Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard two criminal appeals arising from a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The appellants, accused no.1 and accused no.3, were convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 27A, 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 11 years and a fine of Rs.1 lakh, with a default sentence of six months. The High Court of Judicature at Madras confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to ten years and the default sentence to one month. The appellants challenged their conviction primarily on the ground that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), who were invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, were inadmissible in evidence. The senior counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011, Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, argued that relying on the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the officer before whom the confessional statement was made is a police officer, and thus the bar under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies, rendering the confessional statement inadmissible. The court considered the legal issue of whether such confessional statements are admissible. The court held that the officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act is a police officer for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 is inadmissible. Since the conviction was based solely on the inadmissible confessional statement, the court set aside the conviction and ordered the acquittal of the appellants. The court directed that the appellants be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs - Confessional Statement - Admissibility - Section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 read with Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court considered whether a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by an officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act is admissible. Relying on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court held that such an officer is a police officer for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and the confessional statement is inadmissible. The conviction based solely on such inadmissible evidence was set aside. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by an officer invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence, given the bar under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and ordered their acquittal. The appellants were directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Confessional statement recorded by officer empowered under Section 53 of NDPS Act is inadmissible under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- as such officer is a police officer
- Section 67 of NDPS Act does not override the bar under Section 25 of Evidence Act
- Conviction based solely on inadmissible confession cannot be sustained
