9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1990 (3) TMI 73 - SC - CustomsAre the officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) who have been invested with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station under Section 53 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act? Held that - if the investigation is conducted by the police, it would conclude in a police report but if the investigation is made by an officer of any other department including the DRI, the Special Court would take cognizance of the offence upon a formal complaint made by such authorised officer of the concerned Government. Needless to say that such a complaint would have to be under Section 190 of the Code. This clause, in our view, clinches the matter. We must, therefore, negative the contention that an officer appointed under Section 53 of the Act, other than a police officer, is entitled to exercise all the powers under Chapter XII of the Code, including the power to submit a report or charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) with powers under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, are "police officers" within Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 2. Admissibility of confessional statements recorded by such officers in the course of investigation. Detailed Analysis of the Judgment: Issue 1: Definition of "Police Officers" Under Section 25 of the Evidence Act The primary issue was whether DRI officers, empowered under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act), qualify as "police officers" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Section 25 states, "No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence." The appellants argued that since DRI officers are vested with powers akin to those of police officers, they should be considered "police officers" under Section 25, thus rendering confessions made to them inadmissible. Issue 2: Admissibility of Confessional Statements The appellants contended that the confessional statements made to DRI officers should not be admissible as evidence against them, citing Section 25 of the Evidence Act. They argued that the term "police officer" should be broadly construed to include officers with police powers, such as those under Section 53 of the Act. The prosecution countered that DRI officers do not possess all the attributes of police officers as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), particularly the power to file a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code. Analysis and Findings: Legislative Background and Scheme of the Act The Act was enacted to combat drug trafficking and abuse, with stringent provisions for control and regulation. It includes various powers of arrest, search, and seizure conferred on officers from different departments. Section 53 specifically empowers officers of certain departments with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station for investigating offences under the Act. Judicial Precedents The judgment reviewed several precedents to determine the scope of "police officer" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act: - Barkat Ram Case: Customs officers were not considered police officers despite possessing some police-like powers. - Raja Ram Jaiswal Case: The test for a "police officer" includes whether the officer's powers facilitate obtaining confessions. - Badku Joti Savant Case: Emphasized that officers must have the power to file a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code to be considered "police officers." - Romesh Chandra Mehta and Illias Cases: Reiterated the necessity of the power to submit a report under Section 173 for an officer to be deemed a police officer. - State of U.P. v. Durga Prasad and Balkishan A. Devidayal Cases: Confirmed that officers without the power to file a charge-sheet are not police officers under Section 25. Application of the Test The Court applied the established test to the powers of DRI officers under the Act. It noted that while DRI officers have powers of arrest, search, and seizure, they lack the authority to file a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code. Instead, a Special Court can take cognizance of an offence based on a complaint by an authorized officer, not a police report. Conclusion The Court concluded that DRI officers, despite their investigative powers, do not qualify as "police officers" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, confessional statements made to them are admissible in evidence. The Delhi High Court's decision, consistent with the views of the Allahabad and Gujarat High Courts, was upheld. The appeal and special leave petition were dismissed. In summary, the judgment clarified that DRI officers are not "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and thus, confessional statements made to them are admissible in court.
|
