M.A.F Coelho, for the applicants;—The accused were convicted under section 43(i) of the Bombay Abkari Act V of 1878. The only evidence against them is the confession made to an Excise officer; The question is whether the confession is admissible, which it would not be if an Excise officer is a Police officer under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The amendment to section 41 of the Abkari Act was made in 1912 and under the amended section an Excise officer has all the powers that a Police officer has.[Marten, C.J:—You say that the powers of an Excise officer are identical with those of a Police officer]Yes. Under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code, an Excise officer conducts his investigation in a manner similar to that made by a Police officer.[Fawcett, J.:—An Excise officer is not given all the powers under section 41 of the Abkari Act, 1878. Only the powers of investigation are given.]Under section 38 of the Act, he is given power to arrest without a warrant. No doubt the officer makes investigation as an Excise officer but his powers are idendical with those of the police.[Marten, C.J:—I want to know exactly what the Excise officer can do. The Magistrate says that he gets the powers of a Police officer making an investigation.]Under section 167, Criminal Procedure Code, he has the power of detention; under section 170 he has the power to send the accused to a Magistrate and under section 190(b) he draws up the charge sheet.The Excise officer arrests an accused under section 38A and exercises all powers of police such as remand under section 38(c). Thus it will be seen that in the matter of arrest, detention in police custody, investigation, placing before the Magistrate the powers of the Excise officer are identical with those of Police officer.The term “Police officer” has not been defined in the Indian Evidence Act and the meaning of “Excise officer” should be construed in accordance with the general purpose and meaning of law. A Police officer should include all officers exercising the powers of a Police officer.[Marten, C.J:—In section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act an Excise officer would be included in the term “Revenue officer”.]An Excise officer is a Revenue officer so far as he collects revenue. No doubt the Indian Evidence Act draws a distinction between a Police officer and a Revenue officer; but that Act is of the year 1872, while police powers were conferred on Excise officers in 1912. Though the Indian Evidence Act is an Imperial Act, the local Act enacted at a later date should be held to modify the Imperial Act so far The reason of the change was that it was found to be impracticable for Excise officers to investigate without police powersAs regards the Bombay case of Pereira v. Emperor(1) the decision is, it is submitted, incorrect. Their Lordships relied on the Calcutta decision of Ah Foong v. Emperor(2). In that case the statements of co-accused were ruled out because they were of a self-exculpatory nature and, secondly, the decision was based on section 20 of the Opium Act. In Bengal, however, there was no such amendment of section 20 of the Opium Act as in Bombay. Excise officers in Calcutta have not the powers of a Police officer as in Bombay where, by reason of the Amending Act of 1912, Excise officers enjoy all the powers of a Police officer under the Abkari Act but not under the Opium Act at any rate till 1923, when the local Government by Act II of 1923 replaced the former section 20 of the Opium Act by section 3 of the Amending Act II of 1923.In The Queen v. Hurribole Chunder Ghose(1) held that the term “Police officer” should be read according to its popular meaning; while in Queen-Empress v. Bhima(2) a Police Patel was held to be a Police officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.In Queen-Empress v. Salemuddin Sheik(3) it was held that the provisions of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act applied to every Police officer and were not restricted to officers belonging to the regular police force.Kanga, Advocate General, with P.B Shingne, Acting Government Pleader, for the Crown:—An Excise officer cannot be regarded as a Police officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 25 is an exception to the general rule stated in section 21 under which admissions made by an accused person are admissible. Section 24 is the first exception and section 25 the second exception.Under section 25 the term “Police officer” is no doubt in certain cases construed in a popular sense. Hence it is that a Chowkidar or Village Patel has been held to be a Police officer within the meaning of that section. But when the Legislature confers upon a Revenue officer powers similar to those of a Police officer, he does not become a Police officer. He is primarily a Revenue officer and remains as such though for certain purposes police powers may be conferred on him. Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act makes a distinction between a Revenue officer and a Police officer and that distinction should be strictly followed.[Marten, C.J:—The terms of the Indian Evidence Act, however, have been modified by the local Act passed in 1912.]If the Legislature had intended to exclude from evidence confessions recorded by an Excise officer, it could have made it clear by incorporating in section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act some such words as “and other persons invested with the powers of a Police officer”.[Shah, J.:—Revenue officers had no police powers when the Indian Evidence Act was enacted. The contention on the other side is that under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act the term “Police officer” should include all officers possessing powers of the police.]It is submitted that interpretation would not be correct. Just as persons invested with quasi-judicial powers such as arbitrators, a commissioner for taking accounts, a Tribunal of Appeal, &c., are not judicial Courts, similarly, persons invested with police powers for very special and specific purposes should not be taken as Police officers. As regards the argument that the safeguard provided by the Legislature would be vitiated if such confessions were admitted in evidence, Excise officers being persons in authority, section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act would apply and would provide an adequate safeguard.[Shah, J.:—Why should the safeguard provided by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act be not extended to persons invested with police powers?]There is a clear distinction between ordinary crimes and offences against revenue. In the case of Excise and other Revenue officers, special powers are only conferred on the officers of the department to facilitate investigation. They are the only persons competent to investigate in such cases and hence are invested with those powers; but that does not convert them into Police officers. In cases of offences under the Salt Act, the Salt officers have similar powers. Take the instance, again, of a Ramoshi in the service of a house-holder. Though a private watchman, he would have the powers to arrest a trespasser and would be a policeman for that purpose, but to put such persons on the same footing as regular Police officers would be stretching the section too far.In Queen v. Hurribole Chunder Ghose(1) Sir Richard Garth said that the term “Police officer” should be taken in a comprehensive and popular sense; but it is one thing to say that a man is a Police officer and quite another to say that he should be deemed to be a Police officer.The Opium Act itself makes a distinction between a Police officer and an Excise officer: sections 14 and 20 of the Act. See also section 39 of the Bombay Abkari Act.The decisions in Queen-Empress v. Bhima(2) and Queen-Empress v. Salemuddin Sheik(3) relied on by the other side do not help them because a Village Chowkidar and a Police Patel are really Police officers.