InCriminal Appeal No. 1136 of 2014 -SC- Supreme Court rules statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as confessional statement in NDPS offense trial
Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Hima Kohli & Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra [22-09-2023]

Read Order:Balwinder Singh (Binda) and Ors V. The Narcotics Control Bureau

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 26, 2023: In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has held that confessional statements made to officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) are inadmissible in court.

The present appeals arose from the common judgment dated 08th July, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which decided the murder reference for the confirmation of the death sentence. These appeals were preferred by Balwinder Singh and Satnam Singh (appellants) in relation to the mentioned judgment.

A three-judge bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that any confessional statement made by an accused to an officer invested with the powers under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) was barred because such officers were considered police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, a statement made by an accused and recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act could not be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offense under the NDPS Act.

The bench observed that in the said case, once the confessional statement of the co-accused, recorded by the NCB officers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and which had attributed a role to the appellant- Balwinder Singh, were rejected in light of the law, there was no other independent incriminating evidence presented by the prosecution to convict the appellant under the NDPS Act.

As a result, the bench concluded that the appellant-Balwinder Singh deserved to be acquitted of the charge of being in conscious possession of a commercial quantity of heroin under the NDPS Act.

Regarding the other appellant-Satnam Singh, the bench further observed that because the provisions of the NDPS Act and the punishments prescribed therein are stringent, the burden to prove the foundational facts cast on the prosecution would have to be more onerous.

The bench stated that the prosecution had successfully discharged the burden placed on it to prove the foundational facts. Consequently, the initial burden of establishing that the appellant-Satnam Singh, had knowledge that the car owned and driven by him at the relevant time was being used for transporting narcotics was fulfilled. Once it was established that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant-Satnam Singh had this knowledge, the presumption outlined in Section 35 of the NDPS Act had to be invoked against him. This presumption indicated that he had a culpable mental state, thus justifying his indictment for the offense with which he had been charged.

Thus, the bench held that the appellant-Satnam Singh, had failed to establish a case for acquittal. Therefore, the order of conviction and the sentence imposed on appellant-Satnam Singh were upheld. However, the appellant-Balwinder Singh, was acquitted.