Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J.:- This appeal by special leave raises questions regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, XXIX of 1966. The main question for decision is whether the inquiry which an officer of the Railway Protection Force holds under Section 8 (1) of the Act is an investigation within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. If so, statements recorded during the course of the inquiry would be inadmissible in evidence by reason of the injunction contained in Section 162 of the Code. A further question which requires consideration is whether the entire trial is vitiated if signatures of witnesses are obtained on the statements made by them during the course of the inquiry.

2. The respondent Durga Prasad was working as a Turner in the Railway Workshop at Gorakhpur. On April 2, 1968 he was found in possession of a steel rod and two pieces of moulded brass shells belonging to the Railway. After the preparation of a recovery memo the respondent was forwarded to the Railway Protection Force Post where a case was registered against him under Section 3 (a) of the Act.

3. Gajai Singh, Sub-inspector, Railway Protection Force inquired into the case under Section 8 (1) of the Act, during the course of which he recorded the statements of three persons: Rakshak Indra Deo Yadav, Rakshak Jagannath Pandey and R.K. Nandi. The statements were read over to these persons and their signatures were obtained thereon. Two others, G.S. Tripathi and Kamlakant Yadav wrote out their statement in their own hand and handed over the same to Gajai Singh.

4. The respondent pleaded not guilty but the learned Special Railway Magistrate, First Class, Gorakhpur convicted him under Section 3 (a) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen months. That judgment was confirmed in appeal by the learned civil and sessions judge, Gorakhpur.

5. The respondent filed a revision application in the High court of Allahabad which set aside the judgment of the sessions Court and acquitted the respondent. The High Court has taken the view that the inquiry contemplated by section 8(1) of the Act is an investigation for the purposes of the Criminal Procedure Code, that Section 162 of the Code would therefore apply, that the inquiry officer had contravened Section 162 by obtaining signatures of witnesses in the statements made by them before him during the inquiry and since those statements were brought on the record of the trial and were put to the witnesses in their examination-in-chief, the entire trial was vitiated. We have to examine the correctness of this view in the appeal.

6. Section 8 of the Act reads thus:

"8(1) When any person is arrested by an officer of the Force for an offence punishable under this Act or is forwarded to him under Section 7, he shall proceed to inquire into the charge against such person.

(2) For this purpose the officer of the force may exercise the same power and shall be officer in charge of a police-station may exercise and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when investigating a cognizable case:

Provided that-

(a) if the officer of the Force is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall either admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or forward him in custody to such Magistrate;

(b) if it appears to the officer of the Force that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall release the accused person on his executing a bond, with or without sureties as the office of the Force may direct, to appear, if and when so required before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, and shall make a full report of all the particulars of the case to his official superior."

7. Section 2 (a) defines "Force" as the Railway Protection Force constituted under Section 3 of the Railway Prote