9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (1) TMI 1004 - SC - Central Excise
Issues:
Conviction based on confessional statements made to Excise Officer under Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915. Admissibility of confessional statements made to Excise Officer as evidence. Comparison between powers of Excise Officers under different Acts and their classification as Police Officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The judgment deals with an appeal against conviction under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based on confessional statements made by the appellant to the Superintendent of Excise and the co-accused. The High Court justified the conviction despite the inadmissibility of the appellant's statement under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, citing prior information and corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of such statements, referencing the case law of Raja Ram v. State of Bihar 1964CriLJ705, which concluded that statements to an Excise Officer are inadmissible as evidence. The Court reiterated this principle in subsequent cases like Badaku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore 1966CriLJ1353, distinguishing between Excise Officers under different Acts and their classification as Police Officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The judgment clarified that statements made to Excise Officers are not admissible in evidence, as they do not fall under the definition of Police Officers. The Court also referenced the case of Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India 1991CriLJ97, supporting the inadmissibility of statements made to Excise Officers. The judgment emphasized that confessional statements made under threat and pressure would be covered under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Ultimately, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, highlighting that without admissible confessional statements, a conviction under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be set at liberty with a refund of the fine paid.
|
