singh v. Emperor, AIR

1932 Lah 609 : 1932 Cri LJ 756 and in Re : Edukondalu,MANU/AP/0070/1957that there may

be police custody even without formal arrest. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v.Deoman, MANU/SC/0060/1960: 1960CriLJ1504 , has observed thus :

"Section46,Cr.P.C. does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be takenin custody. Submission to the custody by words of mouth or action by a person is sufficient. A

person directly giving a police officer by word of mouth information which may be used as

evidence against him may be deemed to have submitted himself to the custody of the Police

Officer."

The principle stated in that case is to the effect that when a person not in custody approaches apolice officer investigating an offence and offers to give information leading to the discovery of

a fact having a bearing on the charge which may be made against him, he may appropriately bedeemed to have surrendered himself before the police. See also Soni Vallabhdas Liladhar v.

Assistant Collector of Customs, AIR 1965 SC 481 : 1965 Cri LJ 490. Reiterating and expandingthis view taken in Deoman's case,MANU/SC/0060/1960: 1960CriLJ1504 , the Supreme Court

in Gurbakh Singh v.State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0215/1980: 1980CriLJ1125 , while examining

the scope of anticipatory bail under Section438,Cr.P.C. has observed thus (at page 1137 of

Cri.L.J.) :

"While granting relief under S.438(1),appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section

438(2)so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. One of such conditions can even be that inthe event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under S.27of the Evidence Act,

the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating thediscovery. Besides, if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution toclaim the benefit of S.27of the Evidence Act in regard to discovery of facts made in pursuance

of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principles stated by this

Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v.Deoman Upadhyaya, MANU/SC/0060/1960: 1960CriLJ1504."

See also Legal Remembrancer v.Lalit Mohan Singh, MANU/WB/0308/1921: AIR1922Cal342 ;Santokhi v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Pat 149 : 1933 Cri LJ 349; and also Bharosa Ram Dayal v.

Emperor,MANU/NA/0141/1940: AIR 1941 Nag 86 : 1941Cri LJ 390.

22. At this stage the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ramchandra in re,

MANU/TN/0335/1959was brought to our notice. The facts of the case disclose that while the

accused therein was in judicial custody in pursuance of the judicial remand, he was interviewed

by the Inspector of Police to whom he gave some information. Subsequently, the accused on theorder of the Magistrate, came to police custody. Thereafter, the Inspector discovered a relevant

fact in pursuance of the information given by the accused while he was in jail custody. The

question arose whether that part of the information leading to the discovery of the relevant fact,while the accused was in jail custody could be proved within the scope of S.27.The Division
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/OR/0057/1964','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/OR/0057/1964','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/OR/0057/1964','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/OR/0057/1964','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/AP/0070/1957','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/AP/0070/1957','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/AP/0070/1957','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0060/1960','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0060/1960','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0060/1960','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0060/1960','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0060/1960','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0215/1980','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0215/1980','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0215/1980','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0060/1960','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0060/1960','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0060/1960','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/WB/0308/1921','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/WB/0308/1921','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/WB/0308/1921','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/NA/0141/1940','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/NA/0141/1940','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/NA/0141/1940','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0335/1959','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0335/1959','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0335/1959','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/NA/0141/1940','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/WB/0308/1921','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0060/1960','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','17458','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0215/1980','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0060/1960','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16441','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0060/1960','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/AP/0070/1957','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/OR/0057/1964','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/OR/0057/1964','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');


14/28

Bench, observing that there should not be a rigid interpretation of S. 27,held thus :

"Though, formally, the accused was in judicial custody under an order of remand made by theMagistrate, he was temporarily in the custody of the Police Officer when he was interrogated and

must be held to have been in such custody for the purpose of the applicability of S.27."

A close study of the above decision shows that the Bench had taken the view that though theaccused was in jail, he must be deemed to have been in temporary custody of the police at the

time of the interrogation, which position, in our view cannot be recognized in law. With greatrespect to the learned Judges, we feel that such an extreme view would lead to an anomalous

position in the sense that the accused should be presumed to have been both in judicial custody

and the temporary custody of the police at the time of his interrogation and that the said viewcannot be in strict compliance with Section27of the Evidence Act, which envisages that the

accused should be in custody of the Police Officer at the time of making confession leading to

the discovery of a relevant fact. The decision of the Supreme Court cited in that case, viz.,

Ramkishan v.Bombay State, MANU/SC/0044/1954: 1955CriLJ196 does not support that

extreme proposition, but on the other hand, in para 23, (at p. 116 of AIR SC) : (at p. 208 of CriLJ), it was observed that the statement or part thereof relating to the discovery of a fact can be

proved only when it comes within the four corners of Section27.There are cases of this Courtbearing on this particular question of the nature of the custody generally assuming that unless the

accused be in police custody formally authorised, or in such custody after arrest, Section27

would not apply. See Peria Gurusami Goundar v. Emperor, 1941 Mad WN (Cri) 94 : AIR. 1941

