( 1 ) WHETHER the officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI for short) invested with powers under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (NDPS Act for short), were police officers within the meaning and scope of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and whether the incriminating statement of an accused person recorded by them is inadmissible in evidence as envisaged by Section 25 of the Evidence Act , is the question which has been referred to a larger Bench for the determination by a learned Single Judge of this Court. In view of this reference. Criminal Revision 170/87, Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of Ind a and others and Ajit Singh v. State raising inter alia, this question have been sent to the Bench.

( 2 ). The facts leading to the main reference, as gathered from the- petition filed by the petitioner, may be briefly stated. On July 12, 1986, a truck bearing registration No. DEL 3124 was intercepted near Calcutta by the officers of the DRI. On its search, hashish weighing about 743 Kgs. concealed in machines loaded in the said truck was recovered. This machinery, it is alleged, was intended to be exported to Saudi Arabia and U. K. on behalf of M/s. Northern Exports (Importers, Exporters and Commission Agents), 116, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi and Modern Machinery and Instruments, G-2, Vishal Marg, Permanand Colony, New Delhi. The sad hashish was seized and the two drivers of the truck, namely, Joginder Singh and Shiv Raj Singh were apprehended by the officers of the DRI.

( 3 ). On the disclosures made by the persons arrested at Calcutta officers of the DRI searched the farm house at Khasra No. 417, Gadai Pur Village, Mehrauli, New Delhi on 13th, 14th, and 15th July, 1986 and hashish weighing 976 Kgs. was recovered from a machinery lying in the said farm house and hashish weighing about 365 Kgs. was recovered from the gunny bags hurried underground in one of the out-houses of the said farm house. This hashish, it is alleged, was meant to be exported through M/s. Lee Muirhead (1) Ltd. of Calcutta and M/s. Sheikh and Pandit Calcutta. Mr. Tushar Pandit, proprietor of M/s. Sheikh and Pandit and Mohan Lal Pandit, partner of M/s. Lee Muirhead were arrested. Besides the said persons, one Subhash Narang was also arested on 29th September, 1986. He made a confessional statement and is alleged to have implicated the petitioner Kirpal Mohan Virmani.

( 4 ). The petitioner, Kirpal Mohan Virmani, was arrested on 28th September, 1986. He, it is stated, also made a confessional statement before the officers of DRI implicating himself.

( 5 ). After completing the investigation, a complaint was filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 21, 23, 29 and 30 of the NDPS Act and sections 135-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner has since been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

( 6 ). The petitioner moved an application in this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail during the pendency of his trial for the said offences. Before the learned single Judge, who heard the bail petition, it was was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the evidence against the petitioner consisted of the self incriminating statements of the petitioner and Subhash Narang recorded by the officers of the DRI purportedly undersection 108 of the Customs Act. The officers of the DRI had been invested with the powers of the office-incharge of a police station under Section 53 of the NDPS Act. They were police officers. The said confessional statements were, therefore, inadmissible in evidence by reason of the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Learned single Judge felt that this question of law was of far-reaching importance and of vital consequence, It was likely to arise in large number of cases. He, therefore, referred the above mentioned question to a larger Bench. This is how the said question has come before us fo