Supreme Court Holds Confessional Statement by NCB Officer Not Admissible in NDPS Act Trial

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, held that an officer invested with powers under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is considered a “police officer” under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, a confessional statement of an accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in a trial under the NDPS Act. The Court also stated that the possession of contraband must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution to attract the provisions of Section 54 of the NDPS Act.

Brief Facts

• The Court was considering appeals by Balwinder Singh and Satnam Singh, who were convicted for possession of heroin.
• Balwinder Singh was initially sentenced to death, which was later modified to 14 years of imprisonment, while Satnam Singh was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment.
• The appeals by both accused were dismissed by the High Court, except for the modification in the order of sentence.

NCB Officials Are ‘Police Officers’ Under Section 25 Of Evidence Act

In the present case, Balwinder Singh argued that he was convicted solely based on the confessional statement of his co-accused, Satnam Singh, before NCB officials. The Supreme Court held that, as per a previous decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), any confessional statement made by an accused to an officer with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, Balwinder Singh’s conviction, which was solely based on Satnam Singh’s confessional statement, was set aside.

Prosecution Must Establish Possession For Burden Of Proof To Shift To Accused

The Supreme Court also stated that for the presumption of guilt under Section 54 of the NDPS Act to apply, the prosecution must establish possession of contraband by the accused. Only then can the burden of proving innocence shift to the accused. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove possession beyond reasonable doubt. It further observed that possession of the contraband must also be recovered in accordance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, failing which the recovery itself shall be considered invalid.

While Balwinder Singh’s conviction was solely based on his confessional statement, Satnam Singh’s conviction was supported by the testimonies of three prime prosecution witnesses. The Court found these testimonies to be consistent and without contradictions. Therefore, Satnam Singh’s conviction was upheld.

Overall, this judgment clarifies the admissibility of confessional statements made to NCB officials and emphasizes the importance of proving possession of contraband beyond reasonable doubt in NDPS Act trials.

Case Title: Balwinder Singh (Binda) V. The Narcotics Control Bureau, Satnam Singhv v. The Narcotics Control Bureau

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813; 2023INSC852

Click here to read/download judgment

Follow DelhiBreakings on Google News

Superfast News Coverage by DelhiBreakings.com team.

For Superfast national news and Delhi Breaking Stories visit us daily at https://delhibreakings.com