JUDGMENT

AHMADI J.:— Are the officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) who have been invested with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station under S. 53 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act), "police officers" within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act? If yes, is a confessional statement recorded by such officer in the course of investigation of a person accused of an offence under the said Act, admissible in evidence as against him? These are the questions which we are called upon to answer in. these appeals by special leave.

2. These are the facts, briefly stated. A motor truck DEL 3124 was intercepted on July 12, 1986 near Calcutta by the DRI officials. On search a large quantity of hashish weighing about 743 kgs found concealed in machines loaded in the said truck was recovered. The machinery was meant to be exported to Saudi-Arabia and the United Kingdom by M/s. Northern Exports (Importers, Exporters and Commission Agents) and M/s. Modern Machinery and Instruments, both of New Delhi. After the hashish was found hidden in the machines loaded in the said vehicle, the same was attached under a seizure memo. Joginder Singh and Shivraj Singh, the drivers of the vehicle, were apprehended on the spot by the DRI officials.

3. The disclosure made by these two drivers led to the search of a Farm House at Khasra No. 417, Gadaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi on the 13th/ 14th and 15th of July, 1986. In the course of the said search hashish weighing about 976 Kgs. was recovered from the machines lying in the said premises and a further quantity of 365 Kgs. was recovered from gunny bags which were secreted underground in the out-house of the Farm House. The DRI officials learnt in the course of investigation that the said hashish was to be exported through M/s. Lee Muirhead (I) Ltd., and M/s Shiekh . and Pandit, of Calcutta. Mohan Lal Pandit and Tushar Pandit, the partners of the said two firms, respectively, were arrested. One Subhash Narang who was arrested by the DRI officials implicated the appellant Kirpal Mohan Virmani. In the course of investigation the name of the other appellant Raj Kumar Karwal also surfaced. Both these persons made confessional statements to the DRI officials in the course of investigation.

4. On the conclusion of the investigation a complaint was lodged against the said two persons under Ss. 21, 23, 29 and 30 of the Act and S. 135A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants now stand committed to the Court 47 of Session for trial. On the appellants applying for enlargement on bail under S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code herein after), the self-incriminating statements made by the appellants to the DRI officials were used against them by the prosecution to establish a prima facie case and to prevent their enlargement on bail. The appellants argued that the said statements were not admissible in evidence in view of S. 25 of the Evidence Act which provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. The question which arose for consideration was whether DRI officials invested with powers under S. 53 of the Act could be said to be "police officers" within the meaning of S. 25, Evidence Act, so as to place the confessional statements recorded by them beyond the reach of the prosecution. The learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court before whom the bail applications came up for hearing felt that the question of admissibility of the confessional statement was of vital and far-reaching importance and since it was likely to arise in a number of such cases it was desirable that it be answered by a larger bench. Accordingly, the question was referred to a Division Bench which concluded that the officials of the DRI invested with powers under S. 53 of the Act do not possess any of the attributes of an officer-in-charge of a police station conducting an investigation un