State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Vyas Tewari .

Judgment

1. We have heard Mr Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant State. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice. The impugned judgment of the High Court, dated March 12, 1973, follows an earlier decision of that Court in Durga Prasad v. State 1971 AWR (HC) 17. That decision was reversed by this Court as per its judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Durga Prasad (1975) 3 SCC 210, (1975) 1 SCR 881. The matter was again thrashed out by this Court in Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 600. Now, it is settled law that an officer of the Railway Protection Force making an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is not a police officer conducting an investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the true position the ban under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the evidential use of statements, including the prohibition against signing of statements recorded in the course of police investigation, is not attracted to statements recorded by an officer of the Force making an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the Act.

2. On this short ground, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and send the case back to it with the direction that it should restore Criminal Revision No. 12 of 1971 to its original number and redecide the matter afresh after hearing the parties, in the light of the above observations and the law laid down by this Court in State of U.P v. Durga Prasad (1975) 3 SCC 210, (1975) 1 SCR 881 and in Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 600. The High Court shall, issue notice to the respondent, again, who have been proceeded against ex parte in this Court.