STATE OF U P Vs. MOHAMMAD RAUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri S. P. Singh, learned A. G. A.

(2.) THE only question raised in this revision is that R. P. F. personnel who seized the vehicle in question are not police of ficers, hence provisions of Section 457, Cr. P. C. are not attracted and the Magistrate is not authorised to release the vehicle during pendjency of the enquiry by the investigating agency. THEre is no substance in this conten tion. In view of the provisions contained in' sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 officer of the Railway Protection Force ex ercises the same powers and is subject to the same provisions as the officer incharge of a police station may exercise and is subject to under the. Code of Criminal Procedure, when investigating a cognizable case thus while enquiring into an offence and seizing certain property the officer of the Railway protection force is deemed to be exercising the powers of the officer in-charge of the Police Station. Far purposes of Section 457, Cr. P. C. he is deemed to be police officer.