Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1980 (7) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1980 (7) TMI 264 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an officer of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) making an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, is a Police officer for the purposes of Section 25, Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
2. Whether a person arrested by an RPF officer under Section 6 of the Act is a "person accused of an offence" within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
3. Whether Section 9 of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether an RPF Officer is a Police Officer for the Purposes of Section 25, Evidence Act and Section 162, CrPC
The primary question was whether an RPF officer making an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, can be considered a "police officer" for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which states that "No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence." The court examined the duties and powers of RPF officers under the 1966 Act and the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, comparing them with those of police officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The court noted that although RPF officers have some powers similar to those of police officers, such as arrest and inquiry, they do not have the power to submit a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC. This distinction is crucial as it limits their role to inquiry rather than full-fledged investigation. The court relied on previous judgments, including State of U.P. v. Durga Prasad, which held that RPF officers are not police officers for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, any confessional statement made to an RPF officer is not inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Issue 2: Whether a Person Arrested by an RPF Officer is a "Person Accused of an Offence" under Article 20(3) of the Constitution
The second issue was whether a person arrested by an RPF officer is a "person accused of an offence" within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. The court examined whether the protection under Article 20(3) applies at the stage of inquiry conducted by an RPF officer.

The court referred to the interpretation of "person accused of an offence" in previous judgments, such as M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, which held that a person becomes an accused only when a formal accusation is made, such as the lodging of an FIR or a formal complaint. In the present case, since no formal complaint or FIR had been lodged at the time of the inquiry, the appellant did not qualify as a "person accused of an offence" under Article 20(3). Therefore, the protection against self-incrimination did not apply to the statements made during the RPF inquiry.

Issue 3: Whether Section 9 of the Act is Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
The third issue, concerning the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Act under Article 14, was not raised or pressed during the arguments in the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to address this issue and did not pronounce any judgment on it.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that:
1. An RPF officer making an inquiry under the 1966 Act is not a police officer for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of the CrPC.
2. A person arrested by an RPF officer under Section 6 of the Act is not a "person accused of an offence" within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution at the stage of inquiry.
3. The court did not address the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Act under Article 14 as it was not raised in the lower courts.

The court also noted the State's undertaking to provide the accused with copies of all relevant documents and statements, allowing the accused to inspect other material collected by the inquiry officer. The case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings, with a directive to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis and dispose of it within three months.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates