Statement made by accused to the Forest Range Officer,, is admissible in evidence
The present case is one under the Forest Act and the provisions are similar to what are contained in the Prohibition Act and the Customs Act. The officer is not invested with all the powers of an officer in charge of a police station. So he is on a par with the Prohibition Officer and the Customs Officer. What applies to them applies to the Forest Officer also. In the absence, therefore, of a specific provision conferring on the Forest Officer all the powers of an officer in charge of a police station he cannot be called a "Police officer" and a statement made to him will not be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Apart from that as pointed out by Rajamannar, J. (as he then was) in Venkata Reddi, In re (1947) 2 Mad. L.J. 218, a very important fact which must be taken into account in coming to a decision on this question is that throughout the Act (the Madras ProhibitionAct) in more than one section " police officer" is mentioned in contradistinction to a "prohibition officer". He then refers to the various sections of the Act where these expressions are used in contradistinction. Similarly in the Forest Act the sections in which the expression "police officer" is mentioned in contradistinction to a Forest Officer are Sections 23, 41, 52 and 53. Therefore the statements made to a Forest Officer stand on a different footing from those made to police officers. As the Forest Officers are not conferred with powers of an officer in charge of a police station they cannot by any means be considered police officers under the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 25 of the Evidence Act cannot apply to them. Therefore in the present case the statementmade by the petitioner to the Forest Range Officer, P.W. 1, is admissible in evidence and it is not disputed that if this statement is admissible, the conviction is sustainable.
Madras High Court
E.C. Richard vs Forest Range Officer on 26 July, 1957
Equivalent citations: (1957) 2 MLJ 624
