Judgment Intelligence
Acquittal Set Aside- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 23 August 1974
- Bench
- Justices Y.V. Chandrachud and H.R. Khanna
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 — Sections 3(a), 5, 6, 8, 9, 14; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 — Sections 161, 162, 173; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 193; Railway Protection Force Act, 1957; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 25
The State's appeal was allowed; the High Court's judgment was set aside and the judgment of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, confirming the conviction under Section 3(a) of the Act, was restored (paras 24-25).
Key holdings
- An inquiry under Section 8(1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 cannot be deemed an investigation for the purposes of Section 162 CrPC (paras 10, 23).
- Because persons summoned must state the truth on pain of prosecution under Section 193 IPC, the inquiring officer may obtain their signatures on their statements (paras 13-14).
- The right and duty to file a police report is the hallmark of an investigation; a Railway Protection Force officer must instead file a complaint (para 17).
- Even if some statements were inadmissible, the trial was not vitiated where witnesses were examined in court; the court should only exclude the inadmissible material (para 23).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram [1962] 3 SCR 338
Customs and Central Excise officers are not police officers within Section 25 of the Evidence Act, though ‘police officer’ is read in a wide and popular sense; confessions made to them are not hit by Section 25.
- Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore [1966] 3 SCR 698
Five-Judge Bench: powers of a station officer conferred on a Central Excise officer under Section 21(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act are only for the purpose of the inquiry, and he is not a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act; applied to the parallel Sections 8(1)-(2) of the 1966 Act.
- Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar [1964] 2 SCR 752
Relied on by the respondent; distinguished because Section 78(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 expressly deemed the excise officer an officer in charge of a police station, and the 1966 Act has no corresponding provision.
