High Court of H.P.IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

Cr. Appeal No. 101 of 2012

Reserved on: March 18, 2015.

Decided on: March 20, 2015. The Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh. ……Appellant.

Versus

Tek Chand …….Respondent.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.

This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated

31.12.2011, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, H.P, in

Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2009, whereby the respondent-accused

(hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried

for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ND &

PS Act), has been acquitted.

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on

24.7.2005 a team of Narcotics Control Bureau of Chandigarh was on

routine surveillance/checking. The team of NCB was headed by O.P.

Sharma, Superintendent, NCB Chan digarh. At about 4:00 PM, Sh.

P.K.Sharma, received a secret information that some persons of village

Jamachh were engaged in drugs trafficking and were likely to make a deal

at the road nearby village Jamachh in Bali Choki area of Distt. Mandi,

during the night intervening 24

th and 25

th July, 2005. The team

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 2

associated the local police and left Mandi at 7:30 PM and reached village

Khaneti at 11:00 PM. They tried to associate independent witnesses but

no person was available due to late hours. Resultantly, local police

officials HC Ashok Kumar and HC Narender Kumar were associated in the

raiding party. At about 1:00 AM on 25.7.2005, they noticed three persons

coming from upper hill side carrying jute bags on their heads. The NCB

team proceeded towards them on the path from village Jamachh. Sh.

P.K.Sharma, Intelligence Officer enquired from them and those persons

became furious and perplexed and tried to escape. Two persons were

nabbed and third one fled away from the spot. The persons, who were

apprehended, when inquired, disclosed their names as Dharam Dass and

Abhishek Kumar, both residents of Village Jhamachh. Both of them

disclosed that the third person with them was Tek Chand resident of

Village Jhamachh, PS Aut, Sub Tehsil Bali Chowki, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

Thereafter, search was carried out and contraband was recovered. It was

weighed. It weighed 68 kgs. The codal formalities were completed. The

accused named third accomplice as Tek Chand. Accused Dharam Dass

and Abhishek Kumar were tried separately and the notice was issued to

the accused under Section 67 of the Act. When notice was issued against

accused Tek Chand, he was not found at his residence. Sh. P.K.Sharma,

himself visited his residence in order to serve the notice under Section 67

of the Act. Warrants were also obtained against him but despite of the

best efforts made by the NCB, he could not be traced. Later on,

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 3

proceedings under Section 81 and 82 of the Act were initiated against the

accused and he was declared proclaimed offender.

3. The I.O. Ganesh Balooni received secret information

regarding the presence of accused Tek Chand who was declared

absconder in crime case No. 6 of 2005 at Gohar. The information was

reduced into writing and was produced before Sh. H.S.Gill, who directed

Ganesh Balooni to constitute a team and to take necessary steps as per

law. Consequently, Ganesh Balooni alongwith Gurdass Ram, Gurdev

Singh driver and Ramesh Kumar sepoy proceeded from Chandigarh to

Gohar. They also associated two witnesses from Gohar Police Station.

The two persons were also requested to identify accused Tek Chand. On

15.2.2009, at about 8:00 PM Sh. Ganesh Balooni noticed a person at

Taxi Stand Gohar. The team introduced them and inquired about his

address. He disclosed his name as Tek Chand and admitted that he knew

Dharam Dass. Thereafter notice under Section 67 of the Act was served

upon him and his statement was recorded in the police station by Sh.

Ganesh Balooni in the presence of the independent witnesses. Prima-

facie accused was found involved in the case under Section 20 of the ND

& PS Act.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as

many as 10 witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed

hereinabove.

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 4

5. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the

NCB, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case

against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate,

for the accused has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court

dated 31.12.2011.

6. We have heard learned coun sel for both the sides and gone

through the records of the case carefully.

7. Suptd. Harcharan Singh PW-1 deposed that he was working

as Superintendent in the office of NCB, Zonal Unit Chandigarh. Ganesh

Balooni was working as Intelligence Officer in their office. On 15.2.2009,

Ganesh Balooni put up before him a written information that Sh. Tek

Chand who was absconder in NCB case of 68 kgs. charas could be found

at Gohar.