Mad 765 : 1942 Cri LJ 100 and in re Kamakshi Naidu,MANU/TN/0129/1942: AIR 1943 Mad89 : 1943 Cri LJ 304. This may be explained in another way also. The police may arrest a person

and detain him in custody for a maximum period of 24 hours for the purpose of investigation and

if the investigation cannot be completed within the specified period, the police shall produce theaccused before a Magistrate for remand - that is, judicial custody - as contemplated under

Section167(1),Cr.P.C. The Magistrate who takes the accused into judicial custody can pass

orders authorising further police custody under Section167(2).Here, when the police take the

accused back to police custody, such a custody becomes a police custody; but it does not implythe re-arrest of the accused. Hence, the information given to the police leading to the discovery

of a relevant fact is said to have been given to the police while he is in the custody of the Police

Officer. It is pertinent to note that Sections26and27of the Evidence Act speak about theadmissibility or otherwise of a statement of 'a person accused of any offence in the custody of a

police officer'. The word 'arrest' is not used in either of those two sections. Thus, the Legislature

has in its wisdom, designedly, used the expression 'in the custody of a police officer' so that theremay not arise any legal conundrum even in a case where a statement is made by a person accused

of any offence to an authority empowered to arrest him, though not actually arrestedbut has

come only in his custody.

23. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that applying the interpretation of the

expression 'in custody' appearing in Sections26and27of the Evidence Act, it should be held

that a person who is taken by a Customs Officer either for the purpose of enquiry or interrogationor investigation, should be held to have come into the custody and detention of the Customs

Officer and he should be deemed to have been arrestedfrom the moment he was so taken into

custody. We cannot agree with this submission for a number of reasons; Firstly, the specified
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0044/1954','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0044/1954','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0044/1954','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0129/1942','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0129/1942','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0129/1942','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16593','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16593','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16593','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16593','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16593','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16593','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15604','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16593','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16593','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0129/1942','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0044/1954','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15605','1');


15/28

Customs Officer is empowered to require or summon any person for the purpose of an enquiry or

examination in connection with the smuggling of any goods, either under Section107or under

Section108of the Customs Act, as the case may be. Secondly, it is well settled that CustomsOfficers whose powers are for the purpose of checking the smuggling of goods and the due

realization of the Customs Duties and determining the action to be taken in the interest of the

revenue of the country by way of confiscation of goods on which no duty had been paid and byimposing penalties and fines, and who are not primarily concerned with the detection andpunishment of the crimes committed by those persons but only interested in the detection and

prevention of the smuggling of goods and the safeguarding the recovery of customs duties are

not police officers. See State of Punjab v.Barkatram, MANU/SC/0021/1961: [1962]3SCR338 ;Collector of Customs v.Kothumal, MANU/TN/0218/1967: AIR1967Mad263 (FB); Illias v.

Collector of Customs, Madras, MANU/SC/0297/1968: 1970CriLJ998 and Ramesh Chandra

Mehta v.State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0282/1968: 1970CriLJ863 . Thirdly, a Custom

Officer is not a Court, as held in Hira H. Advani v.State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0102/1969: 1971CriLJ5 . Fourthly, when an enquiry is being conducted under Section107,or under

Section108of the Customs Act and a statement is given by a person against whom the enquiry is

being held, it is not a statement made by a person who stands in the character of an accusedperson, as found in Percy Rustomji v.State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0161/1971:

1971CriLJ933 and Ramesh Chandra v.State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0282/1968:

1970CriLJ863 . Fifthly, any statement made by a person before the Customs Officer is not hit by

Section25of the Evidence Act as he is not a police officer. See Badaku Joti Svant v.State ofMysore, MANU/SC/0276/1966: 1966CriLJ1353 . Sixthly, the machinery created under the

Customs Act is not one for the purpose of investigation into crimes and it is only the side effect

resulting from the enforcement of the Customs Act that certain offences are detected andtherefore, investigation of the Customs Crimes under the Act is not an investigation as defined in

the Criminal Procedure Code : Vide, State of Maharashtra v.Lakshmi Chand Varhomal,

MANU/MH/0341/1977;Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Preventive, Madras v.

