SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back Icon Back Next Next Icon
AI icon Copy icon AI Message Bookmarks icon Share icon Up Arrow icon Down Arrow icon Zoom in icon Zoom Out icon Print Search icon Print icon Download icon Expand icon Close icon
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Sound Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 646

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, INDIRA BANERJEE
TOFAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Pratibha Jain, K. Sarada Devi, Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Nachiketa Joshi, Uday Gupta, Shivani M. Lal, Hiren Dasan, M. K. Tripathi, Chand Qureshi, Mohan Pandey, Ranjan Kumar, Anand Grover, Sushil Balwada, Sanjay Jain, Abhishek Singh, Shreshth Arya, Amit Bhalla, S. Nagamuthu, Prabu Ramasubramanian, K. Paari Vendhan, Y. Arunagiri, B. Balaji Advocate, M.P. Parthiban, Raghunatha Sethupathy, Karuppiah Meyyappan, K. Malar Vendhan, G. Murugendran, Vairavan, Sudhakar, Hardik Gautam, ArunPrakash, Santose, Advocates
For the Respondent:Aman Lekhi, A.K. Srivastav, R. Balasubramanian, Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Suhashini Sen, Ranjana Narayan, Ritwiz Rishabh, Harish Pandey, B. V. Balaram Das, B. Krishna Prasad, Saurabh Mishra, Arjun Garg, Shrutika Garg, Shreeyash U. Lalit, Jaspreet Gogia, Manish Vashishtha, Amit K. Nain, C. K. Sasi, Kuldip Singh, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Anil Katiyar, Liz Mathew, Advocates

Headnote: Read headnote

JUDGMENT

R.F. Nariman. J.

These Appeals and Special Leave Petitions arise by virtue of a reference order of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC 31. The facts in that appeal have been set out in that judgment in some detail, and need not be repeated by us. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court recorded that the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 had challenged his conviction primarily on three grounds, as follows:

    "24.1. The conviction is based solely on the purported confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act which has no evidentiary value inasmuch as:

    (a) The statement was given to and recorded by an officer who is to be treated as "police officer" and is thus, hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

    (b) No such confessional statement could be recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. This provision empowers to call for information and not to record such confessio

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top