Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs, Narcotics Control Bureau of the Central Excise are not police officers while investigating offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the statements made before them are admissible under the law.

Headnote:
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 41, 42, 50, 51, 52, 53, 67 - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 25 - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTION 162 - OFFICERS OF DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, CUSTOMS, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU OF CENTRAL EXCISE - POLICE OFFICERS - STATEMENTS MADE BEFORE THEM - ADMISSIBILITY.
Fact of the Case:

Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Bombay, assisted by Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay, intercepted a taxi near Hotel Fariyas at Colaba, Bombay. Respondent No. 1 was the sole occupant as driver of the said taxi. The Officers saw a zipper bag at the feet of respondent No. 1. The Officers took the Taxi to their Office Building at Colaba. Two panchas were called and under the panchanama, the Officers recovered five cloth bags, each containing one kilogram of brown powder. On a testing it was found that the brown powder was heroin, a narcotic drug and valued approximately at Rs. 10 lakhs. Statement of respondent No. 1 was recorded, wherein he made certain admissions. On the basis of the information gathered from respondent No. 1, the second accused by name Mohammed Quasim Anwari alias Javed, an Afgan National was apprehended. Statement of the said Mohammed Quasim Anwari alias Javed was also recorded. Both of them were arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate and they were remanded to custody from time to time. On 4th November, 1987, the appellant herein filed a complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, against the said two persons. After issue of the process, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Greater Bombay.
Finding of the Court:

The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs, Narcotics Control Bureau of the Central Excise, are not police officers while investigating offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The statements made before them are admissible in evidence under the law.
Issues: Whether the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs, Narcotics Control Bureau of the Central Excise, are police officers while investigating offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985? Whether the statements made before them are inadmissible in evidence under section 25 of the Evidence Act or under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Ratio Decidendi: The powers conferred upon the officers under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are limited and do not include the power to grant bail or prefer a charge sheet. The statements recorded by the officers under this Act are in the form of an enquiry and cannot be equated with the investigation by an officer-in-charge of a police station as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the officers who have been given the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station within the meaning of section 53 of the Act, cannot be said to be police officers within the meaning of section 52 of the Evidence Act. The statements recorded by the officers under this Act thus become admissible in law.
Final Decision: The order dated 25th October, 1988 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, in Sessions Case No. 1110 of 1987, is quashed and set aside. The statements made before the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs, Narcotics Control Bureau of the Central Excise are admissible under the law.

JUDGMENT - H. SURESH, J.:---Two questions arise in this petition:

(a) Whether the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs, Narcotics Control Bureau of the Central Excise, are police officers while investigating offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?

(b) Whether the statements made before them are inadmissible in evidence under section 25 of the Evidence Act or under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

2. The facts leading to the present petition, are briefly as follows: On 4th September, 1987 on the basis of a secret information, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.), Bombay, assisted by the Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay, intercepted a Taxi bearing Registration No. MRO 6230, near Hotel Fariyas at Colaba, Bombay. Respondent No. 1 was the sole occupant as driver of the said taxi. The Officers saw a zipper bag at the feet of respondent No. 1. The Officers took the Taxi to their Office Building at Colaba. Two panchas were called and under the panchanama, the Officers recovered five cloth bags, each containing one kilogram of brown powder. On a testing it was found that the brown powder was heroin, a narcotic drug and valued approximately at Rs. 10 lakhs. Statement of respondent No. 1 was recorded, wherein he made certain admissions. On the basis of the information gathered from respondent No. 1, the second accused by name Mohammed Quasim Anwari alias Javed, an Afgan National was apprehended. Statement of the said Mohammed Quasim Anwari alias Javed was also recorded. Both of them were arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate and they were remanded to custody from time to time. On 4th November, 1987, the appellant herein filed a complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, against the said two persons. After issue of the process, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Greater Bombay.

3. The said Sessions Case came up before the learned Judge for final hearing. But in between, it appears that the said Mohammed Quasim Anwari alias Javed, who was granted bail, absconded. The case ultimately commenced only against respondent No. 1. The prosecution started its evidence with the first witness Shri S.K. Pradhan, Senior Intelligence Officer of the D.R.I. After deposing to the interception and recovery of the brown powder from the five cloth bags, the said witness was asked about questioning of respondent No. 1 in the presence of panchas about the recovery of the zipper bag and the brown powder found in the cloth bags and replies given by respondent No. 1. The said question was objected to by the defence on the ground that the statement of the respondent is not admissible as the D.R.I. Officers before whom the statement was made are Police Officers while investigating offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.D.P.S. Act"). After hearing submission on either side, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by an elaborate order dated 25th October, 1988 upheld the contentions of the defence and held that the statements are not inadmissible, being hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act and also under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is against this order, the present petition has been filed.

4. Mr. Desai submits that there are number of such cases which are pending in the lower Courts wherein such questions have arisen and it is necessary to lay down the law and clarify the legal position.

5. It is better that we have a brief survey of the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psyschotropic Substances Act, 1985. The preamble to the said Act says that it is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs "to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and for mat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document