( 1. ) THE applicant is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant made a confessional statement to Manaklal (P. W. 2), Inspector. Railway Protection Force. In the course of the statement of Manaklal, the applicant objected that the confession was inadmissible and cannot be proved as it was hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. This objection was overruled by the trial Court against which the applicant preferred a revision which was dismissed by the fourth Additional Sessions Judge. Jabalpur. Thereafter, the present revision was filed by the applicant,

( 2. ) THIS revision first, came up for hearing before Naik, J. Before him. an order of Bhave, J. in Criminal Revision No. 72 of 1968, (Badri Vishal v. State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 8-10-1969 (reported in 1972 Jab LJ 905) was cited to support the proposition that an officer of the Railway Protection Force is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Naik. J. was, however, not willing to accept that view and, therefore, he has referred the case to a larger Bench.

( 3. ) THE sole question in this revision is whether an officer of the Railway Protection Force can be said to be a police officer within the meaning of that expression as it is used in Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

( 4. ) THE Railway Protection Force is constituted and regulated by the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. The object of the constitution of the Force, as shown by the long title of the Act. is "the better protection and security of railway property". The officers and members of the Force are deemed to be rail-way servants as provided in Section 10 of the Act. The duties of the Force are enumerated in Section 11. These duties are (a) to execute all orders lawfully issued by superior authority; (b) to protect and safe-guard railway property : and (c) to do any other act conducive to the better protection and security of railway property. Power to arrest without warrant and power to search without warrant have been conferred upon the officers and members of the Force under Sections 12 and 13 in certain cases in connection with offences relating to railway property. The procedure to be followed by an officer or a member of the Force after making an arrest is indicated in Section 14. That section says that any superior officer or member of the Force making an arrest under this Act shall, without unnecessary delay, make over the person so arrested to a police officer, or in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken to the nearest police station. This section makes it clear that an officer or a member of the Force cannot detain a person after making arrest and the person arrested has to be given in custody of a police officer without any delay. The provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, may now be noticed. Section 6 of the Act empowers any superior officer or member of the Force to arrest any person who has been concerned in an offence punishable under the Act or against whom reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. The arrest can be made without an order from a Magistrate and without warrant. Provision for inquiry is made under Section 8. After an arrest is made under Section 6, an inquiry has to be made into the charge against the person arrested by an officer of the Force. For the purpose of inquiry, the officer exercises the same powers and is subject to the same provisions as the officer incharge of a police station exercises and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898, when investigating a cognizable case. Section 8 further authorizes that if the officer making inquiry is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdict