Admissibility of confession made before Excise officers.

The question that is raised in this petition is whether in view of Madras Act XXXII of 1951, which was introduced as an amendment to section 20 of the Opium Act (Central Act I of 1878), a confession made to a Prohibition officer is admissible or not.

Section 20-A 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 that department, with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of offences under this Act.”

This High Court has in a series of decisions held that an Excise Officer under the Madras Abkari Act is not a Police-officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. (Vide Mahalakshmayya v. Emperor1, Doraiswami Nadar v. Emperor2, Public Prosecutor v. Marimuthu Goundan3and Mayilvahanam, In re.4) But the Calcutta High Court by a Full Bench decision in Ameer Sheriff v. Emperor5, has held that an Excise-officer who in the conduct of an investigation of an offence against the Excise, exercises the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure upon an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of a cognizable offence is a Police-officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in a Full Bench decision in Nanoo v. Emperor6, has held that an Abkari officer who in the conduct of investigation of an offence punishable under the Bombay Abkari Act exercises the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure of an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of a cognizable offence is a Police-officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and any confession made to such an officer in the course of investigation is inadmissible in evidence. But the Patna High Court has held in Radha Kishun Marwari v. King-Emperor7, that an Excise-officer is not a Police-officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the Patna High Court the learned Judges were considering the confession made to an Excise Inspector who under the Dangerous Drugs Act (II of 1930) not only has the power to arrest and search but has also been invested by the local Government with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station for investigation of an offence under that particular Act. These decisions except the decision of the Patna High Court have been considered by Rajamannar, J. (as he then was) in Venkata Reddi v. Emperor8, wherein the learned Judge says, referring to the Calcutta and the Bombay decisions that an identical conclusion would be reached if there is a similar provision in any other enactment is evident from the decision in Someshwar Shelat, In re9, where a Bench of our High Court consisting of the late Chief Justice Sir Lionel Leach and Lakshmana Rao, J., have held that by reason of section 12(3) of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance inserted by Ordinance LIII of 1944, officers appointed to investigate offences under the Ordinance are Police-officers within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to statements recorded by them. The Madras amendment to the Opium Act confers on the Prohibition officer all the powers of a Police-officer in charge of a police station. This, in my opinion, alters the position of Prohibition officers and it is better that the question is settled by an authoritative decision by a Bench of this Court.

I would, therefore, direct this case to be posted before a Bench.

The case came on for hearing before a Bench in pursuance of the order of reference.

The Public Prosecutor (V.T. Rangaswami Aiyangar) in person.

S. Govind Swaminathan (State Prosecutor) and S. Rajaraman for Respondents.

The Order of the Court was made by

Balakrishna Ayyar, J.-On the 1st of January, 1952, a consignment of illicit opium was despatched by train f