1987 (12) TMI 337 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application for an offence under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Involvement of the petitioner in the offence.
3. Admissibility of statements made before the Central Excise Officer.
4. Powers and status of the Central Excise Officer under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
5. Applicability of Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigations by Central Excise Officers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application for an Offence under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
The petitioner applied for bail in connection with an offence involving 985 grams of brown sugar valued at Rs. 59,100/-. The bail application was initially rejected by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and subsequently by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner contended that there was no material evidence to connect him with the offence and that the statements recorded were inadmissible.

2. Involvement of the Petitioner in the Offence:
The petitioner's involvement was based on the statements of co-accused Nos. 1 and 2, who claimed that the petitioner supplied the brown sugar a week before its seizure and demanded payment for it. The petitioner himself admitted to buying and supplying the brown sugar in his statement recorded in Hindi.

3. Admissibility of Statements Made Before the Central Excise Officer:
The petitioner argued that statements made before the Central Excise Officer were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, which prohibit confessions made to police officers or while in police custody from being used as evidence unless made in the presence of a Magistrate. The petitioner contended that Central Excise Officers, being invested with the powers of a police officer under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, should be considered police officers.

4. Powers and Status of the Central Excise Officer under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
The court examined whether Central Excise Officers, empowered under Section 53 of the Act, are considered police officers. The court noted that while these officers have investigative powers similar to those of a police officer, they do not possess all attributes of a police officer, such as the power to file a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra, which established that an officer must possess all powers of a police officer, including the ability to initiate prosecution, to be considered a police officer for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

5. Applicability of Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code to Investigations by Central Excise Officers:
The court held that Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with police investigations, does not fully apply to investigations conducted by Central Excise Officers under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The court referred to Section 51 of the Act, which states that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code apply only insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Act. The court concluded that Central Excise Officers are not required to follow procedures such as recording an FIR or filing a charge-sheet, which are specific to police officers under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Conclusion:
The court found that the Central Excise Officers are not police officers for the purposes of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the statements made before them are admissible in evidence. The court also determined that there was sufficient material to suggest the petitioner's involvement in the offence. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.