Article 20(3) applies only after formal accusation; Section 67 NDPS inquiry statements remain admissible before complaint.

Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination only when the maker is already an accused at the time of the statement. Applying that principle, the Court held that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by an empowered officer other than a police officer is not inadmissible on Article 20(3) grounds if it was taken before any complaint was filed and before formal accusation arose. It also distinguished Section 67 inquiry from prosecution after complaint, noting that summons or detention during inquiry does not by itself make a person an accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by an empowered officer other than a police officer is hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and is inadmissible in law when the maker was not yet formally accused.

Analysis: Article 20(3) protects a person only if he is an accused at the time the statement is made. The governing principle applied was that a formal accusation must already exist for the constitutional bar against self-incrimination to operate. The Court distinguished inquiries conducted by empowered officers under the NDPS Act from a stage of prosecution after complaint. It noted that DRI officers are not police officers, that an inquiry under Section 67 is for calling information and examining persons acquainted with the facts, and that the respondent's statement was recorded before any complaint was filed and before he stood formally accused. The Court relied on the settled position that mere summons or detention during inquiry does not by itself make a person an accused for purposes of Article 20(3).

Conclusion: A confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not hit by Article 20(3) if, at the time of recording, the person had not yet become an accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional bar under Article 20(3) applies only when a formal accusation exists and the maker of the statement stands in the character of an accused at the time of the statement; an inquiry statement recorded before complaint or formal accusation is not excluded on that ground.

---