JUDGMENT LENT IN J.-The accused, who is the appellant before us, was charged with the murder of his wife. He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence the present appeal. [After dealing with the facts and discussing the evidence in paras 2 to 13 the judgment proceeds :-] 14. Mr. Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, invited us to reject the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the village Kotwal, Ramchandra, on the ground that it fell within the purview of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Mr. Khan urged that Ramchandra being the village Kotwal, was a police officer, hence the extra-judicial confession made to Ramchandra, viz., "I have cut my wife with axe", was inadmissible in evidence. The question that arises is whether a village Kotwal is a "police officer" as contemplated by section 25 of the Evidence Act. We were invited to answer that question in the affirmative on the ground that a village Kotwal is an officer who performs functions connected with the administration of the village and hence is a "police officer" as contemplated by section 25 of the Evidence Act. Our attention was invited by Mr. Khan to section 40 (2) (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 40 pertains to the duty of officers employed in connection with the affairs of a village to make reports to the nearest Magistrate or officer-in-charge of the nearest police station of any information they may possess respecting, (a) the residence of any notorious receiver, or vend ore of stolen property in or near the village; (b) the resort of a thug, robber, escaped convict or proclaimed offender; (c) the commission of, or intention to commit in or near the village certain offences; (d) the occurrence in or near the village of any sudden or unnatural death under suspicious circumstances Or the discovery of a corpse under suspicious circumstances indicative of a non-bailable offence having been committed; (e) the commission or intention of committing certain offences, (f) any matter likely to affect the maintenance of order or prevention of crime or safety of person or property respecting which the District Magistrate has directed him to communicate information. Section 40 (2) (iii) reads thus :- "the words 'officer employed in connection with the affairs of the village' means a member of the Panchayat of the village and includes the headman and every officer or other person appointed to perform any function connected with the administration of the village." Relying on this sub-section, Mr. Khan urged that a village Kotwal was an officer and enjoyed the same position and had the same powers as a police officer. This contention is clearly fallacious. Powers and duties must not be confused, as being necessarily synonymous, for a person may have many duties to perform but without any power to exercise. Section 40 enjoins upon certain persons of the village, the performance of certain duties as set out in that section but does not confer any powers upon them. Duties they have many, powers they have none beyond what any private individual may have. On the other hand, a police officer has not only duties to perform but has also several powers, too well-known to be enumerated. It is because a police officer has powers, there arises the need and precaution under section 25 of the Evidence Act, of excluding statements made to him by an accused person, lest the powers be mis-used either actively by threats Of promises or even unwittingly. The position and status of a village Kotwal, who has no powers to exercise but has merely duties to perform, cannot be equated with that of a police officer. A village Kotwal has no power to exercise, much less to mis-use. 15. Chapter II of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, pertains to Revenue Officers, their powers and duties. Sections 5 and 6 provide that the chief controlling authority is the Commissioner and thereafter the Additional Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners to assist the Commissioner. Section 7 (1) provides for the appointment of a Collector for the City of Bombay and each district who shall be in-charge of the revenue administration thereof and [Of the appointment of a Tahsildar to each Taluka who shall be the chief officer entrusted with the local revenue administration of a Taluka. Section 7 (1) provides for the appointment of a Collector for the City of Bombay and each district who shall be in-charge of the revenue administration thereof and [Of the appointment of a Tahsildar to each Taluka who shall be the chief officer entrusted with the local revenue administration of a Taluka. Section 7 (2) provides for the appointment of one or more additional Collectors in the City of Bombay and each district and so many Assistant Collectors and Deputy Collectors, Naib-Tahsildar’s in a Taluka and one or more Additional Tahsildars or Naib-Tahsildars therein and such other persons (having such designations) to assist the revenue officers as may be .deemed expedient. Section 7 (3) gives power to the Collector to place any Assistant or Deputy Collector in-charge of one or more sub-divisions of a district. Section 7 (4) reads as under: - "The Collector may appoint to each district as many persons as he thinks fit to be Circle Officers and Circle Inspectors to be in charge of a Circle, and one or more Talathis for a saza, and one or more Kotwals or other village servants for each village or group of villages, as he may deem fit. " Thus, the scheme of sections 5 to 7 and in particular phraseology of sub-section (4) of section 7, viz. "one or more Kotwals or village servants", bring to the forefront that a village Kotwal is not an "officer", much less a "police officer", and that he is no more than a village servant connected with the revenue department. 