1934 (2) TMI 23 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of confessions made to Excise Officers.
2. Definition and scope of the term "Police Officer" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding powers of Excise Officers.
4. Judicial precedents and their relevance to the current case.

Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Confessions Made to Excise Officers:
- The primary issue was whether confessions made to Excise Officers are admissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The court examined various precedents and statutory provisions to determine if Excise Officers can be considered "Police Officers" under this section. The court noted that the Evidence Act does not provide a definition for "Police Officer," thus requiring interpretation based on related statutes and judicial precedents.

2. Definition and Scope of the Term "Police Officer" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act:
- The court explored the historical context and legislative intent behind the term "Police Officer." It referenced multiple cases, including Queen v. Hurribole Chunder Ghose (1876) and Queen-Empress v. Salemuddin (1899), to emphasize that the term should be read "not in any strict technical sense but according to its more comprehensive and popular meaning." The court also considered the broader duties of prevention and detection of crimes, which are typically associated with police functions.

3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions Regarding Powers of Excise Officers:
- The court analyzed the powers conferred upon Excise Officers by various statutes, including the Bengal Excise Act and the Opium Act. Section 74 of the Bengal Excise Act was particularly scrutinized, which states that for the purposes of investigation, the area to which an Excise Officer is appointed shall be deemed a police station, and the officer shall be deemed the officer in charge of that station. This statutory fiction was pivotal in determining that Excise Officers, while investigating, exercise police powers and thus should be considered police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

4. Judicial Precedents and Their Relevance to the Current Case:
- The court reviewed conflicting judicial precedents. Earlier decisions, such as Ah Foong v. Emperor (1919) and Harbhanjan Sao v. Emperor (1927), held that Excise Officers are not Police Officers. However, the court also considered the Full Bench decision in Nanoo Sheikh Ahmed v. Emperor (1927) from the Bombay High Court, which held that Abkari Officers exercising police powers are police officers within the meaning of Section 25. The court ultimately found this reasoning persuasive and aligned with the broader legislative intent to prevent improper influence in obtaining confessions.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Excise Officers, when exercising powers of investigation akin to those of police officers, should be considered police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, confessions made to such officers during the course of their investigation are inadmissible in evidence. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to safeguard against coerced confessions and ensures consistency in the application of the law across different types of officers exercising similar powers.