The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act is a powerful legislation designed to control and regulate the production, distribution, and use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in India. It aims to prevent the misuse of these substances while laying down stringent punishments for offenders involved in their illegal sale or trafficking. The law covers various aspects, from possession to transportation, and the penalties can be severe, especially when large quantities or "commercial quantities" are involved.
However, in recent years, there has been much debate about certain provisions of the SECTION 67 OF THE NDPS ACT, particularly regarding how statements made by accused persons during investigations are treated in court. One key section that has raised concerns is Section 67, which allows officers to record confessions from accused individuals during an investigation. The legal question has often been whether these confessions are admissible as evidence, as they are sometimes made under pressure.
A recent case highlights this very issue. The appellant in this case was convicted under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act for allegedly being involved in the illegal sale of Pentazocine injections, a controlled substance. The prosecution argued that the appellant had sold these injections to another accused person. Interestingly, the conviction was heavily based on the appellant's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. However, the case took a turn when it was pointed out that the Supreme Court had ruled such statements inadmissible as evidence, as they are essentially confessions made to officers, who are considered "police officers" under the law.
Moreover, in this case, a crucial witness—who allegedly transported the contraband—was never brought to court. The absence of this witness left significant gaps in the prosecution's story, making it hard to prove any conspiracy or involvement by the appellant. The courts also failed to frame charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which deals with criminal conspiracy, adding to the confusion.
The final outcome? The appellant, who had been sentenced to 10 years in prison, was acquitted. The court concluded that the prosecution had not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The failure to bring forward key witnesses and reliance on an inadmissible statement under Section 67 contributed to this acquittal.
This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in NDPS cases and the importance of following proper legal procedures. It also underscores the need for courts to be cautious when relying on statements made during investigations, ensuring that justice is served in a fair and balanced manner.
Ajay Kumar Gupta … Appellant versus Union of India … Respondent – Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2019 – Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2019 – August 22, 2024 – 2024 INSC 619
S.Bageerathan
Advocate, High Court of Madras
Comments