Preliminary Analysis of Section 67 of NDPS Act

Must Read

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Follow us

Recently the registry of the SC issued the notice that, on 18th August, all the batch of criminal cases along with Topan Singh V State of Tamil Nadu will be listed for hearing before a bench presided by justice RF Nirman. The case of Topan Singh vs. State Of Tamil Nadu was pending since 2013. The matter further referred to the higher bench on 8th October 2013 by the division bench of the Supreme Court.

Topan Singh vs. State Of Tamil Nadu

The conflicting issue was:

  1. Whether the statement recorded under sec 67 of narcotic drug and psychotropic substances Act,1905 could be considered as the confessional statement?
  2. Whether the “Police officer” is authorized to investigate under this Act for Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act?

This research article discusses the preliminary analysis of Sec 67 of the NDPS Act. Finally, the supreme court has decided to look into the issues mentioned on the given date. Those two questions of law are pending before the Supreme Court for very long. 

However, Sec 53 of the NDPS Act empowers the authority to summon and examine any person (might be accused) acquainted with the facts or the circumstances of the case. During this inquiry period under this Act, the authority or the officer can also call or summon for information/ documents for the same.

Whereas the Act and the rule don’t give any specific guidelines or proper definition of the officer. Hence the question is, the statement made by the accused under Sec 67 of the NDPS Act to an empowered officer is admissible or not as a piece of evidence? The Act is also silent on the various question of law namely:

  1. Whether or not to expose the person with criminal charges.
  2. Statement amounting to a confession.

Because of these questions of law, it makes it imperative to analyze the constitutional ambit of the said provision. And Sec 161 of the CrPC is quite similar to the Sec 67 of the NDPS Act. Wherein the Sec 161 Cr.P.C empowers the police officer to summon and examine any person, including the accused acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. However, in the case, Nandini Satpathy v P.L. Dani held that as Sec 161 of Cr.P.C is underpinned by Article 20(3) of the constitution of India. The police officer can only ask the question which doesn’t tend to expose the person to criminal charges or penalties. Therefore, this judgment puts a limitation on the power of the police.

Several other cases are being heard on this matter with different perspectives. Wherein one of the landmark judgments of Pakala Narayan Swami, the privy council distinguished between the term admission and confession. The court clearly stated that any statement made under Sec 161 would be inadmissible regardless of its nature. This issue of admissibility was further dealt deeply in the State of UP v Deoman Upadhaya. The five-judge bench was constituted to determine whether Sec 162 of the Code and Sec 27 of Indian evidence act are related or not? The court observed that the statement amounting to confession before a police officer can be tainted. Hence it would not be admissible under Sec 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Whereas in the case Sarwan Singh v State of Punjab states that even the confession is being made before the magistrate, they are bound to comply with the requisite in the provision. And additionally, give 24 hours for reflection to express his intent of confession.


Whereas even after so many years and so many cases, these questions of law are still unaddressed. Neither the NDPS Act nor the rules provide the mandates. No procedure of confession or recording statement is stated. Who would be the empowered officer under Sec 67 to summon or examine any person including accused?

The ambiguity in the interpretation of the provision needs to be cleared. Finally, the supreme court has issued the notice to hear and decide the fundamental questions of law in all reference matters. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -