Case Title: Tofan Singh V. State of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court ruled by a 2:1 majority that the "confessional" statements they recorded under Section 67 are not admissible because they were made by officers of the Central and State agencies appointed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, who are also police officers.
In the present case, Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha concurred, however, Justice Indira Banerjee dissented.
The two-judge bench had referred these problems to the bigger bench in 2013, and the bench was responding to that reference:
1) Whether or not the officer looking into the situation under the NDPS Act would be considered a police officer?
2) Is the statement that the investigating officer recorded in accordance with Section 67 of the Act admissible as a confessional statement, even if the officer is not considered a police officer?
The Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India case, in which it was determined that an officer under Section 63 is not a police officer and cannot be subject to the bar under Sections 24 and 27 of the Evidence Act, was cited by the two-judge bench in order to express its skepticism regarding the accuracy of the ruling. Furthermore, it was decided in Kanhaiyalal’s case that a confessional statement against a person who has been ordered to appear before an officer can be based on their statement.
According to Section 67, "Any officer referred to in Section 42 who is authorised in this regard by the Central Government or a State Government may, during the course of any enquiry in connection with the contravention of any provisions of this Act,(a) call for information from any person for the purpose of ascertaining whether any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder has occurred; (b) require any person to produce or furnish any document or thing, or (c) interview anybody who is familiar with the case's facts and circumstances."
The accused argued that because Section 67 of the NDPS Act prohibits the use of supposed confessional statements as evidence, their conviction was invalid as Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act prohibits the use of such statements as evidence.