What is the evidentiary value of statements/confessions recorded by NDPS officers u/s 67? Whether NDPS officers u/s 53 can be treated as police officers? Whether conviction can be based on statements recorded by NDPS officers u/s 67?

Key Points: - Tofan Singh convicted under Sections 8(c), 21(c), and 29 of NDPS Act for possessing 5.250 kg heroin intended for export; conviction upheld by High Court (!) (!) . - Prosecution relied on voluntary statements under Section 67 NDPS Act recorded by Intelligence Officer, including appellant's confession (!) (!) . - Core issue: Whether NDPS officers empowered under Section 53 are "police officers" and if their Section 67 statements/confessions are inadmissible under Section 25 Evidence Act (!) (!) . - Court noted conflicting precedents on whether NDPS/customs/excise officers are police officers, distinguishing NDPS Act's penal scheme (!) (!) . - Section 67 NDPS Act empowers officers under Section 42 to call for information, examine persons, but its scope compared to Customs Act Section 108 and Excise Act Section 14 debated (!) (!) . - Trial court and High Court rejected defenses like retracted confessions, Section 50/42/57 non-compliance, but Supreme Court focused on evidentiary value of Section 67 statements (!) (!) . - Court doubted prior rulings like Kanhaiyalal (2008) 4 SCC 668, preferring re-examination in light of Noor Aga and Constitution Bench precedents (!) (!) . - Matter referred to larger Bench to authoritatively decide if NDPS investigating officers are police officers and if Section 67 statements have confessional evidentiary value (!) (!) . - Appellant granted bail pending larger Bench decision after undergoing over 9 years of 10-year sentence (!) .

What is the evidentiary value of statements/confessions recorded by NDPS officers u/s 67?

Whether NDPS officers u/s 53 can be treated as police officers?

Whether conviction can be based on statements recorded by NDPS officers u/s 67?