JUDGMENT

Young C J - One criminal appeal and two revisions have been referred to this Full Bench in order that the effect of the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Narayanaswami v. Emperor should be determined. Their Lordships decided that the words "by any person" in Section 162, Criminal P.C., included an accused person. This decision overruled the view held by the majority of the Indian High Courts on this point. Their Lordships observed further as follows:

The words of Section 162 are in their Lordships' view plainly wide enough to exclude any confession made to a police officer in course of investigation whether a discovery is made or not. They may, therefore, pro tanto repeal the provisions of the Section which would otherwise apply. If they do not, presumably it would be on the ground that Section 27, Evidence Act, is a "special law" within the meaning of Section 1(2), Criminal P.C., and that Section 162 is not a specific provision to the contrary.

2. In the three cases referred to us the problem is what effect Section 162, Criminal P.C., in view of the above observations of their Lordships, has upon Section 27, Evidence Act. We have heard lengthy arguments