LAWS(MAD)-1953-3-35

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. C PARAMASIVAM

Decided On March 02, 1953
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Appellant
V/S
C Paramasivam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 1.1.1952 a consignment of illicit opium was despatched by train from New Delhi to Madras and from Madras on to Chidambaram. Acting on some information that he had received, Mr. Khadir Hussain, an Assistant Inspector of Excise who was also a Deputy Prohibition Officer, shadowed the article to Chidambaram. On 5.1.1952 one Paramasivam went to the railway parcel office at Chidambaram, tendered the way bill to the General Parcel Clerk and after signing in the delivery book took delivery of the parcel. At that stage Mr. Khadir Hussain detained him and questioned him. He also seized the parcel which, on examination, was found to contain 33 seers of opium.

(2.) ON these allegations Paramasivam and three others were prosecuted before the Sub -Magistrate, Chidambaram. At the trial Mr. Khadir Hussain gave evidence for the prosecution. When he was in the box the Assistant Public Prosecutor asked him what Paramasivam had told him when questioned by the witness after his arrest. To that question the defence counsel took exception on the ground that Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code prohibited such statements from being given in evidence for the prosecution. The learned Magistrate upheld the objection. On that, the prosecution came upon in revision to this Court. Somasundaram, J., who first heard the matter considered that an authoritative decision was necessary on the point that had been raised and so referred the following question to a Bench :

(3.) IT will be noticed that under the Act, as it stood before it was amended, though the officers of the Excise, Customs and other departments were given powers to enter, search, seize and arrest, they had no power to investigate. In 1951 the Madras Legislature amended the Central Opium Act in certain respects. Officers of the Prohibition Department were included in the categories of others referred to in Section 14 who could enter, search, seize and arrest on reasonable suspicion of a contravention of the provisions of the Act. A new section, Section 20A was added which runs as follows :