2011 (4) TMI 1286 - SC - Customs

Whether the confessions made before the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are admissible in evidence? Whether the confessions made were voluntary in nature and if so without corroboration, can it form the basis for conviction? Whether the appellant can be said to be in possession of the opium or selling the same?

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of confessions made before officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics.
2. Voluntariness and corroboration of the confessions for conviction.
3. Determination of the appellant's possession or involvement in selling opium.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Confessions:
The primary issue was whether the confessions made before officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are admissible in evidence. The court examined the scheme of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), particularly Sections 42, 43, 51, and 67, which confer powers of entry, search, seizure, arrest, and investigation to certain officers. The court referred to Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which makes confessional statements before police officers inadmissible. However, it concluded that officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are not considered police officers under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act because they do not have the power to submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This conclusion was supported by the precedent set in Raj Kumar Karwal vs. Union of India and Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India, which held that such officers are not police officers within the meaning of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the confessions made before these officers are admissible in evidence.

2. Voluntariness and Corroboration of Confessions:
The second issue was whether the confessions were voluntary and if they could form the basis for conviction without corroboration. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act states that a confession is irrelevant if it appears to have been caused by inducement, threat, or promise. The court emphasized that a voluntary, truthful, reliable, and beyond reproach confession is an effective piece of evidence. In this case, the appellant's confessions were recorded by officers on 19th and 20th July 1997, and he was produced before the court on 20th and 21st July 1997, without any complaints of coercion or torture. The appellant retracted his confession only during his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the confessions were voluntary and could be the basis for conviction, citing M. Prabhulal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India, which supported the admissibility and voluntariness of such confessions.

3. Determination of Possession or Involvement in Selling Opium:
The final issue was whether the appellant could be held guilty for possessing or selling opium. The appellant confessed to working in the hotel and bringing the opium from the hotel owner's house, but there was no evidence of his involvement in selling opium tablets. The court noted that possession must be conscious, involving control over the goods and title. The appellant, being a servant, could not be said to be in possession of contraband belonging to his master unless it was left in his custody with absolute control. There was no evidence that the appellant occupied the room from where the opium was recovered, and the title to the opium vested in the hotel owners. Therefore, the court concluded that the appellant was not in conscious possession of the opium, and his conviction and sentence under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act could not be sustained.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside. The appellant, who was on bail, had his bail bonds discharged.

← Previous Next →