RAJA RAM JAISWAL versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 04-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
}j_lramju 
lvjerb-~1!'1 
(Pl l t,/. 
v. 
Stelt of Jo./ali11rtJJhtra 
Shoh J. 
J9G3 
Ap<il I 
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL. 
from the payment of land revenue. The futility 
of the argument that the expression "person" when 
it first occurs in sub·s. (3) includes the estate-holder, 
becomes obvious if the clause is read after substituting 
the expression "est~te-holder" for "person". 
In that view of the case, this appeal fails and 
is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
RAJ A RAM J AISW AL 
V. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(K. Si;nsA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and 
J. R. MUDIIOLKAR JJ.) 
Exciu O.fficu-Confession made to a7' Excise /n.•f"clor 
in the cour.oe of i1westigalion-lf a wnfession made to a police 
ufficer-"l'olicc O.Oie€r" 1 jJeaniny of--Excisr. Inspector, if a 
polict officer-Cod• of Criminal Procetkm 1898 (Act V of l.90~) 
ss. 
1.;1;, 162-lnaian Evidenr,e Act, 1872 (Act I of 11!72) 
s. 25-Bihur nnrl Ori'8a Exc;.e Act, 191.5 (Act 2 of 1915), 
ss. 2 (S), 7, 47 (a), 68, G9, 70, 71, 72, 73, 71, 78, 
SO, 
82, 95, 96 . . 
The appellant alongwith five other people, one of whom 
was driving the car, were 
travelling in a car belonging to 
the appellant's brother. The car was stopped by the Excise 
Inspector who conducted a search of the car and recovered 
five bundles of Ganja, four from the luggage boot and one 
from the leg space in front of the seat of the car. The boot 
could be opened with the keys in the possession of the appellant 
as \\'ell as one of the keys in the posses5ion of the driver. 'l'hc 
appellant made a confession to the Excise Inspector admitting 
his guilt. At the trial of the apprllant alongwith the other 
persons he pleaded an alibi and 
pleaded innocence. The 
• 
... 
SlJPREml COURT REPORTS 
753 
trial court acquitted all the other accused but convicted the 
appellant under s. 47 (a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. 
1915, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment 
for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. On appeal 
the High 
Court affirmed .this conviction 
and sentence. 
The appellant thereupon appealed to this Court with special 
leave. 
In the appeal before this Court it was contended that 
the confessional statement Ex. 3 upon which reliance was 
placed by the High Court as supporting the evidence ,of 
P. W. 2, P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 was inadmissible and if this 
statement was put' aside the evidence of these prosecution 
Witnessi:o was insufficient in law to sustain the conviction of 
the appellant. In objecting to the admissibility of the 
statement reliahce was placed on s. 25 of the Indian Evidence 
Act, 1872 ands. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in as 
rnuch as it was recorded by the Inspector of Excise while he was 
investigating into an exci•c offence under Ch. XIV of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure. 
Hi/4 (per Subba Rao and Mudholkar JJ.) the words 
·•Police Officer" in s. 25 of the Evidence Act are not to be 
construed in a narrow way but have to be construed in a 
wide and popular sense. 
Those words are however not to be 
coustrucd in so wide a sense as to include p~rsons on whom 
only some of the 
powers exercised by the police are 
conferred. 
· 
· Stat• of Punjab v. Barka,t Ram [1962] 3 S, C. R. 338 
referred to. 
. 
By virtue of s. 77 (2) read withs: 78 (3) of the Bihar & 
Orissa· Excise Act, 1915, an Excise Inspector or Sub-Inspector 
in the State of Bihar shall be deemed to be an officer in charge 
of a police station and is entitled to investigate any offence under 
the' Excise Act. 
He can exercise all the powers which an officer 
in charge of a police station can exercise under Ch. XIV of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore a confession 
recorded by him during an investigation into an excise 
offence cannot reasonably be regarded as anything different 
from a confession to a police officer. 
The test for determining whether a person is a "police 
ofl"icer" for the purpose of s. 25 of the Evidence Act would be 
whether the powers of a police officer which are conferred on 
him or which arc exercisable by him because he is deemed to 
be an officer in charge of a police station establish a direct or 
1963 
Raja Ram Jaiswal 
v. 
~tatt of Bihar 
• 
1163 
Rojo R.lln Jdswol 
•• 
Stou ef BIAm-
• 
754' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
substantial relationship with the prohibition enacted by '· 25 
of the Evidence Act that is the recording of a confesoion. 
In 
other words the test would be whether the powers are such ao 
would tend to facilitate 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.