https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169380 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. en-us Thu, 31 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:48:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169380 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169380