Krishnamoorthy, MANU/TN/0012/1983.Also see State of Uttar Pradesh v.Durga Prasad,MANU/SC/0216/1974: 1974CriLJ1465 ; Barkat Ram's caseMANU/SC/0021/1961:

[1962]3SCR338 ; Eknath v.State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0087/1977: 1977CriLJ964 and

State of Maharashtra v.Mahipathi, MANU/SC/0147/1977: 1977CriLJ968 , all these latter casesholding that the investigation carried on by the officer of the Railway Protection Force, the

Officer under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Forest Officer under the Indian

Forest Act, is not an investigation as defined under Section2(h),Cr.P.C. It is worthwhile to referat this juncture to the Judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Collector of Customs v.Kotmal,

MANU/TN/0218/1967: AIR1967Mad263 (FB), wherein it has been pointed that neither the

enquiry under Section107nor the enquiry under Section108of the Customs Act can in any way,

in substance or in law, be considered to be the same as an investigation into the criminal offenceby an officer in charge of a police station under Chapter XIV of the old Code, which is the

primary test for the application of Section25of the Evidence Act. Seventhly, the Supreme Court

in Veera Ibrahim v.State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0514/1976: 1976CriLJ860 , agreeing with

the principle laid down in Mehta v.State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0282/1968: 1970CriLJ863, held that when the statement of a person is recorded by the customs officer under Section108,

that person is not a person 'accused of any offence' under the Customs Act and that an accusation

which would stamp him with the character of such a person was levelled only when thecomplaint was filed against him by the Assistant Collector of Customs complaining of the
http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0021/1961','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0021/1961','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0021/1961','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0297/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0297/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0102/1969','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0102/1969','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0102/1969','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0161/1971','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0161/1971','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0161/1971','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15603','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15603','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15603','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0276/1966','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0276/1966','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0276/1966','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0276/1966','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0341/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0341/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0341/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0341/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0012/1983','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0012/1983','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0216/1974','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0216/1974','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0216/1974','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0216/1974','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0021/1961','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0021/1961','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0021/1961','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0087/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0087/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0087/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0147/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0147/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0147/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16392','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16392','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16392','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15603','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15603','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15603','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0514/1976','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0514/1976','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0514/1976','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0514/1976','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15603','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','16392','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0147/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0087/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0021/1961','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0216/1974','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0216/1974','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0012/1983','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0341/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/MH/0341/1977','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0276/1966','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0276/1966','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','15603','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0161/1971','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0102/1969','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0282/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0297/1968','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/TN/0218/1967','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/citation/crosscitations.asp','MANU/SC/0021/1961','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22708','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','22707','1');


16/28

commission of the offences under Section135(a)and under S.135(b)of the Customs Act.

24. Mr. Kareem, relying (1) on the decision in Francis Coralie v.Union Territory of Delhi,MANU/SC/0517/1981: 1981CriLJ306 wherein it has been observed that the right to life

enshrined in Article21cannot be restricted to mere animal existence and it means something

much more than just physical survival, (2) on the observation of the Supreme Court in MalakSingh v.State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0157/1980: 1981CriLJ320 reading, "Surveillance may be

intrusive and it may so seriously encroach on the privacy of a citizen as to infringe his

fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article21of the Constitution and thefreedom of movement in Article19(1)(d).That cannot be permitted", and also (3) on the

principle laid down in Maneka Gandhi v.Union of India, MANU/SC/0133/1978:

[1978]2SCR621 wherein it has been said that the right of free movement is vital element of

personal liberty, submitted that in view of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Courtin the above decisions, any kind of surveillance or restriction on the movement of the person

concerned cannot be permitted and that the Bombay High Court in Harban Singh v.State,

MANU/MH/0011/1970: AIR1970Bom79 has not considered this position of law. In answering

this contention, Mr. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, wouldsubmit that when a customs officer exercising authority either under Section107or under

Section108of the Customs Act is not a police officer and the person interrogated is not a personaccused of an offence and so the protection given under Articles20(3),21and22of theConstitution cannot be availed of. The learned Advocate General urges that a person is required

under Section107and summoned under Section108for the purpose of an enquiry in connection

with the smuggling of any goods and hence such an enquiry or interrogation or investigationreceives sanction from the said statutory provisions, which is a procedure established by law

within the meaningof Article21and so it cannot be said that such an enquiry, investigation or

interrogation will be violative of Article21.In other words, such an enquiry, interrogation or

investigation of a person under the Customs Act is not without a statutory sanction and thereforethe contention of Mr. Kareem that there is a violation of personal liberty by the customs officials

in summoning the person for enquiry or interrogation cannot be accepted. In support of this

contention, the learned Advocate General cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Balakrishna

v.State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0201/1973: 1974CriLJ280 , wherein Krishna Iyer, J., hasmade the following observation :

"This provision is wide in its terms and is clearly designed to facilitate the investigatory process

by examination without restriction on person, place or time. Lest it should be misused the law is

choosy and requires the empowerment of customs officers by a general or special po

Documents

Roshan Beevi