The voluntariness of a confession made before an officer from the Railway Protection Force must be ascertained before it is received in evidence and acted upon by a Court of Law.

1. The respondent, along with four others, was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the RPUP Act”) on the basis of a complaint lodged by one B.S.Kardan – Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force. The other accused pleaded guilty to the charge that was framed after recording evidence and were convicted and sentenced on the basis of their plea of guilty. The present respondent, who was the accused No.2 in the said case, pleaded not guilty, and, as such, was tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways), Manmad. The Magistrate, after holding a trial, found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.

2. The respondent appealed to the Court of Sessions from the Judgment and order of his conviction and sentence imposed upon him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, who heard the appeal, set aside the Judgment and Order delivered by the Magistrate, and acquitted the respondent.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in appeal, not the complainant, but the State of Maharashtra has filed the present appeal challenging the order of acquittal and praying that the respondent be convicted.

4. The maintainability of this appeal was doubted by reason of it having been filed by the State of Maharashtra instead of the Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, or the Central Government, and, therefore, the Additional Public Prosecutor was asked to satisfy this Court about it. The Additional Public Prosecutor has not been able to satisfy me that the present appeal, filed by the 'State of Maharashtra' against the acquittal, is maintainable.

5. There are two aspects that lead to the doubt about the maintainability of this appeal. The case against the respondent arose on the basis of a complaint filed by a Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force. The Railway Protection Force is empowered to investigate/inquire into the offences punishable under the RPUP Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with 'appeal in case of acquittal', leaves no manner of doubt and when an order of acquittal is passed in a case in which the offence has been investigated into by an Agency empowered to make investigation into such offence under any Central Act other than the Code, then it would be Central Government, who can direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against such an order of acquittal. Thus, if the appeal is held to be filed on the basis of Sub-Section(2) of Section 378 of the Code, then it would be the Central Government who can direct filing of such an appeal. In the instant case, admittedly, the appeal has been filed by the Public Prosecutor not on the direction of the 'Central Government', but on the direction of the 'State of Maharashtra'.

6. The second factor creating a doubt about the maintainability of the present appeal is the provisions of Sub-Section (4) of Section 378 of the Code, which deals with an order of acquittal in a case instituted upon a complaint. The present case was instituted on the complaint filed by B.S.Kardan Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force. It was being tried as per the procedure for trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report and, therefore, that it was a case 'instituted upon complaint' cannot be doubted at all. Sub-Section (3) of Section 378 provides that in such a case, the complainant can, with the special leave of this Court, file an appeal from the order of acquittal. In this case, the complainant i.e. B.S.Kardan, or his representative i.e. any other member of the Railway Protection Force has not come forward for filing the present appeal. The appeal, as aforesaid, has been file