16. That a village Kotwal has no powers but only duties to perform is also brought to the forefront by the definition, appointment and duties of 'Kotwal' as appearing in G. R./PKA-1059- VI-L, Revenue Department, dated 7th May 1959. We are informed that this is the latest G. R. on the subject. "Kotwal" is defined as- "a servant appointed at a village for performing duties shown in Appendix I or such other duties as may be prescribed from time to time by Government or by any officer authorised by Government in this behalf." Rule 5 makes the period of employment of a Kotwal as till the 1st day of April following the date of appointment but it is a purely temporary employment liable to be terminated on any earlier day, if found necessary, without notice and without assigning any reason. Rule 6 provides that the service of a Kotwal shall not qualify him for leave, gratuity, pension or such other benefits as a Government servant is entitled to under other rules or regulations. Rule 7 provides that though a Kotwal shall be treated as a full-time Government servant during the period of his appointment it shall be permissible for the Mamlatdar to allow a Katwal to take up a casual employment at the place of his appointment provided he considers that the employment would not interfere with his work as Kotwal. The duties set out in Appendix I are 23 in number, inter alia, to wit, accompanying Government remittances to sub-treasuries, calling villagers to the Chawadi for paying Government dues, carrying village dafter to and from taluka Kacheri, keeping a watch on Government money and office records at the village and on property attached for the recovery of Government dues, carrying Government tapal to and from the taluka office and taking Government post of officers on tour where no transport facilities are available, reporting births and deaths to village officers, accompanying the Police Patil and the police at the time of night rounds, doing night patrol to find out all arrivals and departures and to report all suspicious persons to the Police Patil, publishing Government orders in the village by beat of drum, bringing impounded cattle to the Kacheri for auction, assisting the vaccinator in collecting children for vaccination, helping in the disposal of unclaimed dead bodies found in a village and helping the police to remove the dead bodies for post mortem examination whoever called upon by the police to do so, assisting village officers generally in the performance of their duties, keeping the village Chawadi clean and lighting lamps there. 17. Such are the duties of a village Kotwal. They are at best not of an extraordinary responsibility, or to put it bluntly, though not unkindly, somewhat of a menial order, involving no exercise of any power, which, in any event, he has none to exercise. Significantly also, the G. R. does not provide for any powers to a village Kotwal. 18. Mr. Khan, however, relied on section 7 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act, which confers authority on the Police Patil to require village servants in whatever capacity ordinarily employed to aid him in performing the duties entrusted to him. According to Mr. Significantly also, the G. R. does not provide for any powers to a village Kotwal. 18. Mr. Khan, however, relied on section 7 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act, which confers authority on the Police Patil to require village servants in whatever capacity ordinarily employed to aid him in performing the duties entrusted to him. According to Mr. Khan, the Police Patil could under this section, draw upon the assistance of the village Katwal who would thereby be clothed with the powers and status of a police officer. This contention is conceived in misconception. It is in the Police Patil that vests the authority and power but none in the village servants, including the village Kotwal, who may merely be called in to help the Police Patil in performing his duties, but without themselves having any powers or authority of their own. Merely because a village servant like a Kotwal may be required to assist the Police Patil, does not confer upon the Kotwal himself any power or authority to act independently or in any manner otherwise than what he is directed to do by the Police Patil or other Officers to whom he renders assistance. This, is merely an extension of his duties enumerated in the above G. R. 19. We, therefore, hold that a village Kotwal is not a police officer and that an extra-judicial confession made to a village Kotwal is admissible in evidence and does not come within the mischief of section 25 of the Evidence Act. In coming to this conclusion, we are fortified by the decisions in Bhagwatin v. R.I and Sukhwaria v. R.2, where it was held that a Kotwal or village watchman in the C. P. is not a police officer and a confession made to him is admissible. Appeal dismissed.