B. N. NAGARAJAN AND ORS.

STATE OF MYSORE AND ORS.

March I, 1966

[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO,

M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH

A?\D S. M. SIKRI, JJ.]

Constitatlon <>f India, Ari. 309, proviso-Scope of.

Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitmenl) Ru/ts 1957 r. J-.

Provision for service rules to be mod• for each servict-Whether in ab.fence o/ such niles has effect of suspending e.xecutl>"e power of S11#e wuler Art. 162 to makt! service appointments.

Mysore Public Works, Engineering Deparlment Services (Rtcruitment) Rules 1960-Considered-Mysore Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1951-Whethtr statutory rules under Ari. 309.

By notifications issued in October 1958, May 1959 and April 1960, the Mysore Public Service Commission invited applications for the recruitment of 80 probationary Assistant Engineers. The quali.flcatiom, pay, age limit and other conditions for eligibility were prescribed by ihese notifications.

On March I, 1960, it was notified by the Governor, that for direct recruitment to appointments and posts in the services of the State, reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes would be !511'o and 3 % ; and the reservation for other backward classes would be 259'.

Thereafter, in October and November 1960, the Mysore Public Service Commi~•ion intervi-"wed the candidates and sent a list to the Government of 80 candidates selected by them.

On December 3, 1960, the Government of Mysore sanctioned ti" establishment of the State Service Cadre in respect of the Mysor> Public \Vorks Engineering Department Service.

On the same date, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 the Governor made

the rules called the Mysore Public Service Engineering Departmmt Service (Recruument) Rules 1960. These Rules prescribed in respect of each category of specified posts the methods of recruitment, whereby

only 40% of the appointment could be made after an intcrvi-ew and an oral test and also prescribed the minimum qualifications, age limita, etc. for Assistant Engineers which were somewhat different from thoeo prescribed in the earlier Notifications of the Mysore Public Service Commission relating to the recruitment of 80 A;; sistant Engineers.

On October 23, 1961 the Governor mado cenain amendments to !he 1960 Rules the effect of which W3'' to make those rules retrospectift wilh effect from March I. 1958 :md also to waive the requirements ol the rule• relating to the percentages for direct recruitment, educational qualifications. and age requirement., etc. in respect of direct recruitment of Assi<tant Engineers for the first time.

Thereafter, on October 31, 1961, the Governor appointed 88 candidatec; as probationary Ac; c; istant Engineers. These appointments

'INTO challenged in 16 Writ Petition. filed in the High Court on the rouads inter a/la, that (i) in view of Rule 3 of the Mysore Stale Civil Servioeo

I !'

I ' •

• ' f'

'-•

(General Recruitment) Rules, 1957, which providd that. the method of recruitment and qualifications for each State .C1v1l S<:""ce shall . be set forth in the rules of recruitment of such service specially made 10 that behalf, the Government could not recruit the Assistant Engineers without framing the necessary rules; (ii) the State Government could not make rules retrospectively unless it had express powers to do so under the rele\'ant statute; (iii) the appointments which were made on <?ctober 31 1951 had to be made in accordance with the 1960 Rules but m fact wre not so made; (iv) some of the appointments were made ma/a fide.

These writ petitions were allowed by the High Court.

On appeal to this Court, HELD : The appointments of the 88 Assistant Engineers were validly made in the exercise of the executive power of the State under Art. 162 of the Constitution.

It is not obligatory under the provise> IC> Art. 309 le> make rules e>f recruitment etc. before a service can be constituted or a post created or filled.

The State Ge>vernment has executive power in relation IC> all matters with res~ IC> which the Legisla!Ure of the State ha& power to make laws.

It follows from this that the State Government will llave executive power in respect of List II Entry 41 "State Public Services".

1686 C-EJ

In this background, Rule 3 of the General Recruitment Rules of 1957 cannot be interpreted as suspending the executive power of the State till rules of recruitment of a service are specially made in that b• half.

[686 GJ Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab,

[1955] 2 S.C.R. 225 and T. Cajee v. K. Jormanic Siem, [1961] 1 $.C.R. 750, referred to.

Even if it were to be assumed that the rules purported to be made by the State GoYernment had no retr0<pective validity the position wrnld be that there were no statutory rules governing the appointment of the 88 Assistant Engineers; but that could not prevent the State Ge>vernment from making valid appe>intrnents in the exercise of its executive pe>wers. [694 Fl

It cannot be said that the appointments made in Octe>ber 1960 had to be under statute>ry rules made on December 3, 1960. It te>ok about !Wo years for. the Public Service Commission to publish notificatie>ns, mterv1ew candidates and recommend names fo'r appointment.

The whole procedure having been followed, it could not have been the intention of !1Je Ge>vernment, while framing te rules, le> cover appointments made 10 pursuance of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission made In November 1960 after interviewing the candidates in October 1960.

[694 G-695 BJ On the facts, no ma/a fide or collateral object had been proved.

The Mysore Public Service Commission (Function) Rules 1957 are not statutory rules made under Art. 309.

First, the rules do ne>t expressly say se>; and secondly, they deal with the function• of the Commission rather than with the rules regarding recruitment to services or posts. [685 EJ CML APPELLA1E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 430- 461 of 1964 •

Appeals from the judgment and order dated October 11, 1962 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1248, 1267, 1269, 1294-1298, 1311, 1312, 1318, 1341, 1354, 1355, 1382 and 1384.

684 SuPllEMI! COU&T llJ!POllTS [1966 j 3 S.CJl.

M. C. Seta/vad, S. C. Javali, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji, and Ravinder Narain, for appellants Nos. 1-4, 6-45 and 48-76 (in C. As. Nos. 430-445 of 1964).

A. K. Sen, B. R. L. Iyengar and B. R. G. K. Achar for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (in C. As. Nos. 430-445 of 1964) and Appellants (in C. A. Nos. 446-461 of 1964).

M. K. Nambyar, S.

N. Andie)', Rameshwar Nath and P. L.

Vohra, for respondents (in C. As. Nos. 446, 447, 449-452, 456 and 459 of 1964).

J. B. Dadadwnji, 0. C. Marhur and Ravinder Narain, for the Intervener.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore in 16 Writ Petitions filed before it, quashing the notification of the Government bearing No. P. W. 10 SAG 59 dated October 31, 1961,

and the appointments made thereunder of 88 Assistant Engineers D in the Public Works Department of the State Government.

