This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Criminal Revision Application No. 5 of 1971, recommending that the order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Railways), Godhra on two statements of the accused, dt. 19th April, 1970 & 7th October, 1970 one of opponent Yusuf Abdul Rahim and the other of opponent Abdul Rehman in Cri. Case No. 1329 of 1970, sought to be produced on behalf of the complainant, were inadmissible in evidence, be set aside, and to direct the learned Magistrate to admit them into evidence and to proceed further with the trial.

2. The two opponents were tried in the aforesaid criminal case before the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railways), Godhra, for an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (No. 29 of 1966) (which will be hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

3. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid prosecution were as under :

The complainant who was a Sub-Inspector. Railway Protection Force, Godhra, lodged a complaint against the two opponents for the aforesaid offence on 20-10-1970 in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Railway). Godhra, alleging that the complainant had searched the godown of opponent No. 1 and recovered the muddamal articles. He thereupon held an inquiry under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and had recorded certain statements including the aforesaid two statements of the opponents. During the trial of the case, the complainant produced the said two statements of the opponents and tendered them in evidence while he was being examined. The learned Magistrate rejected the said statements as being inadmissible into evidence, they being the statements of the accused. The State, therefore, filed revision petition, challenging those orders before the Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, after referring to several decisions and the provisions of the relevant Act, came to the conclusion that the Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force. Godhra, who recorded the aforesaid statements during the inquiry that he made under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act was not a police officer within the meaning of the words used in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. He found that such an officer who is obliged to make such an inquiry was not deemed to be a Police Officer incharge of a police station as contemplated by the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was not investigating any offence which the police officer could investigate. He had no authority or power to send a charge-sheet to the Court after the investigation of the offence as a police officer in charge of the police station, as contemplated by Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that these statements of the accused in this case were neither hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act nor by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. At this stage it is also not shown that they are hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act. That being the position, according to him. the learned Magistrate was not right in coming to the conclusion that the statements of the accused, as sought to be produced, were inadmissible into evidence.

5. Mr. Thakar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, urged that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court and the relevant provisions of the Act, referred to, by the learned Sessions Judge, this conclusion of his was correct, Mr. D. C. Trivedi, learned Advocate was appointed amicus curiae. He has rendered valuable assistance to the Court in coming to the conclusion on this important question involved in this reference.

6. Before I advert to the relevant decisions relied upon. I first propose to refer to a few sections of the Act, to understand the scheme of the Act.

7. Section 2(a) of the Act defines "force" as under :

"'force' means the Railway Protection Force constituted under Section 3 of the Railwa