EMPEROR Vs. NANOO SHEIKH AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for this Full Bench is :- Is an Abkari-officer, who, in the conduct of investigation of an offence punishable under the Bombay Abkari Act, exercises the powers conferred by the Criminal P. C. 1893 upon an officer in charge of a Police-Btation for the investigation of a cognizable offence, a Police-officer Within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act ?

(2.) The ease itself has a somewhat sordid, if not petty, origin. The accused are alleged to have fallen into a trap laid for them by an Excise-officer, and to have sold to him two bottles of beer under the mistaken belief that he was visiting the brothel, in which the accused are apparently interested. The Magistrate has fined the accused Rs. 10 and Rs. 20 respectively, and they have applied in revision to the High Court.

(3.) In convicting the accused, the Magistrate has relied upon a certain confession, alleged to have been made by them to the Excise-officer. It is contended that this confession was inadmissible in evidence having regard to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, the Division Bench have submitted this question to the Full Bench for decision.