To appreciate the arguments addressed to us on behalf of the appellants and the respondents, it is necessary to give, in chronological order, the events leading up to the filing of the above writ petitions and their significance.

On December 12, 1957, the Governor of Mysore made rules called the Mysore Public Service E Commission (Functions) Rules, 1957, hereinafter called the Functions Rules, relating to the functions of the Mysore Public Service Commission. Ruic 3 of these rules provides for recruitment by examination and r. 4 with which we are primarily concerned provides for recruitment by selection.

Rule 4 is as follows :

"When recruitment to a service or post is to be made F by selection, and consultation with the Commission is required, the Commission shall

(I) advise the Government in regard to the conditions of eligibility of candidates;

(2) after the rules to be made have been approved by Government and a requisition for recruitment is received, invite applications from intending candidates after giving due publicity to conditions of eligibility, nature of competition, number of vacancies to be filled where possible, and any other relevant material;

(3) consider all applications received and when necessary interview such candidates as fulfil the prescribed conditions and whom it considers most suitable for appointment;

I '

• '

• •

...

' ~,

...

Note.-Nothing contained herein shall preclude the Commission from considering the case of any candidate possessing the prescribed qualifications brought to its notice by Govermnent, even if such a candidate has not applied in response to the advertisement of the Govermnent.

( 4) forward to the Appointing Authority a list consisting of such number as it may fix, of the candidates whom the commission considers most suitable for appointment in order of preference;

Provided that the Commission may invite Government to nominate an Officer to represent the Service or the Department for whom recruitment is being made, to be present at the interview referred to in clause (3) to assist the Commission in its work of selection."

We may here dispose of the point whether these rules are executive rules or statutory rules made under art. 309 of the Consti tution. The High Court held that "there can be little doubt that to the extent the Rules deal with the topic of regulating recruitment to Civil Services under the State, the source of the power could only be the proviso to art. 309 of the Constitution." In our opinion, these rules are not rules made under art. 309. First, the rules do not expressly say so, and secondly, the rules are dealing with the functions of the commission rather than with laying down the rules regarding recruitment to services or posts. Under art. 320 (3) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Govermnent to consult and the duty of the Public Service Commission to advise, inter alia "on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts ..... and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers." Sub-rule (I) of r. 4 clearly provides the same thing as does art. 320 (3) (b) and the other sub-rules are really administrative arrangements apparently arrived at between the Commission and the Government as to how the Government and the Public Service Commission will take steps to recruit persons for the State Services or posts.

To resume the narrative, on February 10, 1958, the Governor of Mysore, in exercise of the pow en; conferred by the proviso to art. 309 of the Constitution, made the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957, hereinafter called the General Recruitment Rules. There is no dispute that these are statutory H rules and in so far as they direct anything to be done in a particular way, the Government would have to comply with the directions.

Rule 3 of these Rules, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents to urge that the Government MIJSup Cl/66-12

586 SUPllEMll COURT RJIPOl.TS

(1966] 3 S.C.R.

cannot recruit Assistant Engineers without framing rules, is in the following terms:

"Method of recruitment.-Recruitment to the State Civil Services shall be made by competitive examination or by promotion. The method of recruitment and qualifications for each State Civil Service shall be as set forth in the rules of recruitment of such service specially made in that behalf."

It would be convenient to deal with this argument at this stage. Mr. Nambiar contends that the words "shall be as set forth in the rules of recruitment of such service specially made in that behalf" clearly show that tiil the rules arc made in that behalf no recruitment can be made to any service. We are unable to accept this contention. First it is not obligatory under proviso to art. 309 to make rules of recruitment, etc., before a service can be constituted or a post created or filled. This is not to say that it is not desirable that ordinarily rules should be made on all matters which are susceptible of being embodied in rules. Secondly, the State Government has executive power, in relation to all matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws. It follows from this that the State Government will have executive power in respect of List II, Entry 41, State Public Services. It was settled by this Court in Ram Jawaya Kapur v.

The State of Punjab(') that it is not necessary that there must be a law already in existence before the executive is enabled to function and that the powers of the executive arc limited merely to the carrying out of these laws. We see nothing in the terms of art. 309 of the Constitution which abridges the power of the executive to act under art. 162 of the Constitution without a law. It is hardly necessary to mention that if there is a statutory rule or an act on the matter, the executive must abide by that act or rule and it cannot in exercise of the executive power under art. 162 of the Constitution ignore or act contrary to that rule or act.

In the background of this position we are unable to Interpret r. 3 of the General Recruitment Rules as suspending the executive power of the State till rules of recruitment of a service arc specially made in that behalf. Rules usually take a long time to make; various authorities have to be consulted and it could not have been the intention of r. 3 of the General Recruitment Rules, 1957, to halt the working of the public departments till rules were framed. This Court considered a similar point in T. Cajee v.

U. Jonnanik Siem(2) and arrived at a similar conclusion. The following observations of Wanchoo, J., who delivered the judg-

(!) (19SS) 2 S.C.R. 22S.

(2) (1961) I S.C.R. 750, 762-764.

A -

• •

D • -

r r

I ·•

' ,

ment on behalf of the majority, bring out clearly the fallacy in Mr.

Nambiar's argument:

"The High Court has taken the view that the appointment and succession of a Siem was not an administrative function of the District Council and that the District Council could only act by making a law with the assent of the Governor so far as the appointment and removal of a Siem was concerned. Jn this connection, the High Court relied on para 3 (I) (g) of the Schedule, which lays down that the District Council shall have the power to make laws with respect to the appointment and succession of Chiefs and Headmen. The High Court seems to be of the view that until such a law is made there could be no power of appointment of a Chief or Siem like the respondent and in consequence there would be no power of removal either. With respect, it seems to us that the High Court has read far more into para 3 (1) (g) than is justified by its language. Paragraph 3 (I) is in fact something like a legislative list and enumerates the subjects on which the District Council is competent to make Jaws. Under para 3 (!) (g) it has power to make laws with respect to the appointment or succession of Chiefs or Headmen and this would naturally include the power to remove them. But it does not follow from this that the appointment or removal of a Chief is a legislative act or that no appointment or removal can be made without there being first a Jaw to that effect."

