Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Based on NDPS Confession: Balwinder Singh vs. Narcotics Control Bureau (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 22 September 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 852

Judges: B.R. Gavai, Hima Kohli, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. The judgment was authored by Justice Hima Kohli.

Can a confession made to Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) officers be used as evidence in court? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this critical question in a case involving drug trafficking. This judgment clarifies the legal standing of statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, significantly impacting how drug-related cases are prosecuted.

The core issue revolves around whether statements made to NCB officers, who are vested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, can be treated as confessions admissible in court. The Supreme Court examined this in light of prior judgments and the Evidence Act.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on December 11, 2005, when the NCB received a tip about individuals selling contraband. On December 12, 2005, at 1:00 AM, the NCB set up a checkpoint in Chandigarh. At 3:15 AM, they noticed a car stopping near the checkpoint. Two individuals exited the car and fled, while a third person, later identified as Satnam Singh, remained in the vehicle.

The NCB team searched Satnam Singh and the car, finding four packets of heroin hidden in the door panel and under the rear seat. Satnam Singh reportedly stated that he had brought the heroin from Amritsar with the help of Balwinder Singh and another person, Harpreet Singh. The NCB seized the packets, took samples, and arrested Satnam Singh.

Later, the NCB learned that Balwinder Singh had been arrested in another NDPS case by the Amritsar Police. The NCB then arrested Balwinder Singh and recorded his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

The NCB filed a complaint against Satnam Singh and Balwinder Singh, charging them under Sections 8, 21, 27A, and 60 of the NDPS Act. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted both Balwinder Singh and Satnam Singh under Section 21 read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act. Balwinder Singh was sentenced to death, and Satnam Singh was sentenced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Trial Court relied on the confessional statements made by both the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

The High Court upheld the conviction of both accused but set aside the death penalty for Balwinder Singh, reducing his sentence to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court also relied on the confessional statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, citing previous judgments that had held such statements to be admissible.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 67 of the NDPS Act and its interplay with Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 67 of the NDPS Act empowers authorized officers to call for information and examine individuals. The question is whether statements recorded under this section can be considered as confessions admissible in court.

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act states that “no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.” The debate centered on whether NCB officers should be considered “police officers” for the purposes of this section.

Prior to this judgment, several cases, including Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India [2008 (4) SCC 668] and Raj Kumar Karwal vs. Union of India [(1990) 2 SCC 409], had held that NCB officers were not “police officers” and, therefore, confessions made to them were admissible in court. However, the Supreme Court in this case re-examined this position.

Arguments

Arguments by Balwinder Singh:

• Balwinder Singh’s counsel argued that his conviction was solely based on the confession of the co-accused, Satnam Singh, which is inadmissible under the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1].
• It was contended that the High Court was influenced by the fact that Balwinder Singh was facing other NDPS cases, in which he was later acquitted.

Arguments by Satnam Singh:

• Satnam Singh’s counsel argued that the confession made by him before the NCB officials is not admissible in law, citing Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1].
• It was argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case, and the burden did not shift to the accused. Reliance was placed on Ritesh Chakarvarti v. State of M.P. [(2006) 12 SCC 321], Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Another [(2008) 16 SCC 417], Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 11 SCC 653], State of Delhi v. Ram Avatar alias Rama [(2011) 12 SCC 207], and Gorak Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2018) 2 SCC 305].
• The credibility of the independent witnesses was questioned, alleging that one of them, Sonu, was not a genuine independent witness and the other, Mukesh Kumar, was a stock witness for the NCB.
• It was argued that the case property was not handled properly, pointing to a discrepancy in the description of the contraband.
• The defense argued that Sonu was the real culprit who bribed the NCB officers, and Satnam Singh was framed.
• It was also contended that Satnam Singh was in NCB custody before the official time of the raid, based on phone records.

Arguments by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB):

