STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. PREMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench for consideration :- "Whether the extra-judicial confession made by an accused to the Kotwar is admissible in evidence?" The Division Bench found that there is some controversy in the decisions of this Court regarding the admissibility of a statement made by an accused person to the Kotwar having authority to arrest an accused person and the controversy should be set at rest as the only evidence available in the case is the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the Kotwar in the presence of others.

(2.) Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. The word 'Police Officer' has not been defined in the Act. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram AIR 1962 SC 276 has held as under :-

(3.) While dealing with powers of Customs Officer under Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Land Customs Act, 1924 (repealed by the Customs Act of 1962) wherein Customs Officer has been given some of the powers similar to those of a Police Officer i.e. of search, seizure and arrest, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram (1962 (1) Cri LJ 217) (supra) held as follows :- "The powers which the police officers enjoy are powers for the effective prevention and detection of crime in order to maintain law and order. The words 'police officer' are not to be construed in a narrow way, but have to be construed in a wide and popular sense. The expression 'police officer' has, however, not such a wide meaning as to include persons on whom certain police powers are conferred. The Customs Officer is not primarily concerned with the detection and punishment of crimes committed by a person, but is mainly interested in the detection and prevention of smuggling of goods and safeguarding the recovery of customs duties. He is more concerned with the goods and customs duty than with the offender. The duties of the Customs Officers are very much different from those of the police officers and their possessing certain powers, which may have similarity with those of police officers, for the purpose of detecting the smuggling of goods and the persons responsible for it, would not make them police officers, Merely because similar powers in regard to detection of infractions of Customs laws have been conferred on Officers of the Customs Department as are conferred on Officers of the Police is not a sufficient ground for holding them to be police officers within the meaning of S.25 of the Evidence Act. The Customs Officers, when they act under the Sea Customs Act to prevent the smuggling of goods by imposing confiscation and penalties, act judicially. A police officer never acts judicially. Hence a Customs Officer either under the Land Customs Act (1924) or under the Sea Customs Act (1878) is not a police officer for the purpose of S.25 of Evidence Act.'' However, the Supreme Court in Raja Ram v. State of Bihar (1964 (1) Cri LJ 705) (supra) while considering the case of an Excise Officer under Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, wherein the Excise Officer has been specifically empowered to investigate any offence under that Act having the same powers as that of police and having jurisdiction over the local area to which he is appointed which will be deemed to be a police station, the Supreme Court held as under :-