IN RE: K. VENKATA REDDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which arises in this revision petition is whether a confessional statement recorded by a Prohibition Sub -Inspector is not admissible in evidence because it is a confession made to a police officer. The decision turns upon whether a Prohibition Sub -Inspector can be deemed to be a " Police officer " within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Stationary Sub -Magistrate, Pulivendla, has held that he is not and therefore the statement of the accused recorded by him is admissible.

(2.) MR . Jagannadha Das for the petitioner took me through all the relevant provisions of the Madras Prohibition Act. In particular he stressed upon the following provisions. Section 15 declares that all offences under the Act shall be cognizable and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, with respect to cognizable offences shall apply to them. Section 38 provides how a person arrested under the provisions of Sections 28, 29, 32, or 33 has to be dealt with. Sub -section (3) of that section says that on the arrested person being brought in custody before a Prohibition or Police (Officer, such officer shall hold such enquiry as he may think necessary. He relied particularly on these two provisions and G. O. No. 475 Mis, 2056 Revenue dated 21st September, 1946, which declared every prohibition. station house to be a police station. This G.O. is apparently issued in accordance with the definition in Section 3, Sub -section (13) which says that "police station " includes any place which the Provincial Government may, by notification, declare to be a police station for the purposes of this Act.

(3.) THE Madras High Court has, in a series of cases, taken the view that an Excise officer under the Madras Abkari Act is not a Police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Sundaram Chetty, J., in Mahalakshmayya v. Emperor, (1932) M.W.N. (Crl.) 69 Bardswell, J., in Duraiswami Nadar v. Emperor, (1934) M.W.N. (Crl.) 67 Horwill, J., in Public Prosecutor v. : AIR1938Mad460 , and very recently Yahya Ali, J., in Mayilvahanan, In re : AIR1947Mad308 , have taken this view in spite of the fact that Excise officers are invested with several powers similar to and of the nature of police powers. I find it difficult to distinguish these cases from the present case and I find nothing in the Prohibition Act which warrants my so doing.