Confessions made by accused persons to officials invested with powers of an “officer-in-charge of a police station” under the draconian Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act are not admissible as evidence during court trial, the Supreme Court held on Thursday.
Any use of such “confessional statements” would be an infringement of the fundamental right of privacy and the right against self-incrimination of the accused person, a three-judge Bench led by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman held in a majority verdict. Justice Indu Malhotra, on the Bench, dissented.
“The interpretation of a statute like the NDPS Act must needs be in conformity and in tune with the spirit of the broad fundamental right not to incriminate oneself, and the right to privacy... A person’s privacy is not to be trifled with, because if it is, the officer who trifles with it is himself punishable under the provision,” the court observed.
The judgment interpreted Section 53 of the NDPS Act. Under this provision, the Central government, in consultation with the State, can invest officials of certain departments like central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or even paramilitary or armed forces, with the powers of a police officer.
Confessions made before a police officer are inadmissible in court as per the Evidence Act. The question before the court was whether officers empowered under Section 53 could actually be a “police officer” in all sense of the term.
Confirming that they are, Justices Nariman and Navin Sinha, forming the majority on the Bench, said “any confessional statement made to them [officials empowered under Section 53] would be barred under the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act”.
“A statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act,” the majority opinion held.
“Where limited powers of investigation are given to officers primarily or predominantly for some purpose other than the prevention and detection of crime, such persons cannot be said to be police officers,” the court held.
