Under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act Forest Officer are Police Officer.

This revision is preferred by the first accused in C.C. No. 2023 of 1956 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Mettupalayam. The present petitioner and five others were put up for trial before the Magistrate for an offence under section 21 (h) of the Madras Forest Act, 1882, read with Rule 7 (1), (2) and (8) of the Game Licence Rules, for having shot a female and an immature male deer without horns within the reserve forest of Mettupalayam range. All the accused were convicted of the offence with which they stood charged and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each by the trial Court. In appeal the learned District Magistrate acquitted accused 2 to 6 but confirmed the conviction and sentence of the first accused as he is stated to have shot a female deer and one male deer without horns contrary to the Gaming Rules in the Nilgiris area.

The main evidence against the petitioner consists in the statement made by him to P.W.1, Forest Range Officer who with his party of guards and foresters found the petitioner and others coming in a lorry with the said female and male deer. This statement is Exhibit P-1. It is a confession of his shooting the deer which he should not have shot.

The only question that is argued before me is that this statement is inadmissible in evidence. It is contended that the Forest Range Officers have powers similar to those of a police officer to arrest and detain the offenders, that for all practical purposes they have the same powers of a “police officer” and that, therefore, they must be deemed to be “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence any statement made by the petitioner before the Forest Range Officer must be ruled out as inadmissible. The powers of a Forest Range Officer are contained in sections 41, 51 and 53 of the Forest Act.

In support of his contention Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on two Bench decisions of our High Court and one of the Calcutta High Court. They are Someshwar H. Shelat, In re1, The Public Prosecutor v. Paramasivam2and S. Fernandez v. State3. In Someshwar H. Shelat, In re1, the learned Judge had to consider whether a Special Officer of the Commercial Tax Department who has been empowered to investigate into offences under the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance by the Provincial Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 (3) is a “police officer” within the meaning and for the purpose of section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether a statement made to such an officer fell within the scope of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. In sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance it is clearly stated that the officers who may be empowered by the Central or Provincial Government shall within the respective areas for which they are appointed have power to investigate, all offences punishable under the Ordinance and in conducting any such investigation shall, within the said area, have all the powers, duties, privileges and liabilities of an officer-in-charge of a police station under the Code of Criminal Procedure when investigating a cognizable offence within the limits of his station. Considering the effect of this provision the bench held that such officers are in the same position as police officers with all the powers, duties and privileges of an officer in charge of a police station under the Code of Criminal Procedure and that any statement made to such an officer fell within the scope of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. In Public Prosecutor v. Paramasivam2, another bench of our High Court had to consider a similar provision under the Opium Act (Act 1 of 1878). The relevant provision which is section 20-A of the Act reads as follows:

“The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, invest any Officer of the Prohibition department, or every officer belonging to any specified class in