This is a petition to revise the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Mathurai, dated 8th April, 1950, in C.A. No. 37 of 1950, confirming the conviction of the petitioner, Vadivel Goundar, a man of Travancore, under section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, but setting aside the sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and the order of confiscation of his motor van in which he was carrying the bag containing the two bottles of brandy.

The facts are briefly these. The petitioner, Vadivel Goundar, is a man of Kottayam, in Travancore-Cochin State, and owns some estates there. He was caught hold of on Gudalur-Cumbum road at 9 p.m. on 28th November, 1949, in Indian Union territory, by the Prohibition Inspector of Police, P.W. 1, and his staff, and two bottles of brandy were recovered from a bag kept on the rear seat near him by the petitioner who gave a statement to the Prohibition Inspector stating that he was taking those brandy bottles for being given as medicine to his wife during her expected confinement. The question, however, is whether that statement is admissible under sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Both the lower Courts held that it was admissible and convicted the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge held, however, that the circumstances were such that imprisonment was not justified, and that the confiscation of the petitioners van was not also justified as it could not be said to have been used for carrying these two small bottles of brandy which simply happened to be carried in it by the petitioner.

Though several contentions were raised before the learned Sessions Judge, and were considered by him and negatived, in this Court,: Mr. Jayarama Aiyar, for the petitioner, has raised only one contention before me during the arguments, dropping all the rest. That contention is that a Prohibition Officer styling himself Inspector of Police will be “a police officer” within the meaning of sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and, so, the confessional statement made to him by the petitioner will be inadmissible in evidence and that if it is inadmissible there will be no proof that these two brandy bottles were found in the possession of the petitioner, as there were also some other people travelling in the van then. I cannot agree with either head of the argument. I do not consider that an Inspector of Police, Prohibition, will be “a police officer” within the meaning of sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, as the law stands now in this State, though he has practically all the powers of a police officer, and, if the position were not directly covered by authority, the point is quite arguable. Rajamannar, J., (as he then was) has held in Venkata Reddi v. Emperor1, that a Prohibition Sub-Inspector cannot be deemed to be a police officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act and that a confessional statement made to him is not inadmissible in evidence. I will follow that view till the Legislature enacts otherwise or the Supreme Court or Full Bench, in similar cases, holds otherwise. As the learned Public Prosecutor urged, the only view possible, under the above ruling, in this case, where the officer to whom the confession was made was not a police officer at any time but was only an Excise Officer originally and later on became a Prohibition Inspector is that the confession is admissible: The mere title of Inspector of Police, Prohibition, Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition, assumed by P.Ws. 1 and 3, or given to them is, in my opinion, irrelevant, as, in these days of democracy, every one wants a more dignified title, processservers aspiring to be called bailiffs, clerks aspiring to be called assistants, peons aspiring to be called messengers, etc. In fact, nothing much turns on a name, and in view of the above ruling directly covering the point, and in view of the admission of Mr.Jayarama Aiyar that the powers of arrest, etc., have not been conferred on Prohibition Inspectors an