New Delhi, November 07, 2020: The Supreme Court in a landmark judgment, ruled that officers authorised to investigate NDPS cases are “police officers” for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and hence confessional statements made to them are not admissible in law for the purpose of conviction, while passed a significant judgment in Toofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, under NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985). 

The Supreme Court Bench majority comprising of Justices RF Nariman and Navin Sinha gave an intriguing insight into Article 20 (3) and the Right to Privacy. The right against self incrimination in Article 20 (3) means that no person accused of an offence can be compelled to speak against himself. This right has been recognised in various constitutional verdicts, wherein it was held that this protection can extend to any compulsory process for production of evidentiary documents too. This is a principle which is a fundamental canon of the British system of criminal jurisprudence and has been adopted by the American system too.

There is also the minority view where Justice Indira Banerjee said that officers under the NDPS are not police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act as they don’t enjoy the power of filing a final report. Therefore, confession made under Section 67 cannot be rejected for the purpose of trial. And even if so, the question of a person being a police officer has to be decided by a larger bench of five judges. She further said that a penal act such as NDPS has to be construed liberally keeping in view the objective of the Act and socio-economic crimes.

It has been held that the NDPS Act is to be construed in the backdrop of Article 20(3) and Article 21. Then it goes on to discuss confessions under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and various safeguards provided under both the CrPC and NDPS Act. The Bench then noted “that given the stringent provisions of NDPS Act, one has to keep in mind the fact that severer the punishment, the greater the care taken to see that the safeguards provided in the statue are scrupulously followed”.

The majority judgment will have ramifications on prospective and pending cases. For instance, in the Rhea Chakraborty case, the narcotics department is said to be relying on her confessional statements, and this has been used to confront others. But with the effect of the confessional statement being taken away by this decision, a monumental task lies ahead for the narcotics department to bring corroborative evidence in each and every case to charge someone as an accused under the Act.

Meanwhile, there is no doubt that this judgment is a progressive one for protection of the rights of an accused.

News Courtesy:PIB | Hindu| DC | LE | LI | LO | IE | LL | PTI |ht | ET | UNI | DNA | FP | Jurist |IndToday|

Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced supplied by the concerned either as press release, press statement or via other source of information, websearch engines and internet and do not reflect views of Lawtime and hence Lawtime is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, India info Comm Network's website Lawtime.in is not responsible for any of the copy right violation or for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this news article

Comments

Name*:
Phone number:
Email address*:
Comments and questions*:
Enter web form code*: reload image * - required fields.