NDPS confessions and investigative powers: statements to Section 53 officers are inadmissible, and Section 67 is not a confession exception.

Officers exercising investigative powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are treated as police officers for Section 25 of the Evidence Act because they possess powers analogous to police investigation, including powers linked to investigation and report submission; confessional statements made to them are therefore inadmissible. Section 67 is only an enabling provision for inquiry, information-gathering, and examination, and does not create any statutory exception allowing conviction on the basis of confessional statements. In the absence of an express override and accompanying safeguards, such statements cannot be treated as substantive confessional evidence, consistent with the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, so that confessional statements made to them are inadmissible. (ii) Whether statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 can be used as confessional statements in the trial of offences under that Act.

Issue (i): Whether officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, so that confessional statements made to them are inadmissible.

Analysis: The majority applied the settled test that an officer is a police officer for Section 25 purposes only if he is invested with all the powers of a police officer qua investigation, including the power to submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It held that officers under Section 53 are entrusted with powers of investigation in relation to NDPS offences and that, on a true construction of the NDPS scheme, they exercise powers sufficiently analogous to police investigation to attract the bar under Section 25. The Court further held that the NDPS framework, read with Articles 14, 20(3) and 21, cannot be construed so as to permit coercive confessions without the protection which Section 25 embodies.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative. Officers invested with powers under Section 53 are police officers for purposes of Section 25, and confessional statements made to them are inadmissible against an accused.

Issue (ii): Whether statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 can be used as confessional statements in the trial of offences under that Act.

Analysis: The majority held that Section 67 is an enabling provision for inquiry and for calling for information, requiring production of documents or things, and examining persons. It rejected the view that such statements can be treated as confessional statements capable of founding a conviction. The Court distinguished the NDPS scheme from statutes where confessions are expressly made admissible by a non obstante clause and where special safeguards accompany that admissibility. In the absence of such an express legislative exception, and in light of the constitutional prohibition against compelled self-incrimination, a statement under Section 67 cannot be treated as substantive confessional evidence.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative. A statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an NDPS offence.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the accused persons, and the connected matters were sent back for decision on merits in light of the answers given.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the NDPS Act, statements made to officers exercising investigative powers under Section 53 are hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and Section 67 does not create an exception permitting confession-based conviction in the absence of an express statutory override and safeguards.

---