"Further once the power of appointment falls within the power of administration of the district the power of removal of officers and others so appointed would necessarily follow as a corollary. The Constitution could not have intended that all administration in the autonomous districts should come to a stop till the Governor made regulations under para 19 (!) (b) or till the District Council passed Jaws under para 3 (I) (g). The Governor in the first instance and the District Councils thereafter were vested with the power to carry on the administration and that in our opinion included the power to appoint and remove the personnel for carrying on administration. Doubtless when regulations are made under para 19 (1) (b) or Jaws are passed under para 3 (1) with respect to the appointment or removal of the personnel of the administration, the administrative authorities would be bound to follow the regulations so made or the laws so passed. But from this it does not follow that till the regulations were made or the laws were passed, there could be no appointment or dismissal

fi88 SVPREME COUllT llJ!POllTS [1966] 3 S.C.ll.

of the personnel of the administration. In our opinion, the authorities concerned would at all relevant times have the power to appoint or remove administrative personnel under the general power of administration vested in them by the Sixth Schedule. The view therefore taken by the High Court that there could be no appointment or removal by the District Council without a law having been first passed in that behalf under para 3 (1) (g) cannot be sustained."

Mr. Nambiar in this connection also relied on arts. 15 and 16 of the Constitution. He urged that if the executive is held to have power to make appointments and lay down conditions of &ervice without making rules in that behalf under the proviso to art. 309, arts. 15 and 16 would he breached because the appointments in that case would be arbitrary and dependent on the mere whim of the executive. We arc unable to hold that arts. I 5 and 16 in any way lead us to this conclusion. If the Government advertises the appointments and the conditions of service of the appointments and makes a selection after advertisement there would

be no breach of art. 15 or art. 16 of the Constitution because everybody who is eligible in view of the conditions of service would be entitled to be considered by the State.

In conclusion we hold that r. 3 of the General Recruitment Rules, 1957, did not prevent the State from exercising its executive power of appointing Assistant Engineers and determining their i: conditions of service by executive order.

I Mr. Nambiar had at one stage contended that rules existing in the constituent parts of the new State of Mysore would be available for recruitment as they had been continued under the States Reorganisation Act, but it seems to us that these rules would not be available for recruitment purposes because the Govern- F ment would be recruiting Assistant Engineers for the whole State and not for each of the constituent parts of the State. We may clarify that these remarks only deal with recruitment rules.

This brings us to the next event, and that is Notification No E. 2666-58-9PSC dated October I, 1958, issued by the Mysore Public Service Commission inviting applications in the prescribed G form from qualified l ndian citizens for recruitment of 40 Probationary Assistant Engineers in the Executive Cadre of the Mysore Public Works Department. The Notification prescribes the qualifications, pay, age limit, other conditions for eligibility, fee payable and the particulars of the candidates required to be furnished. On March 4, 1959, the Governor of Mysore in exercise of the powers H ronferred by the proviso to art. 309 prescribed the maximum age limits fOi rlircct recruitment of graduates in Engineering for the posts of Supervisors and Assistant Engineers in the Mysore

. '

.. >

. .

A Public Works Department. These age limits were to prevail until the rules of recruitment specially applicable to Mysore Public Works Department were promulgated. The maximum age limits were made retrospective. It was further provided that "anything done or any action taken by the Public Service Commission or other authority in respect of recruitment of Probationary Assistant B Engineers between September 1, 1958 and the date of this Notification shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the

proisions of this Notification."

On the same date the Secretary to the Government of Mysore, Public Works Department, Bangalore, wrote to the Secretary, Public Service Commission, Bangalore, stating inter alia, that;

"The Public Service Commission has already taken action to recruit forty probationers in the Public Works Department for being absorbed as Assistant Engineers in due course after satisfactory completion of their training. I am to request the Public Service Commission to take action straightway to invite applications and send a list of 80 candidates in all for appointment as Probationers in the Department."

This clearly shows that the Government was aware of the action taken by the Public Service Commission in issuing the Notification dated October I, 1958.

After receipt of this letter, the Public Service Commission issued a Notification on May 4, 1959, inviting applications "from qualified Indian citizens of all classes for recruitment of 80 Probationary Assistant Engineers in the Executive Cadre of the Mysore Public Works Department, including the 40 posts already advertised in this office Notification No. E-3666-58 P.S.C. dated October I, 1958". This Notification laid down the qualifications, pay during the period of probation, age limits, etc. The age limits prescribed were the same as in the State Government Notification dated March 4, 1959. The Public Service Commission Notification further included the usual particulars required to be furnished by the candidates. On March I, 1960, the Governor issued a notification containing Order No. GAD 7 ORR 60 dated March I, 1960, ordering "that for direct recruitment to appointments and posts in the services of the State, reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes shall be 15 % and 3 %. The reservation for other backward classes shall be 25 %· The rest of the appointments and posts shall be filled up on the basis of merit and shall be open to all classes."

The Public Service Commission then issued a Notification dated April I, 1960, inviting applications for filling up of various posts in the several departments of Government of Mysore,

690 SUPllBMB COUllT llllPOl.TS

(1966] 3 S.C.R.

including the 80 Probationary Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department. These were included in Part 'A' of the Notification, and it was provided inter alia in para 22 of the Notification as follows :

"22. lMPORTANT NOTE :

(i) The vacancies detailed in Part 'A' of the Statement were previously advertised in this office notifications noted in column 8 against each item and such of the candidates who have already applied for the said vacancy/vacancies in response to the previous notification need not apply again.

But they may furnish additional information, if any, if they so desire.

(ii) Applications already received in this office for the vacancies under Part 'A' will be considered on the basis of the revised classification issued by Government in their Order No. GAD 7 ORR 60, dated the I st March, 1960.

(iii) The qualifications, period of experience/training or service, the minimum and maximum age limits and all other requirements to be satisfied by the candidates for all the vacancies under Part 'A' in the statement shall be determined as on the dates noted against each item of vacancy/vacancies in column 9 of the statement.

(iv) Such of the candidates who do not satisfy these conditions as on the dates noted in column 9 of the statement in respect of Part 'A' vacancies, will not be eligible for the posts."

