Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.4.2005 passed by the Special Judge of N.D.P.S. Cases, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges against him for offences under Section 8/21 with the aid of Section 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act (henceforth to be referred to as ``the Act, for short).

(2). In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 4.9.2004 the Narcotic Control Bureau (henceforth to be referred to as ``the Bureau, for short) searched a truck at the P.W.D. Dak Bungalow, Jaipur between 12.00 to 2.30 P.M. Allegedly, they recovered 4.2 kg. of heroin. Since heroin was recovered from the truck, its driver Prahlad Singh was arrested. Earlier in the day and far away at 8.10 P.M., the petitioner was arrested at old Delhi Railway Station. His statement was recorded under Section 67 of the Act. The said statement is incriminatory in nature. Subsequently, the Intelligence Officer, Narendra Kumar Sharma, submitted a complaint before the Special Court of N.D.P.S. Cases, Jaipur against the petitioner and few others. After hearing the arguments on the framing of charge, vide order dated 23.4.2005, the learned Judge framed the charges as aforementioned. Hence, this revision petition before this Court.

(3). Mr. Anil Upman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised two contentions before this Court; firstly, that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act are not admissible in evidence. For, the said statements were recorded after the petitioner was arrested. Therefore, the statements are hit by Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. Secondly, that the Intelligence Officer, Narendra Kumar Sharma, is not authorized to file a complaint under Section 36(1)(d) of the Act. Moreover, he is not competent to exercise the power under Sections 42 and 67 of the Act. Therefore, the entire trial stands vitiated.

(4). On the other hand, Mr. Sushil Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bureau, has contended that the Officers of the Bureau are not invested with the powers of Officer-in-charge of Police Station under Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as ``the Code, for short). Therefore, the statements made before them is not hit by Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, according to him, vide notification No. S.O. 822(E) dated 14.11.1985, which was published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, sub-section (ii), dated 14.11.1985, the Central Government empowered the officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector in the departments of Central Excise, Customs and Revenue Intelligence and in Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and Narcotics Control Bureau to exercise the powers and perform the duties specified in Section 42 within the area of their respective jurisdiction and also authorized the said officers to exercise the powers conferred upon them under Section 67 of the Act. Moreover, according to the notification No. S.O. 763 (E) dated 27.9.1989, any officers above the rank of Inspector in the Department of Customs, Central Excise, Narcotics, Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and the Narcotics Control Bureau under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India was authorized for filing of complaints relating to an offence under the said Act before the Special Courts. Thus, according to the learned counsel, Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, the Intelligence Officer, as duly empowered to record the statements and to submit the complaint.

(5). We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the impugned order.

(6). In order to combat the nuisances caused by the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in the country, the Central Government has constituted the Narcotic Control Bureau while exercising its power conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. Along with other agencies, such as Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, and Revenue Intell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document