JUDGMENT Per Court.—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 12-3-73, follows an earlier decision of that Court in Durga Prasad v. State, [(1971) AWR (HC) 17]. That decision was reversed by this Court as per its judgment reported in 1975 (1) S. C. R. 881. The matter was again thrashed out by this Court in Balkrishan A, Dandayal v. State of Maharashtra, [Crl. Appeal Nos. 208 and 209 of 1974 decided on July 31, 1980]. Now, it is settled law that an officer of the Railway Protection Force making an inquiry under Sec. 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 Sec. 162, Cr. P. C. 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 Sec. 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 Crl. Revision No. 12 of 1971 to its original number and redecide the matter afresh after hearing the parties, in the light of the above observations and the law laid down by this Court in 1975 (1) S.C.R. 881 and in Crl. Appeals 208 and 209 of 1974 decided on July 31, 1980. The High Court shall, issue notice to the respondent, again, who have been proceeded against ex-parte in this Court. Appeal allowed -