Column 8 of the statement mentions the previous notifications dated May 4, 1959 and October 1, 1958, and column 9 mentions the date "June 8, 1959". Column 5 prescribes the qualifications as follows

"A degree in Engineering (Civil or Mechanical) or an equivalent Examination. In addition candidates must have also either undergone practical training or rendered a service in the Technical Cadre of the P.W.D. for a minimum of 6 months. (A certificate to that effect issued by the Principal of the college or superior officer under whom they have undergone training or arc working must accompany the application."

The maximum age limits were prescribed as under

"33 years for Scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. 31 years for others, 35 years in the case of government servants holding substantive appointments or having

D ..

< •

• .

~ .

> •

continuous government service for a period of not Jess than 3 years."

In October 1960 the Mysore Public Service Commission interviewed the candidates and on November 2, 1960, the Commission sent to the Government a list of 80 candidates selected by them. On December 3, 1960, the Government of Mysore sanctioned the establishment of the State Service Cadre in respect of Mysore Public Works Engineering Department Service. On the same date, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to art. 309, the Governor of Mysore made the rules called the Mysore Public Works Engineering Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1960. It prescribed, in respect of each category of posts specified in column 1 of the Schedule, methods of recruitment and the minimum qualifications and the period of probation, if any. For Assistant Engineers, the method of recruitment prescribed was 40 per cent by direct recruitment by the Public Service Commission after interview and oral test; 50 per cent by promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers, and 10 per cent by promotion from the cadre of Supervisors. It prescribed the minimum qualifications and age as follows:

"For Direct Recruitment

Age-Not above 31 years. A pass in Civil or Mechanical Engineering or a Certificate or Diploma from the Institute of Engineers that the candidate has passed Parts A. B. of the Associate Membership of the Institute of Engineers or equivalent qualification with practical training for not less than 6 months during or after the course.'' One G. Govindaraju, Junior Engineer, filed a petition under art. 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus to the State Government prohibiting the appointment of 80 persons selected by the Public Service Commission. It was contended by him that on December 3, 1960, under the proviso to art. 309 of the Constitution the Governor had made rules regulating the recruitment to the posts of Assistant Engineers, and that under those rules, forty per cent of the appointments alone could be made by the Public Service Commission after an interview and an oral test. Various other arguments were urged before the High Court. The Advocate-General stated before the High Court on behalf of the State Government that the list having been prepared by the Public Service Commission in response to the request made by the State Government in the exercise of its executive power which it possessed under art. 162 of the Constitution, the State Government was not bound to make appointments only in accordance with that list, and that it was open to the State Government not to appoint any of those persons or to appoint only those persons who, in its

692 SUPREMB COUllT lll!POJ.TS

(1966) 3 S C.R.

opinion, should be appointed amongst them. The High Court felt that this statement made before it by the Advocate-General rendered unnecessary any investigation into the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner at that stage. The High Court further observed a! follows:

"It would be for the State Government, before it takes a decision on that question, to consider the effect of Rule 4{2) of the Public Service Commission (Function) Rules, made on December IO, 1957, Rules 3 and 4 of the Mysore Stale Civil Services General Recruitment Rules, which came into force on February 10, 1958, and of the Mysore Public Works Engineering Department Service (Recruitment) Rules, which came into force on December 3, 1960, and to further consider whether in the light of those provisions, appointments could be made to the posts of Assistant Engineers, except in accordance with the provisions of the Rules which came into force on December 3, 1960. On this question,· we should not, in my opinion, express any opinion at this stage."

With these observations, the High Court dismissed the petition as premature. This order was passed on September 29, 1961.

On October 23, 1961, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to art. 309 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling him in that behalf, the Governor of Mysore made certain amendments to the Mysore Public Works, Engineering Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1960. The effect of these amendment!, if valid, was to make the Mysore Public Works Engineering Department Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1960, retrospective with effect from the first day of March, 1958. Para 3 of this Notification further provided:

"3. To rule 2, the following proviso shall be added and shall be deemed always lo have been added, namely :-

"Provided that in respect of direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers for the first time under these rules the percentages relating to direct recruitment and recruitment by promotion specified in column 2 of the Schedule shall not be applicablo and the minimum qualifications and the period of probation shall be the following, namely:-

Qualifications-The candidates must be a graduate in Engineering (Civil or Mechanical) ormust have passed an equivalent examination and must have either undergone practical training or rendered service in a technical cadre in the Public Works Department for a minimum period

' •

' c

D • •

F -. ,

NAGARAJAN v. MYSORI! (Sikri, /,)

not less than six months. A certificate to that effect issued by the Principal of the College or Superior Officer under whom he has undergone training or is working must be enclosed to the application;

Age limits must not be above-

(i) 35 years in the case of Government servantsholding appointment substantively or who have been in continuous Government service for a period of not less than 3 years and political sufferers;

(ii) 33 years in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes;

(iii) 31 years in the case of Backward Classes;

(iv) 28 years in the case of others; on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications.

Period of Probation.-Two years."

On October 31, 1961, the Governor of Mysore appointed 88 candidates as Probationary Assistant Engineers in the Mysore Public Works Department and it is these appointments that were challenged before the Mysore High Court in the 16 writ petitions mentioned in the beginning of this judgment.

Mr. Seta!va, d contends that under the proviso to art. 309 the Governor is entitled to make retrospective rules and the position of the Government while acting under the proviso to art. 309 is in no way different from the powers conferred on the legislature under art. 309 read with arts. 245 and 246 and item 41 of List II.

Mr. Setalvad further contends that the Government is not acting ru; a delegate of any legislature while exercising powers under the proviso to art. 309; it is exercising a power conferred by the Constitution directly on the executive and the Constitution has not prescribed any guiding principles to be followed by the State Government while it is exercising powers under the proviso to art. 309, because the Constitution treats it having the same powers as the legislature. He further says that the State Government can amend and repeal any existing law relating to State Services continued in force by art. 313 of the Constitution. He urges that if the Constitution makers had intended to place any fetters on the powers of the State Government under the proviso, these would have been mentioned specifically, and he says that we cannot treat it on the same basis as delegated legislation and, therefore, even if it be the law, which he does not concede, that the executive when acting as a oelegate under an act of Parliament or an act of a State Legislature, cannot make rwes retrospectively, this principle does not apply to the exercise of powers under the provis0> to art. 309 of the Constitution.

