Confessions made to NCB (Narcotics Control Bureau) officials are not admissible as evidence, and the presumption under Section 54 of the law can only be drawn when possession is convincingly established : Supreme Court
On September 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a significant ruling, stating that an official vested with authority under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is considered a 'police officer' under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, a confessional statement of an accused, recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot be utilized as a confessional statement in a trial under the NDPS Act.
A bench comprising Justice B R Gavai and Justice Hima Kohli also established that for Section 54 of the NDPS Act to be applicable, the prosecution must first establish the accused's possession of contraband. Only after this is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution does the burden shift to the accused to demonstrate their innocence.
In this case, two individuals, Balwinder Singh and Satnam Singh, were convicted for possessing heroin. They were found guilty of offenses under Section 21 read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act. Balwinder Singh initially received a death sentence, which was later reduced to 14 years of imprisonment, while Satnam Singh was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment. Both appellants' appeals were dismissed by the High Court, except for the modification of Balwinder Singh's sentence.
Balwinder Singh contended that his conviction was solely based on the confessional statement of his co-accused, Satnam Singh, made before NCB officials, and that such a statement was inadmissible in accordance with the Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 decision.
The Supreme Court ruled that, in light of its 2020 decision in Tofan Singh (supra), any confessional statement made by an accused to an officer with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act is barred, as these officers are considered "police officers" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in an NDPS Act trial.
Due to this ruling, the prosecution's case against Balwinder Singh, which relied solely on Satnam Singh's confessional statement to NCB officials, collapsed, and Balwinder Singh's conviction was set aside.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that, for the presumption of guilt under Section 54 of the NDPS Act to apply, the prosecution must first establish the accused's possession of contraband. Only then does the burden shift to the accused to prove their innocence. The Court noted that the standard of proof required for the accused to establish their innocence is not as high as that expected of the prosecution.
The Court further emphasized the importance of establishing possession of contraband in securing a conviction under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, and the recovery must adhere to the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which safeguards the rights of the accused. Failure to adhere to these procedures can vitiate the recovery.
While addressing procedural discrepancies raised by the appellants, the Supreme Court determined that these discrepancies were not substantial enough to undermine the prosecution's case. Furthermore, unlike in Balwinder Singh's case, Satnam Singh's conviction was not solely reliant on his confessional statement to NCB officials but also on the testimonies of three key prosecution witnesses, which the Court found to be consistent and devoid of contradictions.
As a result, the Court refused to overturn Satnam Singh's conviction and affirmed the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court.
Case Title: Balwinder Singh (Binda) V. The Narcotics Control Bureau, Satnam Singh v. The Narcotics Control Bureau