Whether confession of accused recorded by officer of Railway Protection force is admissible in evidence?

Whether an Officer of the Railway Protection Force, making an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Act), in respect of an offence under Section 3 of that Act of unlawful possession of the railway property, is a Police Officer for the purposes of Section 25, Evidence Act and Section 162 of the CrPC. 1898; and as such any confession or incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under Section 9 of the Act is inadmissible in evidence.

57. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that an officer of the RPF conducting an enquiry under Section 8(1) of the 1966 Act has not been invested with all the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station making an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code. Particularly, he has no power to initiate prosecution by filing a charge-sheet before the Magistrate concerned under Section 173 of the Code, which has been held to be the clinching attribute of an investigating 'police officer'. Thus, judged by the test laid down in Badku Jyoti Savant's, which has been consistently adopted in the subsequent decisions noticed above, Inspector Kakade of the RPF could not be deemed to be a 'police officer' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 208-209 of 1974 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 630 of 1977

Decided On: 31.07.1980

 Balkishan A. Devidayal  Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

O. Chinnappa Reddy and R.S. Sarkaria, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0112/1980,AIR 1981 SC 379

Print Page

Bombay HC: Confession of accused recorded by custom officers is legal and valid

Customs Officers are not police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act. The confessions recorded by these officers, therefore, in our judgment, are not hit by the provisions, of section 25 of the Evidence Act.

There is no provision in the Customs Act to maintain any diary, nor are the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to investigation made applicable to inquiries under the Customs Act. In these circumstances it is not possible to say that the Customs Officers in not maintaining a diary have failed to follow the procedure prescribed by law. The principal object of the Customs Act is not detection of a crime. The Customs Officers are not primarily concerned with the detection and punishment of a crime; but the Customs Officers are mainly interested in the detection and prevention of smuggling of contraband articles and safeguarding recovery of customs dues. They are more concerned with the smuggled goods than the offenders who smuggle goods

Absence of provision in the Customs Act, requiring them to maintain a diary would not by itself be a good ground for rejecting their evidence without there being sufficient reason to discard it and none has been pointed out to us. Govind appears to be a literate person. He has signed each page of his statement and at the end of his signature he has put the date on each page, and the date is 15th August 1961. There is also other evidence on record which clearly indicates that Govind's statement must have been recorded on 15th

Bombay High Court

Laxman Padma Bhagal And Ors. vs The State on 22 December, 1964

Equivalent citations: AIR 1965 Bom 195, (1965) 67 BOMLR 317, 1965 CriLJ 616

Bench: Tambe, Palekar

Tambe, J.

Print Page