9911796707
TMI Blog1932 (9) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Ghose [1876] 1 Cal. 207 has been misunderstood and this misunderstanding has been the source of frequent error. The facts in that case were of a very simple character. The Deputy Commissioner of Police for Calcutta who was also a Magistrate had issued a warrant for the arrest of the accused Hurribole. He was brought before the Deputy Commissioner at his private residence over the Police Office and there made a confession in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner and of two Inspectors of Police. One of the said Inspectors reduced the confession to writing and it was signed and acknowledged by Hurribole as correct in their presence. It was argued that the Deputy Commissioner was not a member of the Calcutta police force It was admitted that he was a Police Officer but although a Superintendent of Police in the mofussil he was a Deputy Commissioner only in Calcutta where the confession was recorded and the confession was recorded before him as a Magistrate. 3. The Court held that although the Deputy Commissioner of Police in Calcutta was not a member of the police force within the meaning of Bengal Act (4 of 1866) that he was nevertheless a Police Officer quite as much as the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... othesis of the theory that that object was to make inadmissible confessions made before persons possessing the power of investigation, search and arrest so that whereas a Sub-Inspector of Excise had been given these functions he came within the term police officer. Now in the first place Courts of justice are not concerned with the objects with which the legislature enacts any particular law unless in the particular enactment the object is stated as a guiding principle to be followed in interpretation. It may well be that the promoters of any particular bill in the legislature may have particular objects in view, but any section as ultimately enacted may well be the result of compromise and it may be that the words ultimately agreed upon have been passed by the legislature in such a form that one or all of the objects of the promoters is defeated. In cases therefore where the legislature has not thought fit to express its intention otherwise than by the use of the words of the section those words must be followed. 6. There is one case, that of Ibrahim Ahmad v. Emperor AIR 1931 Cal 350 , in which a Bench of the Calcutta High Court, while affirming a conviction upon other ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ukumali v. Emperor [1918] Cri. L.J. 524, Ah Foong Chinaman v. Emperor [1918] 46 Cal. 411, Harbhanjan Sao v. Emperor AIR 1927 Cal 527 and Matilal Kalowar v. Emperor AIR1932Cal122 . A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has however decided that an abkari officer who exercises the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure on an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of a cognizable offence is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25, Evidence Act, and any confession made to such an officer in course of his investigation under the Abkari Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure is inadmissible in evidence. In view of this decision which represents the views of no less than five eminent Judges of the Bombay High Court and is undoubtedly entitled to great weight it becomes necessary to examine the question before us with care. 10. The term police officer has not been defined anywhere, but there can be no doubt that Section 1, Police Act, is not exhaustive and the term is wide enough to include not only the persons enrolled under the Police Act, but also such persons as the police officers of the Indian States and possibly a police patel of the Bom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficers as is evident on reading Section 125 of the Act. It is true that Section 125, Evidence Act, was inserted in the Act subsequently, but that should not in my opinion make any difference, as both the sections are now part of the same Act and we cannot construe certain words used in one section in one way and the same words as used in the other in a different way. 12. It is argued before us, and apparently this was also one of the arguments used before the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, that the object of Section 25 Evidence Act, must have been to prevent the police officers in this country from abusing their extensive powers in extorting confessions from persons in their custody and as there are the some possibilities of evil when an excise officer investigates a case, Section 25 should be extended to include such an officer also. There is however nothing before us to lead us to suppose that in enacting Section 25 the framers of the Evidence Act had any other class of officers in view than the police officers as they are understood in popular language and we cannot extend the provisions of that section merely because we feel that it should have been wide enough to cove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visionally and for a limited purpose only invested with some of the powers of police officers. Under the Evidence Act as it stands Section 25 and Section 24 are to be read together both being exceptions to the general rule laid down in Section 21 that admissions maybe proved as against the person who makes them. Section 25 was intended to apply to police officers and must be applied to police officers alone. Section 24 relates to a confession made before any person in authority provided that the confession appears to have been caused by any inducement threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person. 15. The framers of the Evidence Act were therefore not unmindful of those cases in which a confession made before a person other than a police officer may have to be excluded from evidence. It is contended that at the time when the Evidence Act was framed excise officers had not the powers which are now conferred upon them. But this appears to me to support the view that the framers of the Evidence Act could not have intended that a confession made before an excise officer should be made inadmissible. The language used in Section 25 is so comprehensive th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that owing to pressure of work he put it in a box at his residence which was stolen before he was able to send the packet for analysis. At the trial therefore the only evidence that the packet contained cocaine was the statement of the accused made to the Inspector at the time of his arrest. The defence objected to the admissibility of this evidence, but the objection was overruled. At the trial the defence of the accused was that the packet contained boric powder and not cocaine. In his examination under Section 342 be admitted having made the endorsement on the search list, but in a written statement, which he filed subsequently, he said that the endorsement had not been made voluntarily. It has not been contended before us that the admission made to the Magistrate that the accused made the endorsement on the search list amounts to an admission that the packet contained cocaine. 17. In revision the petitioner contends that the evidence on which the prosecution relied to prove the contents of the packet in this case was inadmissible by reason of Section 25, Evidence Act, which renders inadmissible a confession made to a police officer. It is contended that the Excise Inspecto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, was at least a person who, by a notification in the Calcutta Gazette of 24th July 1872, had been appointed as Superintendent of Police in the moffusil, and it may well be that when a person is a Superintendent of Police in one part of the Province and is appointed as a Deputy Commissioner in another part of the Province that he may popularly be supposed to be a police officer. I do not think that Garth, C. J., ever intended that a person totally unconnected with the police force is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 merely because he is popularly supposed to be a police officer. The officer to whom the confession was made in the present case is in no way connected with the, police force. He is an officer of the Excise Department and in my opinion no popular misconception as to his status can suffice to make him police officer within the meaning of Section 25. 19. A number of later cases have been referred to at the Bar, in which the learned Judges who decided these cases have purported to base their decisions on the observations of Garth, C. J., quoted above. With great respect, to those learned Judges I am unable to agree that the observations of Garth, C. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the conditions which operate to bar the prohibition exist. 21. In my opinion no person is a police officer unless he is enrolled in, or appointed a member of, the police force or is declared by statute to be a member of that force. This brings me to the second branch of the contention of the petitioner. It is argued that an Excise Officer is a police officer by reason of the fact that some of the powers of a police officer have been conferred upon him by the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act 1915, and reliance is placed on the decision in Ibrahim Ahmad v. King-Emperor AIR1931Cal350 and Nanoo Sheikh Ahmad v. Emperor AIR1927Bom4 , where it was held that a confession to an Excise Officer is excluded by Section 25, Evidence Act. In the Calcutta High Court there have been a number of decisions in which the contrary view has been taken, and with those decisions I respectfully agree. It will suffice to mention Ah Foong v. Emperor [1918] 46 Cal. 411, Harbhanjan Sao v. Emperor AIR1927Cal527 and Tura Sardar v. Emperor AIR1930Cal710 . The Bombay case is a decision of a Full Bench overruling a previous decision of a Division Bench of the same Court. The question referred to the Full Bench of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
