JUDGMENT : S. L. Talati, J. The appellant challenges his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code rendered by the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Surat on 30-6-1981 by which he came to be sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Paras 2 to 3 Not Printed. 4. . .. The conviction is based on the circumstances which were brought on record and also on the evidence of Police Patel who produced the accused before the police as according to Police Patel accused had surrendered before him. Now according to the prosecution case Police Patel questioned the accused and he confessed his guilt before him saying that he killed his wife out of suspicion. The learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge rightly rejected the confession made before Police Patel. It is clear that this evidence cannot be admitted in evidence. This is because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as under : “25. No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.” Now Sukhabhai is a person who is an accused of an offence of murder. Therefore, any confession made by him before a Police Officer cannot be admitted against him. Now the word “police officer” in this particular Section is to be understood not in a technical sense otherwise Police Patel could not be construed to be a police officer. But it is required to be construed in a popular sense and, therefore, any person on the establishment of the police department is to be construed as police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. In a case of Emperor v. Akia reported in AIR 1927 Nagpur at page 222 relying on a case of Queen v. Hurribole Chunder Ghose reported in 1 Cal. 207 it was held as under : “The term “police officer” in Section 25 and the connected Sections of the Evidence Act should be read not in any strict technical sense but according to its more comprehensive and popular meaning.” Now, therefore, Police Patel would be a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Pie would be more so in this State particularly because of the Bombay Village Police Act, 1867. Pie would be more so in this State particularly because of the Bombay Village Police Act, 1867. The appointment of Police Patel is made under that Act and particularly under Section 5 of that Act. Section 5 (1) reads as under : “5 (1) The village-police in each village shall be under the charge of such person as the State Government shall appoint in writing to be police patel, and unless the State Government owing to the size of the village or other good cause, see fit to separate the appointments, the State Government shall appoint the person conducting the duties of Revenue Patel to be Police Patel.” Now the duties of police patel are stated in Section 6 of the Act. He is directly put under District Magistrate and other Executive Magistrates and he is required to afford assistance to all police officers and he is also required to obey and execute all orders and warrants issued to him by the Magistrate and lie has to communicate to the police officer intelligence affecting the public peace and he has authority over village servants and he has been assigned several duties in regard to the precautions to be taken against several offences. He has also to report for un-natural deaths which might occur within the village. He has got power to apprehend persons if he has reason to believe that the person apprehended has committed any serious offence. That power is given to him under Section 12 of the Act. Now, therefore, looking to the powers and the whole scheme of the Bombay Village Police Act, 1867 it is more than clear that he would be a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Bombay Police Act, 1951 came into force thereafter and by Section 167 of that Act some parts of different enactments like the Bombay District Police Act, 1890, the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902, The Police Forces (Control and Direction) Act, 1949 and other such Acts were to some extent repealed. However, by Section 168, The Bombay Village Police Act was not repealed. However, by Section 168, The Bombay Village Police Act was not repealed. On the contrary that Act was saved and Section 168 reads as under : “Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Bombay Village Police Act, 1867, that Act as in force in the Kutch area of the State of Gujarat or of the Saurashtra Village Police Ordinance, 1949, for any law corresponding thereto in force in any part of the State or any enactment which may be made in regard to the Reserve Police.” Now that, therefore, the Bombay Village Police Act, 1867 is an independent Act and village system in general is kept independent. The old system has been continued for the good of the village. Therefore, Police Patel is always construed as Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amarsingh Gija v. The State of Gujarat reported in Criminal Law Journal (Gujarat) 1980 at page 154 observed as under : “The words ‘Police Officer’ used in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are to be very widely construed and that a Police Officer would remain a Police Officer whatever may be his other capacity. A Police Patel exercising statutory powers under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act is a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.” Now the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that ihe evidence of so called confession made by the accused-person before the police patel was inadmissible. Therefore, that part of evidence is required to be excluded. Paras 4 to 9 Not Printed. Appeal dismissed.