Short Note : 1. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the village Chowkidar is a police officer and the extra-Judicial confession made to him would be inadmissible. It is settled that a confession to a Chowkidar is not a confession to a policeman within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is further held that even if a policeman happens to be a member of a crowd of villagers and a confession was made to villagers at large, the mere fact that a policeman happened to be present in the crowd would not make the confession inadmissible in the evidence. This Court is of the view that the village Chowkidar is not a police officer though he may be performing certain functions which are performed by the police. Provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code make this position clear. Under section 230 of the Code, Kotwars are appointed in accordance with the rules under sections 230 and 231. The appointment of Kotwar shall rest with the Collector, Sub-Divisional Officer, Assistant Collector of the first grade, Assistant Collector of the second grade if specially empowered by the Collector in this behalf under section 231, the Collector shall fix the remuneration of the Kotwars in accordance with rules as may be made under section 238. Section 230 and 231, therefore, shows that the Kotwars are appointed by the Revenue Officers and their duties are also prescribed under the rules. In view of this, it is apparent that a village Chowkidar could not be termed as a police officer and any extrajudicial confession made to him voluntarily could not hold to be inadmissible further the extra-judicial confession made to Daraban (P.W. 8) cannot on any count be held to be inadmissible simply because the Chowkidar was present. Ghunnai v. Emperor, AIR 1934 All. 132, relied on. Birja v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Oudh. 563, Deokinandan v. Emperor, AIR 1936 All. 753, dissented. Appeal dismissed.