Police officer test under the Evidence Act excludes DRI officers lacking full investigative powers and charge-sheet authority.

Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not "police officers" for Section 25 of the Evidence Act because they lack the full statutory powers of police investigation, including the power to submit a report under Section 173 CrPC. The Court applied the controlling test that only officers vested with the substantive powers of investigation and charge-sheeting fall within Section 25, while partial investigative powers are insufficient. Section 36A(d) of the NDPS Act reinforces this distinction by treating proceedings by such authorised officers as complaints, not police reports. Confessional statements recorded by DRI officers in the course of investigation are therefore not inadmissible under Section 25.

---

---

Issues: Whether officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence invested with powers of an officer in charge of a police station under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are "police officers" within Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether confessional statements recorded by them during investigation are inadmissible.

Analysis: Section 25 of the Evidence Act excludes confessions made to a police officer on grounds of public policy. The expression "police officer" is to be construed broadly, but not so broadly as to include every officer who is given some powers similar to police powers. The controlling test, as reaffirmed from earlier decisions, is whether the officer has been vested with all the powers of investigation of a police officer, including the power to submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The scheme of the NDPS Act shows that officers under Section 53 are empowered to investigate offences under the Act, but the Act does not confer on them the full range of police powers under Chapter XII of the Code. The decisive indication is Section 36A(d), which distinguishes between a police report and a complaint by an authorised government officer, showing that an officer under Section 53 who is not a police officer proceeds by complaint and not by charge-sheet. Such officers therefore do not answer the description of police officers for the purpose of Section 25.

Conclusion: Confessional statements made to DRI officers empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Ratio Decidendi: An officer becomes a police officer for Section 25 of the Evidence Act only if the statute confers the substantive powers of police investigation, including the power to file a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; partial investigative powers do not suffice.

---