Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras

only on October 18, 1968 i.e. Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal(') and Dady Adarji Fatakia v. K. K. Ganguly, Asstt. Collector of Customs & Anr.,( 2 ) the view expressed in Barkat Ram's(') case with reference to the old Act has been reaffirmed on the question under consideration and it has been held that under the new Act also the position remains the san1e. This is what has been said in Dady Adarji Fatakia's(2 ) case : "For reasons set out in the judgment in Cr. A. 27/67 (Ramesh Chand Mehta v. State of West Bengal) and the judgment of this Court in Badku Joti Savant's( 4 ) case, we are of the view that a Customs Officer is under the Act of 1962 not a police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evidence Act and the statements made before him by a person who is arrested or against whom an inquiry is made are not covered by s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act." . This appeal fails and it is dismissed. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed. (!) [196q] 2 S.C.R. 461. (2) Cr. Appeal No. 46of1968 decided on 18-10-1968. (3) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 338. (4) [1966J 1 S.C.R. 6QR