Excise officer treated as police officer under confession law; confession excluded, conviction upheld, sentence partly reduced.

An excise officer vested with statutory powers of investigation and arrest under the Central Excise scheme was treated as a police officer for Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so a confession made to him was inadmissible. On the remaining evidence, the recovery and surrounding circumstances were found reliable, and the conviction under the excise law and connected IPC offences was sustained. The sentence for the IPC counts was, however, reduced in view of the appellant's age and absence of prior offending, while the excise conviction was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Superintendent of Central Excise was a police officer for the purpose of excluding the appellant's confession under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. (ii) Whether the conviction was liable to be interfered with and, if not, whether the sentence required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the Superintendent of Central Excise was a police officer for the purpose of excluding the appellant's confession under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Analysis: The confessional statement was made to an excise officer who had been invested by the statute with powers analogous to those of investigating police officers. The statutory scheme under Section 21(2) of the Indian Central Excises and Salt Act treated excise officers as performing investigation and arrest functions in excise cases. On that footing, the officer fell within the exclusion contained in Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and the confession was not admissible.

Conclusion: The confession was rightly excluded from evidence and the ruling was against the appellant on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction was liable to be interfered with and, if not, whether the sentence required reduction.

Analysis: The recovery evidence and surrounding circumstances were found reliable, and the challenge based on minor contradictions and alleged motive of the excise officers was rejected. The conviction under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act and the related IPC convictions was upheld. However, considering the appellant's age and absence of prior offending, the sentence of imprisonment and fine for the IPC offences was modified to a lower term of imprisonment with an enhanced fine, while the conviction under the excise provision was maintained.

Conclusion: The conviction was sustained, but the sentence was reduced in part in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits of conviction, but limited relief was granted on sentence, and the appellant was directed to undergo the modified punishment while a notice was issued against the witness under the procedural power invoked by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: An excise officer exercising statutory investigative and arrest powers in excise prosecutions is a police officer for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so a confession made to such an officer is inadmissible.

---