TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Excise Inspectors not Police Officers for Evidence Act; Confessions Admissible</h1> <h3>Radha Kishun Marwari Versus Emperor</h3> The court held that an Inspector of Excise is not considered a 'Police Officer' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Confessions made to ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether an Inspector of Excise is a 'Police Officer' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.2. Whether a confession made to an Inspector of Excise is admissible in evidence.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Whether an Inspector of Excise is a 'Police Officer' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.Courtney Terrell, C.J.:1. The primary question is whether an Inspector of Excise acting in the course of his duties is a 'Police Officer' within the meaning of Section 25, Evidence Act. The prevailing trend in Bengal, with one exception, has been to answer this question in the negative. The Bombay High Court's Full Bench in Nanoo Sheikh Ahmed v. Emperor AIR1927Bom4 held the opposite view, but this reasoning is not agreed upon here.2. The term 'Police Officer' in Section 25, Evidence Act, should be read according to its more comprehensive and popular meaning, as held in The Queen v. Hurribole Chunder Ghose [1876] 1 Cal. 207.3. The term 'Police Officer' includes all kinds of Police Officers and not merely members of the police force within the meaning of specific local acts.4. The erroneous canon of construction adopted by some courts is to consider the object of the section rather than the words used by the legislature.5. In Ibrahim Ahmad v. Emperor AIR 1931 Cal 350, the Calcutta High Court excluded a confession made to an excise officer based on the Bombay decision, but this view is not followed here.6. The position of persons in authority who are not police officers is dealt with by Section 24, which includes Magistrates and those deputed by Magistrates under Section 202, Criminal P.C.7. The confession in this case is admissible, and the petition for revision is rejected.Saiyid Fazl Ali, J.:9. The question is whether a confession made before an Excise Inspector, who has powers of arrest and search under the Dangerous Drugs Act (2 of 1930) and is invested with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station, is admissible.10. The term 'police officer' should not be read in a technical sense but in its popular and comprehensive meaning. An excise officer is primarily a revenue officer, not a police officer.11. The distinction between a police officer and a person vested with police powers for certain purposes is material and cannot be ignored.12. Section 25 Evidence Act should not be extended to include excise officers merely because they have certain powers of a police officer.13. The possession of powers of investigation is not the sole test for excluding a confession.14. Section 25 was intended to apply to police officers alone, and Section 24 deals with confessions made before persons in authority other than police officers.15. The language of Section 25 is comprehensive enough to cover all police officers, regardless of rank.C.M. Agarwala, J.:16. The petitioner was convicted under Section 14(a), Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, based on a confession made to an Inspector of Excise.17. The argument is that an Excise Inspector is a 'police officer' within the meaning of Section 25, Evidence Act, based on his powers and popular perception.18. In its popular sense, 'police officer' connotes a member of the police force, and an Excise Inspector is not connected with the police force.19. Later cases have misinterpreted the observation of Garth, C.J., in Queen v. Hurribole Chunder Ghose [1876] 1 Cal. 207.20. A village police officer is not a member of the police force unless enrolled, and the same applies to an Excise Inspector.21. An Excise Officer is not a police officer merely because he has some powers of a police officer.22. The Bombay High Court's Full Bench in Nanoo Sheikh Ahmad v. Emperor AIR1927Bom4 held that an Abkari officer is a police officer, but this is not agreed upon here.23. The possession of powers of investigation is not sufficient to make an Excise Officer a police officer.24. Section 202, Criminal P.C., allows investigations by persons other than police officers, but this does not make them police officers.25. An Excise Officer under the B. & O. Excise Act is not a 'police officer' within the meaning of Section 25, Evidence Act. The application is dismissed.Issue 2: Whether a confession made to an Inspector of Excise is admissible in evidence.Courtney Terrell, C.J.:8. The confession made to the Inspector of Excise is admissible, and the conviction is justified.Saiyid Fazl Ali, J.:15. Section 25 applies to police officers alone, and Section 24 deals with confessions made before persons in authority other than police officers. The confession made to the Excise Inspector is admissible.C.M. Agarwala, J.:25. An Excise Officer is not a 'police officer' within the meaning of Section 25, Evidence Act. The confession made to the Excise Inspector is admissible, and the application is dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