-694

SUPR.BME OOUl.T R.BPOl.TS

(1966] 3 S.C.R..

Mr. Nambiar contends that under an act of Parliament or an act of a State Legislature the executive cannot frame rules retrospectively unless the act specifically empowers it to do so. According to him the position is the same under the proviso to art.

309. In our opinion, it is not necessary to decide this point in these cases because we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of on another ground. Assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Nambiar is right that the Mysore State Government could not make rules retrospectively and that the rules are thus void, so far as they operate retrospectively, we must ignore these rules and sec whether the appointments made on October 31,

1961, can be upheld.

We have come to the conclusion that these appointments can be considered to have been validly made in exercise of the executive power of the State under art. 162 of the Constitution. The three notifications issued by the Public Service Commission on October I, 1958, May 4, 1959 and April I, 1960,

must be treated to have been issued with the consent of the State Government.

These notifications are not rules made under art. 309 of the Constitution, as contended hy Mr.

Nambiar; they arc mere executive notifications issued by the Public Service Commission at lea't with the implied consent of the State Government. The passage reproduced above from the letter of the Government dated March, 4, 1959, clearly shows that the Government was well aware of what the Public Service Commission was doing. It was aware of the action being taken by the Public Service Commission, and indeed, it can safely be assumed that the Government was aware of each step being taken by the Public Service Commission including the publication of these notifications. The position is that if we accept Mr. Nambiar's arguments that these rules purported to be made by the Mysore State Government had no retrospective validity, there were no statutory rules to govern the appointment of the 88 persons a~ Assistant Engineers. We have already held that the Mysore State Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957, did not debar the Government from making appointments without making statutory rules. Therefore, we hold that these appointments were validly made.

Mr. Nambiar sought to impeach the appointments on another G ground.

He said that the appointments violated Mysore Public Works Engineering Department Services (Recruitment) Rules,

1960 dated December 3, 1960, because the appointments were mad~ on October 31, 1961, and according to him, these appointments had also to he made under the statutory rules made on December 3 1960. We are unable to sustain this contention be- H cause it took about two years for the Public Service Commission to publish notifications, interview candidates and rcmrnend names for appointment. The whole procedure having been

~ . •

. -

. •

A followed, it could not have been the intention of the Government while framing the rules to cover appointments made in pursu- --., ance of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission made in November 1960 after interviewing candidates in October _,). 1960.

• ....

It was urged in the alternative that the advertisement made by the Public Service Commission notification dated April l,

1960 was different from the rules of March 4, 1959, in the matter of fixing the age limits, i.e., while the rules provided 28 years as the maximum age in the case of others, the notification provided the maxnnum age as 31 years.

In our view the respondents are not entitled to make a grievance of this difference because there is nothing on the record to show that the ages of those appointed were against the rules of March 4, 1959. The learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that they have suffered in any manner because of this difference in age.

There remains one question and that is the question of ma/a fides which was alleged in the petition. There were 16 petitions D but we will take the allegations from the first petition. Paras 16 and 17 in Writ Petition No. 1248of1961, before the High Court, in which the allegations of ma/a fides have been made read as under:

"Further selection made by the Public Service Commission is arbitrary and made out of collateral considerations. Amongst the selected candidates, the following viz., (I) Sri D. C. Channe Gowda, who is the son-inlaw of the 2nd member of the Public Service Commission, an ordinary B.E. Graduate with only 49 % of marks;

(2) Sri Kencharase Gowda, who is the sister's son-inlaw, an ordinary B. E. have been selected to the exclusion of myself and several others, who had superior qualificat_ion, both academically and by virtue of seniority in service.

17. Similarly, relations of prominent members of the local Legislature and of Parliament, relations of high placed officials including a Minister and an ex-Minister have been selected."

The Chairman of the Mysore Public Service Commission filed a counter-affidavit and replied to the above paras 16 and 17 as follows: '

"3. Paragraph 16 of the Petitioner's affidavit-The statement that the selection made was arbitrary and made out of collateral considerations is incorrect. It is true that Shri D. C. Channe Gowda was among the candidates selected. The then Second Member of the

SUPREME

COURT llBPOl.TS

(1966) 3 S.c.A.

Public Service Commission abstained from participating in the interview of that candidate.

I was not aware at the time of the selection, of the relationship of Kencharase Gowda, Shri T. Krishna, Shri Hanume Gowda and Shri M. N. Narase Gowda to the then Second Member of the Public Service Commission. The then Second Member of the Public Service Commission, Shri M. K.

Appajappa is since dead. The dominant factor in making the selection was the performance of the candidate at the interviewand the marks secured by the candidate in the Degree Examination was only one of the factors that was taken into consideration.

4. Paragraph 17 of the Petitioner's Affidavit-I was not aware of the relationship, if any, of the candidates to prominent members of the local Legislature and of Parliament or of high placed officials including a Minister and an ex-Minister. I submit that it is also incorrect to suggest that the selections were influenced by any such relationship".

The High Court found it unnecessary to investigate this matter because it felt that the selections impugned were invalid on other grounds, but it observed as follows:

"There is no denying the fact that the facts stated in the pleadings, especially in the light of the manner in which they are traversed in the counter affidavit of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, do raise a strong suspicion."

The High Court might well have abstained from expressing its strong suspicion if it was not going to give its final views on the question of malafides. We are unable to appreciate that the manner in which the counter-affidavit of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission is expressed calls for any comment.

In para 15 of the affidavit in support of Writ Petition No. 1269 of 1961 more details arc given of the selected candidates and the counter-affidavit filed hy the Chairman of the Public Service Commission is common to all the petitions. But even so, the details mentioned did not call for any detailed reply.

For example, it was alleged in para 15 that one Shri D.C. Channe Gowda who is the son-in-law of the Second Member of the Public Service Commission, Shri Appajappa, was an ordinary B. E. Graduate with only 49 8 % marks. But even if he had only 49 8 % of the marks, this is not conclusive to show that he should not have been selected because the whole object of interviewing candidates is to judge their eligibility or suitability apart from the standard displayed by them in the written examination. We are unable to hold that on these facts any mala fides or collateral object has been proved.

