Summary
By a 2:1 majority, the Court held that officers invested with powers under Section 53 NDPS Act are police officers for Section 25 Evidence Act: confessional statements made to them cannot be used to convict an accused. A statement recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act cannot be used as a confession at trial. Contrary precedents were overruled, and the individual appeals and special leave petitions were returned to Division Benches for disposal on merits.
Issues
- Whether officers invested with powers under Section 53 NDPS Act are police officers for the exclusion of confessions under Section 25 Evidence Act.
- Whether a statement recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act can be used as a confessional statement at trial.
Provisions considered
- Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Applied the prohibition on proving police confessions to officers invested with investigative powers under Section 53 NDPS Act. (¶¶ Majority: 28–34, Majority: 86–146, Majority: 152–155)
- Sections 53 and 36A(1)(d), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Construed the investigative powers as including a police report, while recognising the separate authorised-complaint route. (¶¶ Majority: 61–64, Majority: 132–145)
- Sections 67 and 53A, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Distinguished information gathering from a power to record trial-admissible confessions and preserved the specific limits governing relevancy of signed statements. (¶¶ Majority: 58–72, Majority: 148–155)
- Articles 14, 20(3) and 21, Constitution of IndiaConstrued the statutory powers consistently with equality, protection against compelled self-incrimination and personal liberty. (¶¶ Majority: 13–27, Majority: 66–70, Majority: 146, Majority: 152)
Held
- Majority: Officers invested with powers under Section 53 NDPS Act are police officers within Section 25 Evidence Act. A confessional statement made to them is barred and cannot be taken into account to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. The designation or departmental affiliation of the officer does not determine the statutory protection. (¶¶ Majority: 126, Majority: 127, Majority: 132, Majority: 145, Majority: 146, Majority: 155(i))
- Majority: A Section 67 statement cannot be used as a confessional statement in an NDPS trial. Its information-gathering power does not supply the express exception to the Evidence Act and safeguards found in special laws permitting police confessions. Treating it as an unrestricted confession-recording power would also undermine Section 53A’s specific conditions. (¶¶ Majority: 58–72, Majority: 147–152, Majority: 155(ii))
- Majority: Section 25 excludes a confession to a police officer irrespective of voluntariness and does not require the maker to have been formally accused when making it. That statutory protection differs from the requirements for invoking Article 20(3). (¶¶ Majority: 28, Majority: 29, Majority: 31, Majority: 32, Majority: 33)
- Majority: Section 53 confers the full investigative powers of an officer in charge of a police station, including forwarding a police report to the competent court. Section 36A(1)(d) also retains a separate route for complaints by an authorised officer; that route is not confined to Section 59 offences. (¶¶ Majority: 132, Majority: 134, Majority: 135, Majority: 136, Majority: 137, Majority: 138, Majority: 139, Majority: 140, Majority: 141, Majority: 142, Majority: 143, Majority: 144, Majority: 145)
- Majority: Raj Kumar Karwal and Kanhaiyalal did not state the law correctly and were overruled, together with judgments relying on their contrary principles. Noor Aga and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan were approved. The distinct issue decided in Mukesh Singh furnished no reason for referring that decision to a larger Bench. (¶¶ Majority: 73–85, Majority: 153, Majority: 154)
- Dissent, Indira Banerjee J.: Section 53 officers were not police officers for Section 25, because their powers did not include filing a Section 173 police report. Statements could be tendered and proved subject to voluntariness and other applicable safeguards. In her view the Constitution Bench authorities bound this Bench, and Raj Kumar Karwal and Kanhaiyalal required no reconsideration. (¶¶ Dissent: 1, Dissent: 140–153, Dissent: 257–271)
Result
Reference answered by majority. Individual appeals and special leave petitions sent back to Division Benches for disposal on merits in light of the ruling; no individual conviction was finally adjudicated here. Intervention application dismissed; the specified application in Criminal Appeal 433/2014 dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue available remedies.