8. HC Khem Chand, PW-2 deposed that on 15.2.2009, he

alongwith Const. Virender Kumar were present in Gohar Bazar on patrol

duty. They met a team of NCB, Chandigarh headed by Ganesh Balooni

Intelligence Officer. He showed him his identity card and informed that

their team had come from Chandigarh in connection with case No. 06/05

under ND & PS Act and that the accused, namely Tek Chand involved in

that case was to be arrested. They went towards the bus-stand. The

accused was present there. The I.O. asked him about his name and

address. He disclosed that he was Tek Chand and also stated that he was

involved in a case under ND & PS Act and was proclaimed offender. The

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 5

team members were having the photographs of that person. On the basis

of the photographs, the team members identified the accused present in

the court to be the same person and then on questioning him the fact was

confirmed. He was asked to accompany the team to the Police Station

Gohar. At the Police Station, he again admitted that he was Tek Chand.

He gave his statement Ext. PW-2/B. It was signed by him and Const.

Virender and Ganesh Balooni. The accused was arrested vide memo Ext.

PW-2/C. His wife was telephonically informed. In his cross-examination,

he deposed that the team met them at taxi stand at 7:30 PM.

9. ASI Kesar Singh PW-3 deposed that according to rapat No. 22

dated 24.7.2005, HC Ashok Kumar, HC Narender Kumar and Const. Dev

Raj were sent to assist the team of NCB by the order of Addl. S.P. Mandi.

Accused Dharam Dass and Abhishek Kumar reached at PS Sadar Mandi

at 4:00 AM on 25.7.2005.

10. Inder Singh PW-4 is a formal witness.

11. Suptd. Ganesh Balooni, PW -5 testified that accused Tek

Chand present in the court was declared proclaimed offender in NCB

Crimes case No. 6/05. On 15.2.2009, he received secret information

regarding the presence of accused Tek Chand at Gohar. He considered

the information as authenticated and as such reduced it into writing and

presented the same before Suptd. H.S.Gill, his superior. The team was

constituted and they started from Chandigarh in official vehicle. They

reached Gohar at about 7:00 PM. The police officials from PS Gohar, who

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 6

were on patrolling, were also associated by him in the said police party.

The notice given to HC Khem Chand was Ext. PW-2/A. Thereafter, he

apprised both of them regarding the secret information which he had

received that day. The police party reached at Taxi Stand Gohar. It was

already dark. At about 8:00 PM, he noticed a person standing in the rain

shelter. His resemblance was matching with the information which was

given to him. Consequently, he enquired from that person regarding his

name and address. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Tek Chand. He

served notice under Section 67 of the Act upon accused Tek Chand. He

gave his statement Ext. PW-2/B under Section 67 of the Act. In his

cross-examination, he admitted that he was having the photograph of the

accused. Self stated that the same was not clearly visible as it was a dim

photograph. It was taken from the old file. The photograph has not been

attached with the complaint. There was no reference regarding the said

photograph in the old file. Similarly, he had not given any reference

regarding the said photograph. He has not prepared the site plan of that

place from where the accused was nabbed.

12. Const. Balwinder Singh PW-6 testified that on 26.7.2005 Sh.

O.P. Sharma, Suptd. NCB, handed over to him four samples which were

marked as A1, B1, C1 and D1 of crime case No. 6 of 2005 alongwith the

covering letter Ext. PW-6/A. He deposited the same with CRCL, Delhi on

27.5.2005. The receipt was Ext. PW-6/B.

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 7

13. HC Narender Kumar PW-7 deposed that at about 7:00 PM,

police party headed by Sh. O.P. Sharma proceeded to village Khanethi.

