1926 (8) TMI 3 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an Abkari-officer, exercising powers under the Bombay Abkari Act equivalent to those of a police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure, is considered a "Police officer" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition and Powers of Abkari-officer:
The primary issue addressed is whether an Abkari-officer, who exercises powers similar to those of a police officer during the investigation of an offence under the Bombay Abkari Act, qualifies as a "Police officer" under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment elaborates that under the Bombay Abkari Act, certain Abkari officers are granted extensive powers akin to those of police officers, including the authority to investigate offences, make arrests, and conduct searches.

2. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act:
Section 25 stipulates that "No confession made to a Police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence." The court examines whether confessions made to Abkari-officers fall under this provision. The judgment emphasizes that the purpose of Section 25 is to prevent the abuse of power by police officers in extorting confessions, a concern equally relevant to Abkari-officers exercising similar powers.

3. Interpretation by Indian High Courts:
The judgment references several precedents where the term "Police officer" has been interpreted broadly. For instance, in Queen v. Hurribole Chunder Ghose, it was held that the term should be read "not in any strict technical sense, but according to its more comprehensive and popular meaning." Similarly, other cases like Queen-Empress v. Bhima and Queen-Empress v. Salemuddin Sheik extended the definition to include various officers exercising police-like powers.

4. Comparison with Other Jurisdictions:
The judgment contrasts the powers of Abkari-officers in Bombay with those in Bengal, noting that in Bombay, Abkari-officers have more extensive police powers, including the authority to investigate offences. This distinction is crucial in determining the applicability of Section 25.

5. Legislative Intent and Practical Implications:
The court reasons that the legislative intent behind conferring police powers on Abkari-officers was not to diminish the protections afforded to accused persons under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The judgment asserts that the substantive powers exercised by Abkari-officers make them equivalent to police officers for the purposes of Section 25.

6. Conclusion and Judgment:
The court concludes that Abkari-officers, vested with extensive police powers under the Bombay Abkari Act, should be considered "Police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, any confession made to such officers during an investigation is inadmissible in evidence.

Separate Judgments:
- Shah, J.: Agrees with the majority opinion, emphasizing that the term "Police officer" includes any officer vested with police powers by law, regardless of their official designation. He underscores the importance of interpreting Section 25 substantively, not merely based on the officer's title.
- C.G.H. Fawcett, J.: Concurs, highlighting the long-standing judicial interpretation of "Police officer" in a broad sense and the tacit acceptance of this interpretation by the Legislature.
- Norman W. Kemp, J.: While acknowledging some doubt, agrees that an Abkari-officer with police powers should be regarded as a "Police officer" under Section 25, to maintain the protection intended by the Evidence Act.
- M.A.A. Khan, J.: Agrees with the majority opinion, affirming that the question should be answered in the affirmative.

Summary:
The High Court of Bombay, in a detailed judgment, held that Abkari-officers exercising powers similar to those of police officers under the Bombay Abkari Act are considered "Police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, any confession made to such officers during an investigation is inadmissible in evidence. This interpretation aligns with the broader judicial understanding of the term "Police officer" and ensures the protection of accused persons from potential abuses of power during investigations.