Statement Under Section 67 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Used As A Confessional Statement, Reiterates Punjab & Haryana HC

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that a statement under Section 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offense under the Act. However, a bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh relied on the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013), where it was held that the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of NDPS Act are the police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Thereby, under Section 25 of the Evidence Act thus, any confessional statement made before the police officer would be hit by the said provision.

The petitioner's case is that he has been implicated based on the disclosure statement of co-accused from whom 248 kgs of poppy husk, 1 Kg 500 grams of opium, and 199 Kgs khas khas were recovered. After that, an FIR was registered based on secret information, but still, the petitioner's name did not figure in the ruqa of the police.

A notice of motion was issued and interim directions in favor of the petitioner to join the investigation. The said order noted,

"On his appearance, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of arresting/investigating officer. The petitioner shall, join the investigation as and when call for and shall abide by the conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."

After that, the case was adjourned for filing a detailed reply on behalf of the State.

The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General Anant Katria, argued that the petitioner was escorting the canter in which the contraband was present. He was assigned the duty of giving signals in case of police on the way. The State counsel relied upon call details, tower location of the petitioner, and the co-accused. It also relied upon a bank statement showing a deposit of amount in the account of the co-accused.

The Court noted that the relied material depends on the evidence to be led in that context at the relevant stage.

While the petitioner has joined the investigation, it also noted that the State is seeking custody of the petitioner on the premise described above.

While granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the Court observed that the petitioner is involved in the matter at hand based on the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely Balbir and Rajinder. However, such a statement is hit by the principle laid by a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi in the case of Tofan Singh and thus will be rendered inadmissible. 

Title: Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana 

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order