Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 109 (2.70 seconds)
Documents citing Badku Joti Savant vs State Of Mysore on 1 March, 1966

Tofan Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2020

In the course of his submissions, he referred to a number of judgments of this Court, and most particularly, the judgments of State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram (1962) 3 SCR 338; Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR 752; Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore (1966) 3 SCR 698; Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal (1969) 2 SCR 461; Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras (1969) 2 SCR 613; and Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 600. He also provided a useful chart of the difference in the provisions contained in the NDPS Act and the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, the Sea Customs Act, 1878, the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Customs Act, 1962.
Supreme Court of India Cites 360 - Cited by 1439 - R F Nariman - Full Document

The Deputy Director, Enforcement ... vs P. Mansoor Mohamed Ali Jinnah And Ors. on 11 November, 1988

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Pukhraj v. K. K. Ganguly relying upon the abovesaid three decisions, viz., State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram , Badaku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore and Collector of Customs v. Kotumal (FB), his pointed out that the Customs Officers are not equated with Police officers acting under the Criminal Procedure Code, and hence, statements recorded by them under S. 108 of the Customs Act cannot be hit by S. 25 of the Evidence Act. One of the objects of the FERA, as laid down in its preamble, is to regulate and control dealings in foreign exchange. A reading of the preamble to the Customs Act would show that the whole purpose of the said Act is to safeguard the revenues of the country and its economy.
Madras High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 8 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Kishin S.Loungani vs Union Of India on 17 June, 2015

In Badaku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore (AIR 1966 SC 1746), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that a Central Excise Officer under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 has no power to submit a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held that a police officer for the purposes of clause (b) of Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. can only be a police officer properly so-called.
Kerala High Court Cites 111 - Cited by 4 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Illias vs Collector Of Customs, Madras on 31 October, 1968

Emphasis was laid on the police officers having such powers which enable them to exercise a kind of authority over the persons arrested which facilitate the obtaining from them statements which may be of incriminating nature. The case of Raja Ram jaiswal(1) came up for discussion in the third of series of these cases, namely, Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore(2). The appellant there had been found in possession of contraband gold. He was prosecuted under s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act read with s. 9 of the Land Customs Act. A question arose whether the statement made by the appellant to the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Excise was admissible in evidence. The contention raised was that the Central Excise Officer under the Central Excises & Salt Act (Act 1 of 1944), hereinafter called the "Central Excise Act", was a police officer within the meaning of those words in s. 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore even though the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise had acted under the power conferred on him by the Sea Customs Act, he was still a police officer and the statement made to him which was in the nature of a confession was inadmissible in evidence. This Court referred to the difference of opinion among the High Courts as to the meaning of the words "police officer" used in s. 25 of the Evidence Act. One view was that those words must be construed in a broad way and all officers would be police (1) [1964] 2 S.C.R. 752.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 66 - A N Grover - Full Document

In Jail vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 June, 2009

19. It will be useful to refer to the reasoning recorded by the Supreme Court in the case of Badku Joti Savant (supra) even at the cost of repetition. In paragraph 9 while discussing Section 21 of the Central Excise Act which states that a Central Excise Officer under the Act has all the powers of an officer incharge of a Police Station under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court rejected the contention that therefore he should be deemed to be a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Reference was made to the provisions of Section 78(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1955 and Section 77 of that Act which stated that Excise Officer empowered under the provisions shall be deemed to be the officer incharge of a Police Station and shall have the power of such officer to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:38:23 ::: 41 investigate a cognizable case. But even there the Supreme Court held that this power does not include the power to submit a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code under the Excise Act unlike the Bihar and Orissa Act and thus held that Central Excise Officer is not an officer deemed to be incharge of a Police Station. In other words, the Supreme Court declined to accept the applicability of the deemed fiction of law to the extent of terming the Central Excise Officer as a Police Officer for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Assistant Collector Of Central Excise ... vs V. Krishnamurthy And Ors. on 30 April, 1983

In Badaku Joti's case the Supreme Court, in view of section 21(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act which enacts that the Central Excise Officer for the purpose of proceeding to inquire into a charge against any person, may exercise the same powers and shall be subject to the same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise and is subject to, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when investigating a cognizable case, found that section 21(2) confers on the Central Excise Officer the same powers as an officer-in-charge of a police station has when investigating a cognizable case, but that this power is conferred for the purpose of sub-section (1), which gives power to the Central Excise Officer, to whom any arrested person is forwarded to inquire into the charge against him. It further held that "it does not, however, appear that the Central Excise Officer under the Act has power to submit a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, we are of the opinion that mere conferment of powers of Investigation into criminal offences under section 9 of the Act does not make the Central Excise Officer a police officer even in the broader view mentioned above. Otherwise, any person entrusted with investigation under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code would become a police officer."
Madras High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 5 - S R Pandian - Full Document

K.M. Mohammed Ghouse And Co. vs The Collector Of Central Excise And Anr. on 20 December, 1967

In Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 1966, the Supreme Court has observed that the contention that was put forth before the high Court that a confessional statement to the Customs Authorities was hit at by Section 25 of the Evidence Act was not pressed before it in view of the decision in Badaku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore , which was a case under the Sea Customs Act. In view of the decisions of the Full Bench of this Court and the Supreme Court referred to above, this point will have to be rejected.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

In Re: Jagason Das vs Unknown on 31 March, 1992

In Badaku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore, (supra) the question was whether the central excise officer under the Central Excises and Salt Act was a police officer within the meaning of that expression in Section 25, Evidence Act. Their Lordships held that a Central Excise Officer was not a police officer as he had no power to submit a charge-sheet under Section 173, Cri. P.C., though he was empowered to arrest a person and to enquire the charge against him and for that purpose to exercise the same powers as the officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise. A customs officer cannot be regarded as a police officer within the meaning of that expression in Section 523 (old), Cr. PC., as he has no power under the Customs Act to submit a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code, though he is invested with the powers of a police officer regarding arrest and search.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next