RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant made a confessional statement to Manaklal (P. W. 2), Inspector. Railway Protection Force. In the course of the statement of Manaklal, the applicant objected that the confession was inadmissible and cannot be proved as it was hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. This objection was overruled by the trial Court against which the applicant preferred a revision which was dismissed by the fourth Additional Sessions Judge. Jabalpur. Thereafter, the present revision was filed by the applicant,

(2.) THIS revision first, came up for hearing before Naik, J. Before him. an order of Bhave, J. in Criminal Revision No. 72 of 1968, (Badri Vishal v. State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 8-10-1969 (reported in 1972 Jab LJ 905) was cited to support the proposition that an officer of the Railway Protection Force is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Naik. J. was, however, not willing to accept that view and, therefore, he has referred the case to a larger Bench.

(3.) THE sole question in this revision is whether an officer of the Railway Protection Force can be said to be a police officer within the meaning of that expression as it is used in Section 25 of the Evidence Act.