Statements by authorised excise officers under NDPS law are not barred by Evidence Act police-officer rules, and no charge-sheet power exists.

An authorised Central Excise officer empowered to investigate under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is not a police officer for the purposes of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. The statutory scheme, including the special procedures in Sections 51, 52, 53, 67 and 68, does not place such an officer on the same footing as a police officer under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly because the officer has no power to register an FIR or file a charge-sheet under Section 173. Statements recorded by such an officer are therefore not inadmissible on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether an authorised Central Excise officer invested with powers of investigation under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is a police officer for the purposes of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, whether statements recorded by such officer are inadmissible, and whether such officer can file a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The Act confers on authorised officers the power to investigate, examine persons, and make arrests, searches and seizures, but the statutory scheme does not place them on the same footing as police officers for all purposes of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The legislative wording in Section 53 is materially different from provisions in older enactments that expressly made the officer subject to the same provisions as an officer in charge of a police station. The absence of power to record an FIR or file a charge-sheet, together with the special procedure provided by Sections 51, 52, 53, 67 and 68 of the Act, shows that such officers are not police officers within the meaning of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. The Court also relied on earlier decisions taking the same view that the special enactment does not attract the entire machinery of Chapter XII of the Code to investigations by authorised excise or customs officers.

Conclusion: The statements recorded by the authorised excise officer were not hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, the officer was not a police officer for that purpose, and he had no power to file a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---