New Delhi (ILNS): The Supreme Court has held with a 2 is to 1 majority that the confession made under section 67 before the officers of the Central and State agencies appointed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are not admissible, because the officers are police officers.
A bench of three judges, comprising Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee passed this judgment in a matter referred by a two-judge bench over the issues of whether an officer is qualified as a police officer investigating the matter under NDPS Act or not? Whether the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by the investigating officer may be considered as a confession or not?
The Court has framed two issues, “1. Whether an officer “empowered under Section 42 of the NDPS Act” and/or “the officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act” are “Police Officers” and therefore statements recorded by such officers would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act; and 2. What is the extent, nature, purpose and scope of the power conferred under Section 67 of the NDPS Act available to and exercisable by an officer under section 42 thereof, and whether power under Section 67 is a power to record confession capable of being used as substantive evidence to convict an accused?”
The Supreme Court has held (i) That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. (ii) That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.
The issues were held by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha, whereas, Justice Indira Banarjee gave a dissenting view over the issue.
Section 67 of the NDPS Act states that “Power to call for information, etc.—Any officer referred to in section 42 who is authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, during the course of any enquiry in connection with the contravention of any provisions of this Act,—
Also Read: Supreme Court stays Rajasthan High Court order upholding death sentence of person involved in gruesome murder
(a) call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder;
(b) require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry;
(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
Comments are closed.