B •

H •

NAGAltAJAN V. MYSORE (Sikri, ].) 697

A In the result the appeals both of the State and the other appellants are allowed and judgment of the High Court set aside.

We may mention that some of the appellants have not prosecuted their appeals but there is no reason why they should not have the benefit of this judgment, and exercising our powers under art. 142 of the Constitution, we direct that in order to do complete B justice they should also have the benefit of the judgment given by us. There will be no order as to costs. ·

Appeals allowed.

B. N. NAGARAJAN AND ORS

STATE OF MYSORE AND ORS

P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR

K. N. WANCHOO

M. HIDAYATULLAH, J

C. SHAH

A?\D S. M. SIKRI, JJ.

Art. 162

Mysore Public Service Commission

March I, 1960

Mysore Public Service Commi~•ion

December 3, 1960

Government of Mysore

Art. 309

October 23, 1961

October 31, 1961

Art. 162

Art. 309

[1955] 2 S.C.R. 225

Art. 309

Mysore High Court

M. C. Seta

S. C. Javali

O. C. Mathur

J. B. Dadachanji

Ravinder Narain

A. K. Sen

B. R. L. Iyengar

B. R. G. K. Achar

M. K. Nambyar

S.

N. Andie

Rameshwar Nath

P. L.

Vohra

J. B. Dadadwnji

C. Marhur

Sikri

High Court of Mysore at Bangalore

December 12, 1957

Mysore

art. 309

art. 309

art. 309

art. 320

art. 320

February 10, 1958

art. 309

Nambiar

art. 309

art. 309

art. 162

art. 162

General Recruitment Rules, 1957

Wanchoo

Sixth Schedule

arts. 15 and 16

art. 309

arts. 15 and 16

art. 15

art. 16

General Recruitment Rules, 1957

States Reorganisation Act

October I, 1958

Mysore Public Works Department

March 4, 1959

art. 309

September 1, 1958

Public Service Commission

May 4, 1959

November 2, 1960

art. 309

G. Govindaraju

art. 226

art. 309

art. 162

December IO, 1957

September 29, 1961

art. 309

Governor of Mysore

Seta!va

art. 309

art. 309

art. 309

arts. 245 and 246

Setalvad

art. 309

art. 309

art. 313

art. 309

Parliament

art.

309

Mysore State Government

October 31,

1961

art. 162

art. 309

March, 4, 1959

December 3 1960

D. C. Channe Gowda

Kencharase Gowda

Kencharase

T. Krishna

Hanume Gowda

M. N. Narase Gowda

M. K.

Appajappa

D.C. Channe Gowda

Appajappa

art. 142


BADKU JOTI SAVANT

I'.

STATE OF MYSORE

March I, 1966

[P. B. GAJE1'DRAGADKAR, C. J .• K. N. WANCHOO,

M. l-IIDAYATULLAll, J.C. SHAH AND

S. M. SJKRI, JJ.)

Sta Customs Act (8 of 1878), s. 167(81)-0ffence under-Offender whether must be directly concerned in the ilnport of smuggled gofd.

Central Excise and Salt Act (I of 1944), s. 21-Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Excise given certain powers of an 'officer-In-char~ of a police station'-Such officer 1vhe1her a police officer lvithiti the nieaning of Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872), s. 25.

The appellant who lived in a village near Goa was found in possession of contraband gold.

He was prosecu1ed under s. 167 ( 81 ) of the Sea Customs Act read with s. 9 of the Land Customs Act (9 of 1924). The trial Magistrate convic1ed him but lhe Sessions Judge relying on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sitaram Agarwala's cue acquitted

him. The High Court of Mysore, in appeal against the acquittal, considered the evidence and relying, inter a/ia, on the statement made by the apP.ellant to the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Excise held him guilty.

With certificate the appellant came to this Court.

The questions that fell for consideration were : ( i) whether the view taken by the High Court differing from the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Sitaram Agl1.rwa/a's case with respect to the interpretation of s. 167(81) was correct, and (ii) whether the statement made by the appellant to the Deputy Superintendent of Customs & E.cise was admissible in view of s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

HELD : (i) The High Court was right in not following the view of the Calcutta High Court in Sltaram Agarwala's case, the correct view a.. to the interpretation of s. 167(81) of the Sea Customs being that the section takes in even those persons who may not be concerned with the actual import of the prohibited goods.

[700 G.H]

Sachidananda Banerjee, Assistant Collector of Cu.rtomr v.

Sitararn Agarwal, (1966] 2 S.C.R, I, followed.

Sltaram Agarwal v. State. (1962] Cr. L.J. 43, disapproved.

(ii) The Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 does not confer all tho powers of a police officer on Central Excise Officers. The powers conferred on them bys. 21(2) of the Act are only for the purpose of inquiry under s. 21 (1); they would not entitle the said officers to file a chargesbeet under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore even though a Central Excise Officer may have when making enquiries for purp06e8 of the Act, powers which an officer-in-<:hargo of a police station

bas when investigating a cognizable offence. he does not thereby become a police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the statement of an accused person recorded by him is not hit by that sec:lion.

(704 B-C, F-GJ Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (1964] 2 S.C.R. 752 and NQ/loo Sheikh Ahmed v. Emperor, (1921) I.L.R. 51 Born. 78, distinguished.

State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram., (1962) 3 S.C.R. 338, relied on.

' D

... '

•••

• T(

• A

Radha Klshun Marwari v. King-Emperor, ( 1933) I.L.R. 12 Patna 46, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1964.

Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 20, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1963.

B. R. L. Iyengar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.

A. K. Sen, D. R. Prem, R.H. Dhebar and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent.

Niren De, Additional Solicitor-General and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the intervener.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Mysore High Court. The appellant was prosecuted under s. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act (No. 8 of 1878) read with s. 9 of the Land Customs Act (No. 19 of 1924). The appellant lives in a village which is close to Goa. The incident out of which the present appeal has arisen took place on November 27, 1960 when Goa was not a part oflndia but was Portuguese territory. The Deputy Superintendent of Customs, Goa Frontier Division, Belgaum received information that contraband goods would be found in the house of the appellant. Consequently he raided the house in the company of three panchas. The appellant was not present in the house when the raid took place, but his mother and sisterin-law were there. After necessary formalities the house was searched and a big steel trunk, a cane-box and another steel trunk were taken down from the loft in the kitchen. On opening, a belt, with four pouches stitched to it, was found in the big steel trunk. Inside the pouches, four gold bars with foreign marks and labels of Goa Customs authorities were found. Besides these, a large sum of money and three small cut pieces of gold were also found in the box. In the other two boxes also various sums of money in currency notes were .fonnd. The weight of the gold bars was. 343 tolas.

