JUDGMENT :

C.R. DASH, J. - This Reference by a Division Bench to the Larger Bench raises the question whether 'Grama Rakshi' is a Police Officer within the meaning of that expression .in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. After scrutinizing the evidence in the appeal, the Division Bench found that the appellant had made extra judicial confession before P.W.1, who is the 'Grama Rakshi'. At that time P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 were present. The Division Bench was faced with divergence of opinion expressed by this Court on the question as to whether 'Grama Rakshi' is a Police Officer.

This Court, in the case of Madan @ Undu Barik v. State of Orissa, 43 (1977) CLT 512, Dusasan Bhoi and others v. State of Orissa, 1981 Cri.L.J. 1452; Boisakhu Kollar v. State, 60 (1985) CLT 61 and Pandru Khadia v. State of Orissa, 1992 Cri.L.J. 762, had held that 'Grama Rakshi' is a Police Officer, Per contra, this Court in the case of Khageswar Khatua v. State, 1993 Cri.L.J. 2374, 1993 (II) OLR 37 following the dictum of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC 45, took the view that 'Grama Rakshi' is a not a Police Officer.

3. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 SC 276, had the occasion to deal with the question whether Customs Officer under the Land Customs Act, 1924 (Act XIX of 1924) or under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act VIII of 1878) is a Police Officer within the meaning of that expression in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. After liberal reference to provisions of the Police Act, 1861, aforesaid Customs Acts and construction of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Customs Officer is not a Police Officer. While arriving at the conclusion, Hon'ble Supreme Court had ruled "the words 'Police Officers' are not to be construed in a narrow way, but have to be construed in a wide and popular sense." The Division Bench of this Court found that in Raj Kumar Karwal's case (supra). Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred to the decision of that Court in the case of Barkat Ram, which is a Larger Bench decision, but the same was not distinguished or discussed. Since in Khageswar Khatua's case (supra) the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Karwal's case (supra) had been followed, the Division Bench was not in agreement with the view expressed in Khageswar Khatua's case. Another point of disagreement by the Division Bench with the view expressed in Khageswar Khatua's case is that, in Khageswar Khatua's case this Court had relied on and followed Raj Kumar Karwal, which was a case dealing with confession made by the accused in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act before the officers of the Central Excise and Customs. Hence the reference to resolve the question, whether 'Grama Rakshi' is a 'Police Officer'.

4. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 SC 276, in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 have held thus:

"(16) The words 'police officer' are therefore not to be construed in a narrow way, but have to be construed in a wide and popular sense, as was remarked in Queen v. Hurribole, ILR 1 Cal. 207, where a Deputy Commissioner of Police who was actually a police officer and was merely invested with certain Magisterial powers was rightly held to be a police officer within the meaning of that expression in S.25 of the Evidence Act.

(17) There has, however, arisen a divergence of opinion about officers on whom some powers analogous to those of police officers have been conferred being police officers for the purpose of S.25 of the Evidence Act. The view which favours their being held police officers, is based on their possessing powers which are usually possessed by the police and on the supposed intention of the legislature at the time of the enactment of S. 25 of the Evidence Act to be that the expression 'police officer' should include every one who is engaged in the work of detecting and preve