Sh. P.K. Sharma was also with the police party being the I.O. They

reached at Khanethi at 11:00 PM and then they laid picketing. At about

1:00 AM, in the mid night, they noticed three persons coming on foot on

the kachha road leading to village Khanethi carrying something on their

heads. On seeing these persons, members of the team warned them to

stop. Consequently, two of them stopped while one fled away from the

spot after throwing his jute bag on the spot. I.O. as well as Sh. O.P.

Sharma, had disclosed their identity to said two persons and they also

enquired about their antecedents. On enquiry, one of them disclosed his

name as Dharam Dass and the other as Abhishek. On search,

contraband was recovered. It weighed 68 kgs. charas. The sealing

process was completed. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he

has never met Tek Chand prior to the alleged incident. No identification

parade was conducted in his presence. He had the opportunity to see

accused Tek Chand for 3-4 minutes at that time. He had not got recorded

in his statement to the police regarding the age as well as height of the

accused. The accused were nabbed on the spot between 1:00 AM to 2:00

AM. The arrest memo was also witnessed by him.

14. Suptd. O.P. Sharma, PW-8 deposed that they were on routine

surveillance in Mandi. I.O. P.K. Sharma, received secret information

regarding the involvement of some people of village Jhamachh, Distt.

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 8

Mandi in drug trafficking and they were likely to make some deal. The

information was Ext. PW-4/A. He had given direction to the I.O. in writing

Ext. PW-8/A and also made written request to S.P. Mandi Ext. PW-4/B.

Thereafter, some police officials were also associated in the NCB team,

including one was Addl. S.P., Mandi. The team reached the spot at about

11:00 PM. At about 1:00 AM, they noticed three persons coming from hill

side to the road. They were moving towards the NCB team and were

carrying jute bags on their heads. On seeing the team, these persons

tried to flee away. However, two of them were nabbed by the team. One

Tek Chand, present in the Court was about to flee away. They were

searched and contraband was recovered. It was sealed. He also deposed

that some people who were hiding in the forest started pelting stones on

the NCB team due to which they were compelled to leave the spot.

Consequently, they returned to the Police Station. He admitted in his

cross-examination that on the way to village Khanethi, number of thickly

populated villages fall on the way. No efforts were made by him as well as

other members of the NCB team to associate independent witnesses. He

also admitted in his cross-examination that when the police was doing

surveillance, there was pitch dark. The features of accused Tek Chand

were noted down by him. Voluntarily deposed that he remembered those

features at that time he was thin and now he put on some weight. At that

time, he was having a French beard. He did not produce any photograph

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 9

of the accused. He did not remember whether any photograph of the

accused Tek Chand was put in lateron or not.

15. Intelligence Officer P.K. Sharma, PW-9 also deposed the

manner in which the secret information was received on 24.7.2005, the

NCB team alongwith the police officials proceeded to the spot, accused

Dharam Dass and Abhishek Kumar ap prehended, the contraband was

recovered and sealing process was completed. In his cross-examination,

he deposed that number of persons started gathering there and they

started pelting stones upon them which caused hurdle in further

investigation. He admitted that while going to Khanethi, number of

thickly populated villages fall on the way. No efforts were made by him as

well as other members of the NCB team to associate independent

witnesses. He also admitted in his cross-examination that when the

police was doing surveillance, there was pitch dark. The persons, who

had gone to chase the third accused, returned back after 15-20 minutes.

The policemen disclosed to him that they could not nab the accused due

to darkness. The policemen who were deputed to chase the third accused

disclosed to him that the person who fled away from the spot was thin in

physique and also having a French beard. The beard was black in colour.

He did not procure any photograph of the accused. They have not lodged

any report against the persons who were pelting stones on them.

According to him, accused Dharam Dass and Abhishek were arrested at

2:00 PM and the time has been mentioned on the arrest memo. He has

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 10

not met accused prior to the incident nor after that. He did not remember

whether he procured the photographs of accused Tek Chand or not. He

visited the house of accused Tek Chand during investigation.

16. I.O. Virender Singh is a formal witness.

17. Sh. Inder Singh DW-1 has proved Ext. DW-1/A.

18. Panchayat Asstt. Munshi Ram, DW-2 has proved certificate

Ext. DW-2/A.

19. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that secret

information was received by Sh. P.K. Sharma PW-9, on 24.7.2005 at

about 4:00 PM at Mandi Rest House. He informed his superior officer

PW-8 Sh. O.P. Sharma. The local police assistance was provided. They

proceeded to the spot at 7:30 PM alongwith the local police party. They

reached village Khanethi at about 11:00 PM. The spot was near village

Khanethi. The accused were seen coming from the upper hill side. They

tried to run away from the spot. Two of them were nabbed. One of them

managed to escape. He was lateron apprehended and put to trial.

20. The seizure memo is Ext. PW-4/H. It is not shown that

charas was recovered from three persons. It gives the names of Dharam

Dass and Abhishek Kumar. In test memo Ext. PW-4/J, there is no

reference of involvement of 3

rd person. HC Narender Kumar PW-7, in his

cross-examination, has admitted that he has never met accused Tek

Chand prior to the alleged incident. No identification parade was

conducted in his presence. He had the opportunity to see accused Tek

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 11

Chand for 3-4 minutes at that time. He had not got recorded in his

statement to the police regarding the age as well as height of the accused.

Suptd. O.P. Sharma, PW-8 has admitted in his cross-examination that on

the way to village Khanethi, number of thickly populated villages falls on

the way. No efforts were made by him as well as other members of the

NCB team to associate independent witnesses. He further admitted in his

cross-examination that when the police was doing surveillance, there was

pitch dark. The features of accused Tek Chand were noted down by him.

He further voluntarily deposed that he remembered those features at that

time he was thin and now he put on some weight. At that time, the

accused was having a French beard. He did not produce any photograph

of the accused. He did not remember whether any photograph of the

accused Tek Chand was put in lateron or not. Similarly, Sh. P.K. Sharma

PW-9 deposed that while going to Khanethi, number of thickly populated

villages fall on the way. No efforts were made by him as well as other

members of the NCB team to associate independent witnesses.

21. The identification of the a ccused as the person who has fled

away from the spot is not free from suspicion, as noticed by the learned

trial Court. They have not produced any record to establish the identity

of the accused. It was pitch dark at the time when the accused had run

away from the spot. No identification parade has been conducted by the

police. We have already noticed hereinabove that neither in Ext. PW-4/H

or in Ext. PW-4/J, there is any reference regarding the involvement of the

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 12

accused Tek Chand. In recovery/seizure memo Ext. PW-4/H, there is no

reference that the charas was recovered from three accused persons.

22. According to the prosecutio n, Ganesh Balooni PW-5 after

reaching Gohar, associated two police officials from Police Station, Gohar.

He has not associated any independent witnesses though available from

the locality. The statement of the accused recorded under Section 67 of

the Act is Ext. PW-2/B. The statement runs into three pages. The

accused has put his signatures on left side instead of the right side. Sh.

Ganesh Balooni PW-5 has not warned the accused that he was not bound

to make the statement and bound to remain silent. Neither notice was

served nor produced on the case file. Similarly, HC Khem Chand PW-2

has not testified that any warning was given to the accused by the I.O. or

the accused was cautioned that he was bound to make statement and in

case statement was made, the same was to be used against him. HC

Khem Chand PW-2 has also not depose d that the accused was personally

known to him. Similarly in Ext. PW-1/A written information, there is no

reference to the physical features of the accused. Sh. Ganesh Balooni

PW-5 has tried to explain that the features of the accused were supplied

to him by the informant. However, it is not so stated in Ext. PW-1/A. Sh.

Ganesh Balooni, PW-5 has not associated any person of the raiding party

which was constituted on 24.7.2005 at the time of apprehending the

accused. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate, has placed strong reliance upon

two statements made by the accused Ext. PW-4/L and Ext. PW-4/N.

