Confessional Statement Recorded Under Section 67 NDPS Act Inadmissible, Reiterates Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. 

The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant, Hima Kohli was considering an appeal filed by Narcotics Control Beauro challenging the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka released on bail the persons accused of the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 8A read with Sections 20(b), 21, 22, 27A, 27B, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The court noted that except for the voluntary statements of accused/co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there was no substantial material available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the accused with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. 

Therefore, refusing to interfere with the High Court orders (except an order qua one accused), the bench observed thus:

"10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 , that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial."

Regarding one accused, the court noted that there are specific allegations levelled against him regarding recovery of substantial commercial quantities of drugs from a rented accommodation occupied by him pursuant to which he was arrested on 16th June, 2019. The appeal filed by NCB qua the said accused was allowed observing thus:

"We are of the firm view that A-2 cannot seek parity with the aforesaid co-accused and no such benefit could have been extended to him in view of Section 37 of the Act when he was found to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act."

Click here to Read/Download Judgment