7 March 2024 4:11 PM GMT
In the latest development, the Supreme Court (March 06) has firmly directed the Narcotics Control Bureau's officers to comply with its three-judge Bench judgment in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu., (2021) 4 SCC 1.
“However, we clarify that the authorities/officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau must comply and abide by the judgment of this Court in “Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu”
In this landmark judgment, rendered in 2020, the Top Court held that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (Act) would remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act. The Court reasoned that officers of the Central and State agencies appointed under the Act are police officers.
The present case revolves around a seizure of 5950 Tramadol tablets from a parcel at DHL Express Pvt. Ltd. on 26.07.2021. Pertinently, the name of the present appellant was disclosed by another accused person during course of his custodial interrogation.
Apprehending his arrest, the appellant approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. He pleaded that the prosecution's case is based on a confessional statement of the co-accused. It was also argued that there was no recovery from the appellant, and the search of his premises also did not lead to any recovery of contraband.
Notwithstanding, the High Court rejected his plea, observing that there is prima facie evidence linking the appellant with the parcel. Thus, noting that appellant's custodial interrogation is required, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Assailing this, the appeal was preferred before the Apex Court. However, there was a delay of 219 days in filing the same. Since the Court was not satisfied with the explanation given for the condonation of delay, the appeal was dismissed.
Notably, the Court brought its attention to the fact that the complaint referred to the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act as admissible evidence. Given this, the Court passed the direction as mentioned earlier.
“The complaint refers to the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”), and it is stated that the same are admissible evidence. However, we clarify that the authorities/officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau must comply and abide by the judgment of this Court in “Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu”.