On November 30, 1960, the appellant was arrested and interrogated by the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Excise.

The answers given by him were reduced in writing and his signature was taken on the writing after it had been read over to him.

During this interrogation, the appellant admitted that the four gold bars had been given to him on November 27, 1960 in the morning by one Vittal Morajkar of Goa so that he might deliver them back to Morajkar on the motor-stand at Belgaum or near there, and he had kept them in his house. As the gold was foreign gold

--...

~ ,.

.. ,./

that the appellant would be guilty within the meaning of s. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act.

This leaves only the second question, and it has been ur1o1ed on behalf of the appellant that a Central Excise Offier under the Central Excises and Salt Act, No. l of 1944 (heremafter referred to as the Act) is a police officer within the meaning of those words in s. 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore even though the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Central Excises may have acted under the powers conferred on him by the Sea Custm, ns Act, he was still a police officer, and the statement made to him by the appellant on November 30, 1960 which is in the nat'!lre of a confession would be inadmissible under s. 25 of the Evidence Act. It may be added that the High Court had in this connection relied on the judgment of this Court in the State of Punjab v.

Barkat Ram() where it had been held by majority that a Customs Officer under the Sea Customs Act was not a police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evidence Act. The appellant however relies on a later decision of this Court in Raja Ram Jaiswa/ v. State of Bihar(Z) where by majority it was held that an excise officer under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (No. 2of1915) wa~ a police officer within the meaning qf s. 25 of the Evidence Act.

There has been difference of opinion among the High C01arts. in India as to the meaning of the words "police officer" used in s. 25 of the Evidence Act. One view has been that those words must be construed in a broad way and all officers whether they are police officers properly so-called or not would be police officers within the meaning of those words if they have all the powers of a police officer with respect to investigation of offences with which they are concerned. The leading case in support of this view is Nano<> Sheikh Ahmed v. Emperor('). The other view which may be called the narrow view is that the words "police officer" in s. 25 of the Evidence Act mean a police officer properly so-called and do not include officers of other departments of government who may. be charged with the duty to investigate under special Acts special crimes thereunder like excise offences or customs offences and so on. The leading case in support of this view is Radh~ Kishun Marwari v. King-Emperor(•).

The other High Courts have followed one view or the other, the majority being in favour of the view taken by the Bombay High Court.

It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the view taken by the. Bombay High Court in Nanoo Sheikh Ahmed(') is the correct view and that the view of the Patna High Court in Radha Kishun Marwari(4) is not correct. On the other hand it has been H urged on behalf of the State that the view taken by the Patna High

(I) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 338,

(2) [1964) 2 S.C.R, 752.

(3) [1927] I.L.R. SI Born. 78.

(4) [1933] I.L.R, IZPatoa 46.

MllSup.C.I./66-13

SUPREME

COURT REPOlt'l'S

Court in Radha Kislzu11 Manmri(') is the correct one. Prima facie there is in our opinion much to be said for the narrow view taken by the Patna High Court.

But as we have come to the conclusion that even 0n th~ broad view, a Central Excise Officer

under the Act is not :. police officer, it is unnecessary to express a final opinion on the two views on the meaning of the words "police officer" in s. 25 of the Evidence Act.

We shall proceed on the assumption that the broad view may be accepted and that requires an examination of the various provisions of the Act to which we turn now.

The main purpose of the Act is to levy and collect excise duties and Central Excise Officers have been appointed thereunder for this main purpose. In order that they may carry out their duties in this behalf, powers have been conferred on them to see that duty is not evaded and persons guilty of evasion of duty are brought to book. Section 9 of the Act provides for punishment which may extend to imprisonment upto 6 months or to fipd upto Rs. 2,000 or both where a person (a) contravenes any of the provisions of a notification issued under s. 6 or of s. 8 or of a rule made under cl. (iii) of sub-section (2) of s. 37; (b) evades the payment of any duty payable under the Act; (c) fails to supply any information which he is required by rules made under the Act to supply or supplies false information; and (d) attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences mentioned in els. (a) and (b) above. Under s. 13 of the Act, any Central Excise Officer duly empowered by the Central Government in this behalf may arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to be liable to punishment under the Act. Section 18 lays down that all searches made under the Act or any rules made thereunder and all arrests made under the Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 relating respectively to searches and arrests made under that Code. Section 19 lays down that every person arrested under the Act shall be forwarded without delay to the nearest Central Excise Officer empowered to send persons so arrested to a Magistrate or if there is no such Central Excise Officer within a reaiOnable 'distance, to the officcr-in-<.:harge of the nearest police station. These sections clearly show that the powers of arrest and search conferred on Central Excise Officers are really in support -0f their main function of levy and collection of duty on excisable goods.

Strong reliance has however been placed on behalf of the appellant on s. 21 of the Act, the material part of which runs thus:

"21. ( 1) When any person is forwarded under section 19 to a Central Excise Officer empowered to send persons so

(l) (1933] 1.L.lt. 12 htna 46.

D i

• - F ""'

arrested to a Magistrate, the Central Excise Officer shall proceed to inquire into the charge against him. .

(2) For this purpose the Central Excise Officer may exercise the same powers and shall be subject to the same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when investigating a cognizable case; Provided that. ................................. " It is urged that under sub-section (2) of s. 21 a Central Excise Officer under the Act has all the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station under chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore he must be deemed to be a police officer within the meaning of those words in s. 25 of the Evidence Act.

It is true that sub-section (2) confers on the Central Excise Officer under the Act the same powers as an officer-in-charge of a police station has when investigating a cognizable case; but this power is conferred for the purpose of sub-s. (I) which gives power to a Central Excise Officer to whom any arrested person is forwarded to inquire into the charge against him. Thus under s. 21 it is the duty of the Central Excise Officer to whom an arrested person is forwarded to inquire into the charge made against such person. further under proviso (a) to sub-s. (2)of s. 21 if the Central Excise Officer is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall either admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or forward him in custody to such Magistrate.

