Confusion Over Confessions: Admissibility of Confessions Under the Customs Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act

Abstract

This article delves into the admissibility of confessions in the context of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) within the framework of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The discussion begins by establishing the significance of analysing confessions in economic offences. Such offences cause substantial societal harm. The article also highlights the legislative and judicial justifications for lowering the threshold of admissibility for confessions under the Customs Act and PMLA, which are departures from the IEA. The IEA is also outlined, since Sections 24 to 29 govern the admissibility of confessions. The analysis then shifts to the admissibility of confessions under the Customs Act. It emphasises how post-Independence interpretations narrow the definition of “police officers” under Section 25 IEA, making Customs Officers distinct and allowing for the admissibility of
confessions made before them. However, Section 24 IEA still applies to prevent confessions obtained through inducement, threat, or promise. The article examines confessions under PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), highlighting the unique role of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). It discusses the broad powers granted to the ED under Section 50 PMLA and how they differ from typical police officers. Confessions obtained by the ED are considered admissible because the accused is not treated as such under Sections 24 to 25 IEA. The article also briefly touches upon the constitutionality of PMLA confessions in relation to Article 20(3) of the Constitution, asserting that these confessions must still be subject to cross-examination. Thus, the article raises concerns about the exceptional treatment of economic offenses and argues against derogating from fundamental principles of justice and evidence
in the name of combating economic crimes. It calls for a balanced approach that respects the rights of the accused while addressing the seriousness of economic offenses.