Preliminary Analysis of Section 67 of NDPS Act

Must Read

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

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

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -