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 by Mr. Mukand Lal Puri on behalf of Haku appellant and by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Crown. These arguments have touched upon a great many topics in one way or another connected with the question before us, but it appears to me that the only point for decision is: "Have the provisions of Section 27, Evidence Act, pro tanto been repealed by Section 162, Criminal P.C."

3. Their Lordships have made it perfectly clear that the words of Section 162 are wide enough to exclude any confession made to a police officer whether a discovery is made or not, unless Section 27, Evidence Act, is a special law within the meaning of Section 1(2), Criminal P.C., and even in that event Section 27 would be pro tanto repealed if Section 162 is a "specific provision to the contrary." Section 162, Criminal P.C., reads as follows:

(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose (save as hereinafter provided) at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:

Provided that, when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, the Court shall on the request of the accused refer to such writing and direct that the accused be furnished with a copy thereof, in order that any part of such statement, if duly proved, may be used to contradict such witness in the manner, provided by Section 145, Evidence Act, 1872.

* * *

(2) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of Section 82, Clause (1), Evidence Act, 1872.

4. Section 27, Evidence Act, enacts as follows:

Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

5. Section 1(2), Criminal P.C., is as follows:

... in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing herein contained shall affect any special or local law now in force....

6. A "special law" is defined in Section 41, 1. P.C., as a law applicable to a particular subject. This definition is adopted for the purposes of the Criminal Procedure Code by virtue of Section 4(2) of that Code. The history of Section 162, Criminal P.C., and Section 27, Evidence Act, is as follows: In 1861 the Code of Criminal Procedure contained Sections c