Home / Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Section 67 of NDPS Act

    «    »
 08-Mar-2024

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Supreme Court directed Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) officers regarding the inadmissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), based on the judgment in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021).

What was the Background of the Case?

  • The case involves a seizure of 5950 Tramadol tablets from a parcel at DHL Express Pvt. Ltd. in 2021.
  • During the interrogation, the co-accused disclosed the name of the appellant.
  • The appellant sought anticipatory bail by contending that the case against him is entirely based on a confessional statement of the co-accused.
  • Despite no recovery of contraband from the appellant or his premises, the High Court rejected his plea, citing prima facie evidence linking him to the parcel.
    • The High Court maintained that the appellant's custodial interrogation was necessary.
  • The appeal was later brought before the SC, albeit with a delay of 219 days, which was not satisfactorily explained, resulting in the appeal's dismissal.

What were the Court's Observations?

  • The SC's directive in this case stems from its interpretation and application of Section 67 NDPS Act and its earlier judgment in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021).
  • In the Toofan Singh case, the Court ruled that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act are inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.
  • The Court reasoned that officers of the Central and State agencies under the NDPS Act are essentially police officers, thus rendering such confessional statements inadmissible.

What is Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) Case?

    • Toofan Singh Judgment (2013):
      • The case involves the seizure of 5.250 Kgs of heroin from accused persons attempting to export it from India to Sri Lanka.
      • The Intelligence Officer received information about the trafficking and organized a raid with other officers.
        • The accused were apprehended, and heroin was recovered.
      • The accused confessed under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
      • During the trial, absconding accused led to the splitting of the case.
      • The Trial Court convicted the accused, emphasizing the prosecution's evidence and the appellant's confession.
      • The SC noted the argument challenging the evidentiary value of the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and released the accused on bail.
    • Appeal in 2021:
      • The appellant challenged his conviction primarily based on a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
      • The appellant raised concerns about the admissibility and evidentiary value of such statements, particularly regarding their conformity with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
      • Appellant said that Section 67 of the NDPS Act is interpreted as a power to call for information rather than to record confessional statements, and its application should be construed strictly in favor of the subject.
    • Judgment of Supreme Court in 2021:
      • The court found that statements made to NDPS officers could be construed as statements to police officers, given their duties and responsibilities in preventing and detecting crime under the NDPS Act.
      • SC said that the right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution apply to confessions recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
      • It was also held that officers under the NDPS Act should be construed as 'police officers' under Section 25 of the Evidence Act to prevent coercion in recording confessions.
        • Confessions made before such officers are inadmissible as evidence to protect fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.

What is Section 67 of the NDPS Act?

  • Overview:
    • Section 67 grants authority to officers mentioned in Section 42 of the NDPS Act to gather information during investigations related to contraventions of the NDPS Act.
  • Powers Granted:
    • Call for Information:
      • Authorized officers may request information from any individual to determine if there has been a contravention of the NDPS Act, its rules, or orders.
    • Requirement to Produce Documents or Things:
      • Officers can compel individuals to produce or deliver any document or object deemed relevant to the investigation.
    • Examination of Individuals:
      • Officers can examine anyone who has knowledge about the facts and circumstances of the case under investigation.

Who are Officers and Their Powers under Section 42 of the NDPS Act?

  • Officers:
    • Officers empowered to exercise powers under Section 42 include those from:
      • Departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence, or any other Central Government department.
      • Departments of revenue, drugs control, excise, police, or any other State Government department.
    • These officers must be superior in rank to a peon, sepoy, or constable.
  • Empowerment to Officers:
    • They are empowered by general or special orders:
      • Central Government empowers officers for central departments.
      • The State Government empowers officers for state departments.
  • Power of Officers not below the Rank of Sub-inspector:
    • Officers not below the rank of sub-inspector can exercise powers in the case of holders of licenses for drug manufacture.
  • Essentials for Exercising Powers:
    • Officers can exercise powers without a warrant or authorization if they have reason to believe:
      • An offence punishable under the NDPS Act has been committed.
      • Narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances, documents, articles, or illegally acquired property are kept or concealed in any building, conveyance, or enclosed place.
  • Powers Include:
    • Entering and searching buildings, conveyances, or places.
    • Breaking open doors and removing obstacles in case of resistance.
    • Seizing drugs, substances, materials, articles, animals, conveyances, documents, or other evidence.
    • Detaining, searching, and arresting persons believed to have committed offenses under the NDPS Act.
    • Officers may also enter and search between sunset and sunrise without a warrant if they believe obtaining one could lead to evidence concealment or offender escape, after recording grounds for belief.
  • Time Limit:
    • The officer must send a copy of the information or recorded grounds within seventy-two hours to their immediate official superior.