The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that statements recorded by officers of central and state agencies who are appointed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act would not be treated as a confession.

The court in a 2:1 judgement said that such officers are police officers and so any confessional statement that they record under Section 67 of the NDPS Act would not be admissible in a court. The majority judgement was written by Justices Rohinton F Nariman and Navin Sinha, while Justice Indira Banerjee dissented.

According to Section 67 of the NDPS Act, any officer authorised by the Centre or a state government may during an investigation call for information “from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder”. The officer may also “require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry” or examine any person acquainted with the case.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that statements recorded by officers of central and state agencies who are appointed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act would not be treated as a confession.

The court in a 2:1 judgement said that such officers are police officers and so any confessional statement that they record under Section 67 of the NDPS Act would not be admissible in a court. The majority judgement was written by Justices Rohinton F Nariman and Navin Sinha, while Justice Indira Banerjee dissented.

According to Section 67 of the NDPS Act, any officer authorised by the Centre or a state government may during an investigation call for information “from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder”. The officer may also “require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry” or examine any person acquainted with the case.