It does not however appear that a Central Excise Officer under the Act has power to submit a charge-sheet under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under s. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate can take cognizance of any offence either

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, of (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer, or (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, . that such offence has been committed. A police officer for purposes of cl. (b) above can in our opinion only be a police officer properly so-called as the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows and it seems therefore that a Central Excise Officer will have to make a complaint under cl. (a) above if he wants the , Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence, for example, under s. 9 of the Act. Thus though under sub-section (2) of s. 21 of the Central Excise Officer under the Act has the powers of an officer-incharge of a police station when investigating a cognizable case, that is for the purpose of his inquiry under sub-s. (1) of s. 21. Section 21 is in terms different from s. 78(3) of the Bihar a_nd Orissa Excise Act, 1915 which came to be considered in Raja Ram Jaiswcil' s

SUPREME

COURT

REPORTS

(1966] 3 S.C.R.

case(') and which provided in terms that "for the purposes of section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 the area to which an excise officer empowered under section 77: sub-section (2) , is appointed shall be deemed to be a police station, and such officer shall be deemed to be the officer-in-charge of such station". It cannot therefore be said that the provision in s. 21 is on par with the provision in s. 78(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. All that s. 21 provides is that for the purpose of his enquiry, a Central Excise Officer shall have the powers of an officerin-charge of a police station when investigating a cognizable case.

But even so it appears that these powers do not include the power to submit a charge-sheet under s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for unlike the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, the Central Excise Officer is not deemed to be an officer-in-charge of a police station.

It has been urged before us that if we considers. 21 in the set•

ting of s. 14 of the Act, it would become clear that the enquiry contemplated under s. 21(1) is in substance different from investigation pure and simple into an offence under the Code of Criminal D Procedure. It is not necessary to decide whether the enquiry under s. 14 must also include enquiry mentioned ins. 21 of the Act.

Apart from this argument we are of the opinion that mere conferment of powers of investigation into criminal offences under s. 9 • of the Act does not make the Central Excise Officer a police officer even in the broader view mentioned above. Otherwise any E person entrusted with investigation under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would become a police officer.

In any case unlike the provisions of s. 78(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, s. 21 (2) of the Act does not say that the Central Excise Officer shall be deemed to be an officer-in-charge of a police station and the area under his charge shall be deemed lo be a police. station. All that s. 21 does is to give him certain powers to aid him in his enquiry. In these circumstances we are of opinion that even though the Central Excise Officer may have when making enquiries for purposes of the Act powers which an officer-in-charge of a police station has when investigating a cognizable offence, he docs not thereby become a police officer even if we give the broader meaning to those words in s. 25 of the Evi- '1ence Act. The scheme of the Act therefore being different from the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, the appellant cannot take advantage of the decision of this Court in Raja RamJaiswals' case( I) taking even the broader view of the words "police officer" in

s. 25 of the Evidence Act. We are of opinion that the present case is more in accord with the case of Barkat Ram(2). In this view

(I) [1964) 2 S.C.R. 7S2.

,,..

J....

... , ....

...

"'

• • •

~.r •

--..

• J

" ;"'

--•

of the matter the statement made by the appellant to the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Excise would not be hit by s. 25 of the Evidence Act and would be admissible in evidence unless the appellant can take advantage of s. 24 of the Evidence Act.

As to that it was urged on behalf of the appellant in the High Court that the confessional statement was obtained by threats. This was not accepted by the High Court and therefore s. 24 of the Evidence Act has no application in the present case. It is not disputed that if this statement is admissible, the conviction of the appellant is correct. As we have held that a Central Excise Officer is not a police officer within the meaning of those words in s. 25 of the Evidence Act the appellant's statement is admissible. It is not ruled out by anything in s. 24 of the Evidence Act and so the appellant's conviction is correct and the appeal must be dismissed. We hereby dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

BADKU JOTI SAVANT

STATE OF MYSORE

K. N. WANCHOO

C. SHAH

Sta Customs Act

s. 167(81)

Central Excise and Salt Act

s. 21

Indian Evidence Act

s. 25

Goa

s. 167

Customs Act

s. 9

Customs Act

Calcutta High Court

Sitaram Agarwala

High Court of Mysore

Sitaram Agl1.rwa/a

s. 167(81)

s. 25

Indian Evidence Act

Sltaram Agarwala

s. 167(81)

Sachidananda Banerjee

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944

s. 21

s. 173

Code of Criminal Procedure

s. 25

Indian Evidence Act

(1964] 2 S.C.R. 752

(1962) 3 S.C.R. 338

B. R. L. Iyengar

A. G. Ratnaparkhi

A. K. Sen

D. R. Prem

R.H. Dhebar

B. R. G. K. Achar

Niren De

Wanchoo

Mysore High Court

s. 167

Customs Act

s. 9

Customs Act

November 27, 1960

Belgaum

Goa Customs authorities

November 30, 1960

Vittal Morajkar

Morajkar

s. 167

Customs Act

s. 25

s. 25

s. 25

s. 25

India

s. 25

s. 25

Bombay High Court

Nanoo Sheikh Ahmed

Patna High Court

Radha Kishun Marwari(4

[1962] 3 S.C.R. 338

Radha Kislzu11

Act

s. 25

Section 9

s. 6

s. 8

s. 37

s. 13

Central Government

Section 18

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section 19

s. 21

section 19

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

s. 21

Code of Criminal Procedure

s. 25

s. 21

s. 21

s. 173

Code of Criminal Procedure

s. 190

Code of Criminal Procedure

Code of Criminal Procedure

s. 9

s. 21

s. 21

Section 21

s. 78(3)

Orissa Excise Act, 1915

Raja Ram Jaiswcil

section 156

Code of Criminal Procedure 1898

section 77

s. 21

s. 78(3)

s. 21

s. 173

Code of Criminal Procedure

s. 14

s. 21(1)

s. 14

s. 9

s. 202

Code of Criminal Procedure

s. 78(3)

Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915

s. 21

s. 21

s. 25

Raja RamJaiswals

s. 25

Barkat Ram(2

[1964) 2 S.C.R. 7

s. 25

s. 24

s. 24

s. 25

s. 24