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 13

However, in view of the facts enumerated hereinabove, no credence can be

given to the statements. It is also doubtful, whether the statements were

voluntarily made or not. There is also lack of evidence at what time

accused Dharam Dass and Abhishek Kumar were arrested and statement

under Section 67 was recorded. It is also not clear whether the accused

Dharam Dass and Abhishek Kumar were arrested at Mandi or on the

spot.

23. In the case of Kanhaiyalal vrs. Union of India, reported in

(2008) 4 SCC 668, their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have

held that the bar under Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act would not

operate nor would the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution,

unless the statement is made under threat or coercion. Their lordships

have held as under:

42. Of course, this Court has also held in Pon Adithan’s

case that even if a person is placed under arrest and

thereafter makes a statement which seeks to incriminate him,

the bar under Article 20(3) of the Constitution would not

operate against him if such statement was given voluntarily

and without any threat or compulsion and if supported by

corroborating evidence.

43. The law involved in deciding this appeal has been

considered by this Court from as far back as in 1963 in Pyare

Lal Bhargava’s case (supra). The consistent view which has

been taken with regard to confessions made under provisions

of Section 67 of the NDPS Act and other criminal enactments,

such as the Customs Act, 1962, has been that such

statements may be treated as confessions for the purpose of

Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but with the caution that the

Court should satisfy itself that such statements had been

made voluntarily and at a time when the person making such

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 14

statement had not been made an accused in connection with

the alleged offence.

24. In the case of Raju Premji vrs. Customs, Ner, Shillong

Unit with connected matter, reported in (2009)16 SCC 496, their

lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that even if confession

under the Act may not be hit by S. 25 of Evidence Act, but yet such

confession should be strictly scrutinized by Court as to whether it was

made voluntarily. Their lordships have also held that enquiry under

Section 67 of the Act shall be made in terms of the enquiry as held under

Cr.P.C. Their lordships have further held that the confession must be

judged from the facts and circumstances of each case. It has been held

as follows:

“19. The application of the provisions of Section 67 of the Act

is required to be considered in the aforementioned factual

backdrop. It reads as under :-

"Section 67 - Power to call for information, etc. Any

officer referred to in section 42 who is authorised in

this behalf by the Central Government or a State

Government may, during the course of any enquiry in

connection with the contravention of any provisions of

this Act,--

(a) call for information from any person for the purpose

of satisfying himself whether there has been any

contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or

order made thereunder;

(b) require any person to produce or deliver any

document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry;

(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and

circumstances of the case."

An empowered officer, therefore, is entitled to examine any

person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the

case, inter alia during the course of any enquiry in

connection with the contravention of any provision of the Act.

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 15

As the term `enquiry' is not defined under the NDPS Act,

its meaning assigned in Section 2(g) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure as also in an etymological sense and the manner

may be held to be applicable.

23. We would, for this purpose, assume that such

confessions are not hit with Section 25 of the Evidence Act,

1872 but even then they must receive strict scrutiny. This

Court in Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India,

[(2008) 4 SCC 668],

upon taking into consideration number of decisions, held as

under :-

"43. The law involved in deciding this appeal has been

considered by this Court from as far back as in 1963 in

Pyare Lal Bhargava case. The consistent view which

has been taken with regard to confessions made under

provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act and other

criminal enactments, such as the Customs Act, 1962,

has been that such statements may be treated as

confessions for the purpose of Section 27 of the

Evidence Act, but with the caution that the court

should satisfy itself that such statements had been

made voluntarily and at a time when the person

making such statement had not been made an accused

in connection with the alleged offence."

25. The view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Kanhaiyalal vrs. Union of India (supra), was doubted and not

followed in the case of Nirmal Singh Pehlwan vrs. Inspector, Customs,

Customs House, Punjab, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 298. It has been

held as follows:

“8. The second argument is based on the judgment of this

Court in Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab & Anr.

