Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 for unlawful possession and transport of non-duty paid Nepali ganja. On 3 August 1957, an Excise Inspector stopped a motor car on Bayley Road, Patna, and recovered five bundles of ganja; four from the luggage boot and one from the front leg space. The car belonged to the appellant's brother, who was not present, but the appellant was seated beside the driver. The Excise Inspector recorded statements from all occupants, including a confessional statement (Ex.3) by the appellant. The appellant pleaded alibi and claimed signature was obtained under coercion, but courts accepted that he was in the car. The trial court convicted all accused; the Sessions Judge acquitted all except the appellant; the Patna High Court affirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the confessional statement was admissible. The appellant contended that the Excise Inspector, who recorded the confession while investigating an excise offence, was a police officer for the purpose of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, making the confession inadmissible. The majority, comprising Subba Rao and Mudholkar JJ., held that the term 'police officer' in Section 25 must be construed widely and that an Excise Inspector, by virtue of Section 77(2) read with Section 78(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, was deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station and entitled to investigate under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The majority applied the test whether the powers conferred on the officer facilitated the obtaining of confessions; because the Excise Inspector had such investigatory powers, the confession made to him was inadmissible under Section 25. The majority also held that the statement was made during the course of investigation and was thus excluded by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Raghubar Dayal J. dissented on the issue whether an Excise Officer was a police officer, holding that the Excise Act was primarily a revenue statute and that Section 85(3) deemed Excise Officers to be police officers only for limited purposes. Nevertheless, he concurred in allowing the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Confessions - Admissibility of Confession to Excise Inspector - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 25 - A confession made to an Excise Inspector during investigation of an excise offence was inadmissible as a confession to a police officer because the Excise Inspector was deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station under Section 77(2) read with Section 78(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, and exercised powers of investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The test for determining whether a person is a police officer under Section 25 was whether the powers conferred on him tended to facilitate obtaining a confession from a suspect; such powers established a direct relationship with the prohibition. Held that the Excise Inspector was a police officer for the purpose of Section 25 and the confession Ex.3 was inadmissible. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Exclusion of Statements Made During Investigation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 162 - A statement recorded by an Excise Inspector during the course of investigation, when he exercised the powers of an officer in charge of a police station, was a statement made during police investigation and was excluded from evidence under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except for purposes of contradiction. Held that the appellant's confession was also inadmissible under Section 162. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Minority Opinion - Interpretation of Police Officer - Dissenting View on Excise Officer Status - Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, Sections 7, 85(3), 89, 95, 96 - The dissenting judge held that an Excise Officer was not a police officer for the purpose of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act because the Excise Act primarily concerned revenue collection and Section 85(3) deemed Excise Officers to be police officers only for arrests, searches and seizures, not for investigation. However, the appeal was still allowed on different grounds. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a confession made to an Excise Inspector during investigation of an excise offence is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, because the Excise Inspector is a police officer within the meaning of those provisions.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and held that the confessional statement (Ex.3) recorded by the Excise Inspector during investigation was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Law Points
- Confession to police officer inadmissible under Section 25 Indian Evidence Act
- Excise Inspector is a police officer when investigating excise offences under Bihar and Orissa Excise Act
- Statement recorded during investigation by police officer barred by Section 162 CrPC
- Test for police officer under Section 25 is whether powers facilitate obtaining confession
- Powers under Section 77(2) and 78(3) make Excise Inspector deemed police officer
- Excise Officer not police officer for all purposes
- only when investigating under Chapter XIV CrPC
