( 1 ) THIS is a bail application in respect of an offence under. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 985 grams of brown sugar valued at Rs. 59,100/- is the subject matter of the offence. On 23-9-1987, the Preventive Officer of Central Excise, Headquarters Office, Ahmedabad had received an information to the effect that accused No. 1 Bharatji was to deliver brown sugar to accused No. 2 Bansi G. Chauhan at about 1-00 Oclock. As a result of this information, there were watch, search and seizure and the quantity of 985 grams of foreign brown sugar valued at Rs. 59,100/ was seized under a Panchanama.

( 2 ) THE accused No. 3, the present petitioner was not present and was not shown to be involved in the offence. However, it appears from the statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 that this narcotic drug i. e. brown sugar was supplied by the present petitioner accused No. 3 about a week before its seizure and was given for disposal and preservation. The statements of the co-accused were recorded by the authorised officer of Excise Department under Section 67 of the Act. Accused No. 2 has stated that this muddamal was supplied by the petitioner about seven days before its seizure and 3 to 4 days thereafter i. e. on 20-9-1987, this petitioner had also asked for money and price of the brown sugar. However, the accused No. 2 had expressed his inability to make any payment because the brown sugar was not till then sold and, therefore, he had stated that either the petitioner might take back the brown sugar or might take money after it is sold. However, the petitioner had insisted only on payment. It also appears from the statement of accursed No. 2 that even on the date of the seizure of muddamal, this petitioner had gone to the house of the accused No. 2, however, the petitioner had returned having realised the situation prevailing there as the officers of Central Excise were present. There is also a statement of the petitioner himself recorded in his language Hindi. Therein he has admitted having bought and supplied the brown sugar.

( 3 ) THE petitioner applied for bail to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. However, he rejected his application by his order dated 5-10-1987. The learned Sessions Judge also rejected hie bail application by his order dated 16-10-1987.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no material or evidence to cannot the petitioner-accused No. 3 with the offence. He was not found in possession of the brown sugar now was he present at the time when it was seized and he has submitted that the statements have been falsely recorded and they are inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, there is no material on the evidence on the basis of which it can be said that there is reason to believe that this petitioner is involved in the serious offence alleged against him. He has submitted that under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, no confession made to the police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. He has also relied on Section 26 of the Evidence Act and submitted that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the presence of Magistrate shall be proved against that person. In the present case, the confession and incriminating statements of the accused have been made before the authorised Excise Officer and it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that these officers are police officers and, therefore, these statements are directly hit by Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Sections 25 and 26 read as under :- sec. 25 : "no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. " sec. 26 : "no confession made by any person whilst be it in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. " the learned counsel for the peti