'Customs Officers' Are Not 'Police Officers', Must Satisfy Higher Threshold Of 'Reasons To Believe' Before Arrest : Supreme Court

Dealing with a challenge to penal provisions of the Customs Act, the Supreme Court today observed that 'customs officers' are not 'police officers' and that they must satisfy a higher threshold of "reasons to believe" before arresting an accused.

A bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices MM Sundresh, Bela M Trivedi made the observation while delivering verdict in a batch of 279 petitions challenging the penal provisions in the Customs Act, CGST/SGST Act, etc. as non-compatible with the CrPC and the Constitution. 

Insofar as the petitioners contended that 'customs officers' are 'police officers', the Court found the submission to be "unfounded and flawed". It referred to the decisions in State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal (by Constitution Bench), Illias v. Collector of Customs (by Constitution Bench), where it was held that customs officers are not police officers. The Court further noted that recently, in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the majority judgment also affirmed the distinction between the two categories of officers. 

At the same time, the Court however said that while customs officers do not undertake investigation like a police officer under Chapter XII of CrPC, "they enjoy analogous powers such as the power to investigate, arrest, seize, interrogate, etc under the Customs Act". Thus, customs officers must provide grounds of arrest and maintain records of their statutory functions including details like the name of the informant, name of the person who has violated the law, nature of information received by the officers, time of arrest, seizure details, and statements recorded during the course of detection of the offence(s).

The Court further opined that Sections 41B, 41D and 50A(2) & (3) of CrPC also apply to customs officers. In terms thereof,

- Officers making an arrest under the Customs Act must bear an accurate, legible, and clear indication of their names to facilitate ease of identification by the arrestee;

- A person arrested by a customs officer shall have the right to meet an advocate of his choice during investigation, but not throughout investigation;

- An arrested person must be informed of his right to have his family, relatives, etc. informed about his arrest and the place where he is being held (compliance with this mandate shall be recorded by the officer in the diary maintained by him and ensured by the Magistrate when accused is presented).

Distinguishing the thresholds for arrest under the two statutes (CrPC and Customs Act), the Court also noted that the threshold is higher in the case of Customs Act. While Section 41 CrPC allows a police officer to arrest a person without a warrant, if a “reasonable complaint has been made”, or “credible information has been received”, or “a reasonable suspicion exists” that the person has committed a cognizable offence, Section 104(1) Customs Act stipulates that a customs officers may only arrest a person if they have “reasons to believe” that a person has committed an offence.

"A person is said to have a “reason to believe” a thing, if they have sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. This represents a more stringent standard than the “mere suspicion” threshold provided under Section 41", the Court said.

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment