BOTHILAL Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS

(2.) Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has made submissions in Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2011 preferred by accused no.3. At the outset, he pointed out that till he was released on bail, accused no.3 had undergone sentence for a period of eight years nine months and twelve days. He submitted that both the Courts have relied upon the confessional statement of the appellant recorded under Sec. 67 of the NDPS Act before the officers of the NCB who are invested with the powers under Sec. 53 of the NDPS Act. Relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 the learned senior counsel submitted that the officer before whom the confessional statement was made being a police officer, the bar of Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Evidence Act') is attracted. He submitted that the confessional statements are not admissible in evidence against the accused.

(3.) The learned senior counsel submitted that the contraband was allegedly recovered from Room no.303, which was booked in the name of accused no.4. Therefore, there was no seizure from accused no.3. He further submitted that PW-2 - Nalini Ranjan could not have acted as a Gazetted Officer for the purpose of effecting search under Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act. He pointed out that PW-2 was heading the raid since the very inception from the stage of receipt of information. In fact, she had led the raiding team. Therefore, she cannot act as an independent person.