• The NCB argued that there was sufficient evidence to convict both Balwinder Singh and Satnam Singh.
• The NCB asserted that their witnesses were not planted and that they had established a prima facie case against the appellants.
• It was contended that the prosecution had proved the foundational facts necessary to attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether officers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
2. Whether statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can be used as confessional statements in a trial.
3. Whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused.
4. Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of Satnam Singh.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India [2008 (4) SCC 668] – The Supreme Court had previously held that NCB officers were not police officers, making confessions admissible. This case was overruled.
• Raj Kumar Karwal vs. Union of India [(1990) 2 SCC 409] – Similar to Kanhaiyalal, this case was also overruled for holding that NCB officers are not police officers.
• Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1] – This case was relied upon by the appellants and was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision to overrule Kanhaiyalal and Raj Kumar Karwal. It held that NCB officers are “police officers” under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
• Ritesh Chakarvarti v. State of M.P. [(2006) 12 SCC 321] – Cited by Satnam Singh’s counsel regarding the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards in NDPS cases.
• Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Another [(2008) 16 SCC 417] – Cited by Satnam Singh’s counsel regarding the standard of proof in NDPS cases.
• Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 11 SCC 653] – Cited by Satnam Singh’s counsel regarding the standard of proof in NDPS cases.
• State of Delhi v. Ram Avatar alias Rama [(2011) 12 SCC 207] – Cited by Satnam Singh’s counsel regarding the importance of proper recovery of contraband.
• Gorak Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2018) 2 SCC 305] – Cited by Satnam Singh’s counsel regarding the standard of proof in NDPS cases.
• State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172] – Cited regarding the degree of proof required in serious offences.
• Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics [(2011) 11 SCC 347] – Cited by the High Court in support of admissibility of confessions before NCB officers, but was overruled by the Supreme Court in this case.
• Nirmal Singh Pehlwan v. Inspector, Customs [(2011) 12 SCC 298] – Held to be correct law by the Supreme Court in this case.
• Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1981) 2 SCC 166] – Cited by Satnam Singh’s counsel regarding the equal treatment of defense witnesses.
• State of Haryana v. Ram Singh [(2002) 2 SCC 426] – Cited by Satnam Singh’s counsel regarding the equal treatment of defense witnesses.
• Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri and Others v. State of Gujarat [(2014) 7 SCC 716] – Cited by Satnam Singh’s counsel regarding the equal treatment of defense witnesses.
• Jumi and Others v. State of Haryana [(2014) 11 SCC 355] – Cited by Satnam Singh’s counsel regarding the equal treatment of defense witnesses.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Specifies the punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.
• Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Prohibits certain operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
• Section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Specifies the punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders.
• Section 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Specifies the liability of things used in the commission of an offence.
• Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Empowers authorized officers to call for information and examine individuals.
• Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Empowers officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station.
• Section 31A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Specifies enhanced punishment for subsequent offences.
• Section 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Presumption of culpable mental state.
• Section 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Presumption from possession of illicit articles.
• Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Bars confessions made to a police officer from being used as evidence.
• Section 100 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Relates to the requirement of independent witnesses during searches.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court **overruled** Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India [2008 (4) SCC 668] and Raj Kumar Karwal vs. Union of India [(1990) 2 SCC 409], stating that they did not correctly state the law.
• The Supreme Court **followed** Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1], which held that NCB officers are “police officers” under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, rendering confessions made to them inadmissible.
• The Court **cited** Ritesh Chakarvarti v. State of M.P. [(2006) 12 SCC 321], Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Another [(2008) 16 SCC 417], Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 11 SCC 653], State of Delhi v. Ram Avatar alias Rama [(2011) 12 SCC 207], and Gorak Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2018) 2 SCC 305], in the context of the standard of proof and procedural safeguards in NDPS cases.
• The Court **cited** State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172] regarding the degree of proof required in serious offences.
• The Supreme Court **overruled** Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics [(2011) 11 SCC 347].
• The Supreme Court **followed** Nirmal Singh Pehlwan v. Inspector, Customs [(2011) 12 SCC 298].
• The Court **cited** Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1981) 2 SCC 166], State of Haryana v. Ram Singh [(2002) 2 SCC 426], Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri and Others v. State of Gujarat [(2014) 7 SCC 716], and Jumi and Others v. State of Haryana [(2014) 11 SCC 355], regarding the equal treatment of defense witnesses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle that confessions made to NCB officers are inadmissible as evidence, as they are considered “police officers” under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. This was the most significant factor in the acquittal of Balwinder Singh. For Satnam Singh, the Court focused on the independent evidence and witness testimonies, which established his possession of the contraband beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards and ensuring a fair trial.

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal principles and precedents, with a lesser focus on the factual aspects of the case, as reflected in the ratio of Fact:Law.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Admissibility of confessions made to NCB officers.

Key Takeaways

• Confessions made to NCB officers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence in court.
• NCB officers are considered “police officers” for the purposes of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Convictions under the NDPS Act cannot be solely based onconfessions made to NCB officers; independent evidence is required.
• The Supreme Court’s decision has overruled its previous stance on the admissibility of confessions made to NCB officers.
• This judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards and the need for a fair trial in NDPS cases.
• The judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu was the key precedent that led to the overruling of previous judgments.

Impact

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Balwinder Singh vs. Narcotics Control Bureau has significant implications for future NDPS cases. It clarifies that confessions made to NCB officers are not admissible as evidence, aligning with the protections afforded to accused individuals under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. This ruling will likely lead to a re-evaluation of numerous pending cases where convictions were based primarily on such confessions. The judgment also reinforces the need for thorough investigations and the importance of collecting independent evidence in NDPS cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Balwinder Singh vs. Narcotics Control Bureau is a landmark judgment that clarifies the legal position regarding the admissibility of confessions made to NCB officers. By overruling its previous stance and aligning itself with the principles of the Evidence Act, the Court has ensured that convictions in NDPS cases are based on credible and admissible evidence. This ruling will have a profound impact on the prosecution of drug-related offenses and underscores the importance of upholding the rights of the accused.