(2008 (16) SCC

417) in which this Court had deviated from the earlier

position in law that a Customs Officer was not a police officer

and a confession made to him under Section 108 of the

Customs Act, was admissible in evidence. In this case it has

been held that as a Custom Officer exercised police powers

and a confession made by an accused could result in a

conviction and sentence, such a confession was hit by the

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 16

embargo placed by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and

was, therefore, not admissible in evidence.

9. On the other hand, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, the leaned senior

counsel for the respondent - Department, has pointed out

that Ext. P.A. the consent memo in fact conveyed information

to the appellant that he had a right to be searched in the

presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and that this

amounted to full compliance with Section 50 of the Act. He

has also pointed out that although Noor Aga's case did say

that a confession made to a Custom Officer was hit by

Section 25 of the Evidence Act and was therefore not

admissible in the evidence, yet a judgment of a coordinate

Bench of this Court in Kanahiya Lal vs. Union of India case

(2008 (4) SCC 668) had reiterated the earlier position in the

law as given in Raj Kumar vs. Union of India - 1990(2) SCC

409 that Officers of the Revenue Intelligence and ipso facto of

the Customs Department could not be said to be police

officers and a confession before them would not be hit by

Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

15. We also see that the Division Bench in Kanahiya Lal's

case had not examined the principles and the concepts

underlying Section 25 of the Evidence Act vis.-a- vis. Section

108 of the Customs Act the powers of Custom Officer who

could investigate and bring for trial an accused in a narcotic

matter. The said case relied exclusively on the judgment in

Raj Kumar's case (Supra). The latest judgment in point of

time is Noor Aga's case which has dealt very elaborately with

this matter. We thus feel it would be proper for us to follow

the ratio of the judgment in Noor Aga's case particularly as

the provisions of Section 50 of the Act which are mandatory

have also not been complied with.

16. In view of what has been held above we find that the

conviction of the appellant must be set aside. Accordingly we

allow this appeal and order his acquittal.”

26. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Tofan Singh vrs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31,

have referred the following issues to the Larger Bench:

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 17

“(A) (i) whether IO (an NDOP) officer under S. 53 would qualify

as a “police officer” thereby attracting the provisions of Ss. 24

to 25 of Evidence Act, 1872 and Art. 20(3) of Constitution to a

retracted confession; (A)(ii) whether the statement under S.

67, NDPS Act can be treated as a confession if the NDPS

officer is not treated a “police officer”; and (A)(iii) whether

statements under pari materia provisions like 108 of the

Customs Act, 1962 and S. 14 of the Excise Act are akin to or

are qualitatively different from S. 67 statement under NDPS

Act-The issues that were raised in the submissions were:

(B)(i) whether confessions under S. 67 NDPS Act can be

treated as substantive evidence when no oath is

administered, when person recording confession is allegedly

discharging duties of a police officer (i.e. prevention and

detection of crime involving offences triable in a criminal

court and having penal consequences), thereby making the

statements under S. 67, NDPS Act no better than S. 161

CrPC statements; (B)(ii) whether NDPS officers under S. 53,

NDPS Act who are recording confessions under S. 67, NDPS

Act can be held as “persons in authority” under S. 24 of

Evidence Act, thereby making them similar to police officers;

(B)(iii) whether the reasons for holding Customs Officers as

police officers in some cases like Abdul Rashid, (2001) 9 SCC

578 and Noor Aga, (2008) 16 SCC 417 would also apply to

NDPS officers; (B)(iv) whether an officer under S. 42 of the

NDPS Act is distinct and different from an officer under S. 53

of NDPS Act; (B)(v) whether trial was vitiated due to non-

compliance with S. 57, NDPS Act in present case; and (B)(vi)

whether conviction of A-3 could have been made without the

confessional statement.”

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 18

27. The prosecution has failed to prove that the contraband was

recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused.

Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the commission of offence under Section 20

of the N.D & P.S., Act.

28. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made

hereinabove, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well

reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. Accordingly, there is no

merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

( Rajiv Sharma ),

Judge.

March 20, 2015, ( Sureshwar Thakur ),

(karan) Judge.

::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2022 19:20:55 :::CIS