A.M.AHMADI, M.FATHIMA BEEVI
Raj Kumar Karwal: Kirpal Mohan Virmani – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India: State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
AHMADI J.:— Are the officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) who have been invested with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station under S. 53 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act), "police officers" within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act? If yes, is a confessional statement recorded by such officer in the course of investigation of a person accused of an offence under the said Act, admissible in evidence as against him? These are the questions which we are called upon to answer in. these appeals by special leave.
2. These are the facts, briefly stated. A motor truck DEL 3124 was intercepted on July 12, 1986 near Calcutta by the DRI officials. On search a large quantity of hashish weighing about 743 kgs found concealed in machines loaded in the said truck was recovered. The machinery was meant to be exported to Saudi-Arabia and the United Kingdom by M/s. Northern Exports (Importers, Exporters and Commission Agents) and M/s. Modern Machinery and Instruments, both of New Delhi. After the hashish was found hidden in the machines loaded in the said vehicle, the same was attached under a seizure m
followed : State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram
Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar
Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore
Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal
Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras
Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.