2009 (5) TMI 864 - SC - Customs

Whether a confessional statement is voluntary and free from any pressure? Held that - As the appellants were not found to be in possession of the contraband, the burden of prove never shifted on them. Aappeals are allowed. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.

Issues Involved
1. Admissibility of statements made by the appellants under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
2. Compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act.
3. Voluntariness and corroboration of confessional statements.
4. Role and jurisdiction of police and customs officers.
5. Burden of proof and possession of contraband.

Detailed Analysis

1. Admissibility of Statements Made by the Appellants
The primary issue revolved around whether the statements made by the appellants to the customs officers, while in custody, were admissible. The appellants argued that these statements were inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as they were made while in custody and without being summoned. The court noted that the appellants were in police custody from the evening of 19th August 2003 and made statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act while in custody. The court emphasized that any statement made while in police custody would be inadmissible unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, as per Section 26 of the Evidence Act.

2. Compliance with Procedural Safeguards
The court scrutinized the procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the stringent nature of the Act and the need for strict compliance. The police officers, empowered under the NDPS Act, did not reduce the information into writing or obtain a search warrant. The appellants were searched without complying with Section 50 of the Act, and the search was conducted after sunset without proper authorization. The court highlighted that the police officers should have exercised their jurisdiction instead of transferring the case to the customs authorities, which defied logic.

3. Voluntariness and Corroboration of Confessional Statements
The court examined whether the confessional statements were voluntary and free from pressure. It was noted that the appellants retracted their confessions, and the court emphasized the need for corroboration from independent sources. The court referenced previous judgments, stating that confessions made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act require strict scrutiny and must be voluntary. The court concluded that the confessions were not made voluntarily and lacked corroboration, rendering them inadmissible.

4. Role and Jurisdiction of Police and Customs Officers
The court analyzed the roles of the police and customs officers, noting that the police officers were empowered under the NDPS Act and should have conducted the search and seizure themselves. The involvement of customs officers was unnecessary and illogical. The court pointed out that the police officers had jurisdiction and should not have transferred the case to the customs authorities.

5. Burden of Proof and Possession of Contraband
The court observed that the appellants were not found in possession of the contraband, and thus, the burden of proof did not shift to them. The prosecution failed to establish possession or abetment beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that stringent compliance with procedural safeguards is crucial, especially in cases involving severe punishments under the NDPS Act.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing the release of the appellants if not required in connection with any other case. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards and the inadmissibility of confessions made while in custody without proper authorization. The court emphasized the need for voluntary and corroborated confessions and criticized the unnecessary involvement of customs officers in the case.

← Previous Next →