Judgment

R.S. SARKARIA:- We have heard Mr. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant State. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice. The impugned judgment of the High Court, dated 12-3-1973, follows an earlier decision of that Court in Durga Prasad v. State 1971 All WR (HC) 17. That decision was reversed by this Court as per its judgment reported in (1975) 1 SCR 881. The matter was again thrashed out by this Court in Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeals Nos. 208 and 209 of 1974 decided on July 31, 1980 (reported in 1980 Cri LJ 1424). Now, it is settled law that an officer of the Railway Protection Force making an inquiry under S. 8 (1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is not a police officer conducting an investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the true position the ban under S. 162, Criminal Procedure Code against the evidential use of statements, including the prohibition against signing of statements recorded in the course of police investigation, is not attracted to statements recorded by an officer of the Force making an inquiry under S. 8 (1) of the Act.

On this short ground, we