Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 2013 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 361 - SC - CustomsEvidential value of voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act had been retracted - whether officers under NDPS Act are police officers and and thus, the evidential value of the statement recorded before him is hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. - Quantification of punishment - Attempt of export of heroin - Trial Court acquitted accused - High Court convicted accused - Held that:- It is clear that section 25 of the Evidence Act was enacted to subserve a high purpose and that his to prevent the police from obtaining confessions by force, torture or inducement. The salutary principle underlying the section would apply equally to other officers, by whatever designation they may be known, who have the power and duty to detect and investigate into crimes and is for that purpose in a position to extract confessions from the accused. This Court has already doubted the dicta in Kanhaiyalal (2008 (1) TMI 828 - SUPREME COURT) in the case of Nirmal Singh Pehalwan (2011 (7) TMI 1026 - SUPREME COURT). The matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench for re-consideration of the issue as to whether the officer investigating the matter under NDPS Act would qualify as police officer or not. Comparison between section 67 of NDPS act and Section 14 of Central Excise Act and Section 108 of Customs Act - Held that:- Provisions of Section 67 of the Act cannot be interpreted in the manner in which the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act or Section 14 of the Excise Act had been interpreted by number of judgments and there is a qualitative difference between the two sets of provisions. In so far as Section 108 of the Customs Act is concerned, it gives power to the custom officer to summon persons “to give evidence” and produce documents. Identical power is conferred upon the Central Excise Officer under Section 14 of the Act. However, the wording to Section 67 of the NDPS Act is altogether different. As against the sentence of 10 years awarded to the appellant he has already undergone more than 9 years of sentence. In these circumstances, we deem it a fit case to suspend further sentence till the disposal of this appeal by the larger Bench. The appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing security in the sum of ₹ 50,000 with two sureties of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court - Decided in favour of appellant.
|