1980 INSC 0377
                                               State of Uttar Pradesh

                                                           Vs

                                                     Vyas Tewari

                                         Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1974

                                    (O Chinnappa Reddy, R. S. Sarkaria, JJ)

                                                      17.09.1980

                                                     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. That decision
was reversed by this Court as per its judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Durga Prasad. The matter
was again thrashed out by this Court in Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra. Now, it is
settled law that an officer of the Railway Protection Force making in 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, 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 12 of 1971 to its original
number and reduced 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 and in Balkishan A. Devidayal
v. State of Maharashtra. The High Court shall, issue notice to the respondent, again, who have been
proceeded against ex parte in this Court.

</html