The Supreme Court by 2:1 has held that the officials who are contributed with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are “cops” inside the importance of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, as aftereffect of which any confession explanation made to them would be banned under the arrangements of section 25 of the Evidence Act, because of which any confession proclamation made to them would be banished under the arrangements of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and can’t be considered so as to convict a denounced under the NDPS Act. That an announcement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act can’t be utilized as a confession proclamation in the preliminary of an offense under the NDPS Act. This piece clarifies the reasons given in the judgment composed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
In Tofan Singh, the three judge bench was called upon to answer issues:
1) Whether the official researching the issue under the NDPS Act would qualify as a cop or not?
2) Whether the announcement recorded by the researching official under Section 67 of the Act can be treated as a confession proclamation or not, regardless of whether the official isn’t treated as a cop.
To respond to this, the bench reffered to State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram (1962) 3 SCR 338 in which the Supreme Court, by a 2:1 majority, held that a Customs Officer under the Land Customs Act, 1924 isn’t a “cop” inside the significance of area 25 of the Evidence Act. The court at that point alluded to Raja Ram Jaiswal v. Province of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR 752; which held that an admission made to an Excise Inspector under be an admission made to a cop with the end goal of area 25 of the Evidence Act. The seat likewise made reference to the accompanying decisions which talks about the over two decisions.
Court sent back the appeals and Special Leave Petitions to Division Benches, for disposing it on merits.