Supreme Court Upholds NDPS Act Section 67 Statement, Affirms Conviction

Kanhaiyalal Versus Union of India

Kanhaiyalal Versus Union of India - 2008 AIR 1044, 2008 (4) SCC 668, 2008 (1) SCALE 165 Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
2. Requirement of corroborative evidence for conviction based on confessional statements.
3. Applicability of Sections 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution to statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
4. Evaluation of retracted confessions and their evidentiary value.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Statements Made Under Section 67 of the NDPS Act:
The appellant, along with two others, was accused under the NDPS Act. The trial judge acquitted the appellant and another accused, but the High Court convicted them based on their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court had to determine whether such statements could be treated as confessional and used for conviction. The Court noted that Section 67 allows officers to call for information, examine persons, and require documents during inquiries. The Court drew parallels to similar provisions in the Customs Act and other criminal statutes, emphasizing that statements made during inquiries before formal arrest do not attract the bar of Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act or Article 20(3) of the Constitution, provided they are made voluntarily.

2. Requirement of Corroborative Evidence for Conviction Based on Confessional Statements:
The trial judge acquitted the appellant due to the lack of corroborative evidence for the confessional statements. However, the High Court held that such statements under Section 67 did not require corroboration. The Supreme Court reviewed precedents, including the cases of Muthuswami, Puran, and Parmananda Pegu, which emphasized the prudence of seeking corroboration for retracted confessions. The Court concluded that while corroboration is generally advisable, a true and voluntary confession can be sufficient for conviction if the Court is satisfied with its genuineness.

3. Applicability of Sections 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that his statement under Section 67 was inadmissible due to the protections under Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court referred to the decision in Raj Kumar Karwal, which held that officers under the NDPS Act are not "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, statements made to such officers can be used as confessions unless made under threat or coercion. The Court found no evidence of compulsion in the appellant's case, thus validating the use of his statement for conviction.

4. Evaluation of Retracted Confessions and Their Evidentiary Value:
The appellant retracted his confession, claiming it was obtained under duress. The Supreme Court examined the handling of retracted confessions, noting that while they can form the basis of conviction, courts must ensure their voluntary nature and seek corroboration if necessary. The Court found that the appellant's retraction was not substantiated by evidence, as no order was passed on his retraction application, and it was not proved during the trial. The Court emphasized that the High Court had no option but to rely on the confession, given the lack of evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the appellant's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was admissible and sufficient for conviction. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the order of conviction and sentence.