Special statute inquiry officer not treated as police officer; Article 20(3) applies only after formal accusation.

An officer of the Railway Protection Force conducting an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 was not a police officer for Section 25 of the Evidence Act, because the statutory scheme gave inquiry, arrest and summons powers but not the full investigative authority of an officer-in-charge of a police station, including filing a police report under the Criminal Procedure Code. Statements recorded by such an officer were therefore not excluded on that ground. Article 20(3) also did not apply, because the person was not yet formally accused by complaint, FIR, or equivalent process when the statements were made. The legal challenges to admissibility and constitutional protection failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an officer of the Railway Protection Force conducting an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is a police officer for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and allied provisions; (ii) Whether a person whose statement is recorded during such an inquiry is protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether an officer of the Railway Protection Force conducting an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is a police officer for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and allied provisions.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the 1966 Act gives the officer of the Force powers of arrest, inquiry, summoning of witnesses and production of documents, but the Act also makes the offence non-cognizable and requires prosecution to be initiated by complaint. The officer conducting the inquiry does not possess the full attributes of an officer-in-charge of a police station under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, especially the power to submit a report under Section 173. Applying the settled test that mere possession of some investigative powers is insufficient, the officer cannot be treated as a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Conclusion: The answer is in the negative. The officer of the Railway Protection Force was not a police officer for Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and the statements recorded by him were not excluded on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether a person whose statement is recorded during such an inquiry is protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Analysis: Protection under Article 20(3) is available only to a person who is already a person accused of an offence. At the time the statements in question were recorded, no formal accusation by complaint, FIR, or equivalent formal document had been made against the appellant. In the absence of that status, the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination was not attracted, and it was unnecessary to decide whether the statutory obligation to speak the truth would itself amount to compulsion.

Conclusion: The answer is in the negative. Article 20(3) did not apply to the appellant when the statements were recorded.

Final Conclusion: The legal challenges to admissibility and constitutional invalidity failed, and the convictions and prosecution were allowed to proceed in accordance with law, with the appeals being dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, an officer under a special statute is not a police officer unless he is invested with all the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station for investigation, including the power to initiate prosecution by filing a police report under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; and Article 20(3) applies only after a formal accusation has been made.

---