Nisar Ahmad vs Narcotic Control Bureau

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner is challenging the order dated 23-4-2005 passed by the Special Judge of N.D.P.S. Cases, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges against him for offences u/s 8/21 with the aid of Section 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act (henceforth to be referred to as the Act", for short).

In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 4-9-2004 the Narcotic Control Bureau (henceforth to be referred to as "the Bureau", for short) searched a truck at the P.W.D. Dak Bungalow, Jaipur between 12.00 to 2.30 p.m. Allegedly, they recovered 4.2 kg. of heroin. Since heroin was recovered from the truck, its driver Prahlad Singh was arrested. Earlier in the day and far away at 8-10 p.m. the petitioner was arrested at old Delhi Railway Station. His statement was recorded u/s 67 of the Act. The said statement is incriminatory in nature. Subsequently, the intelligence Officer, Narendra Kumar Sharma, submitted a complaint before the Special Court of N.D.P.S. Cases, Jaipur against the petitioner and few others. After hearing the arguments on the framing of charge, vide order dated 23-4-2005, the learned Judge framed the charges as aforementioned. Hence, this revision petition before this Court.

Mr. Anil Upman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised two contentions before this Court, firstly, that the confessional statements recorded u/s 67 of the Act are not admissible in evidence. For, the said statements were recorded after the petitioner was arrested. Therefore, the statements are hit by Sections 34 and 25 of the Evidence Act. Secondly, that the intelligence Officer, Narendra Kumar Sharma, is not authorized to file a complaint u/s 36(1)(d) of Act. Moreover, he is not competent to exercise the power under Sections 42 and 67 of the Act. Therefore, the entire trial stands vitiated.

On the other hand, Mr. Sushil Sharma, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bureau, has contended that the Officers of the Bureau are not invested with the powers of Officer-in-charge of Police Station u/s 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as "the Code", for short). Therefore, the statements made before them is not hit by Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, according to him, vide notification No. S.O. 822(E) dated 14-11-1985, which was published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated 14-11-1985, the Central Government empowered the officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector in the departments of Central Excise, Customs and Revenue Intelligence and in Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and Narcotics Control Bureau to exercise the powers and perform the duties specified in Section 42 within the area of their respective jurisdiction and also authorised the said officers to exercise the powers conferred upon them u/s 67 of the Act. Moreover, according to the notification No. S.O. 763(E) dated 27-9-1989, any officers above the rank of Inspector in the Department of Customs, Central Excise, Narcotics, Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and the Narcotics Control Bureau under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India was authorized for filing of complaints relating to an offence under the said Act before the Special Courts. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, the Intelligence Officer, as duly empowered to record the statements and to submit the complaint.

We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the impugned order.

In order to combat the nuisances caused by the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in the country, the Central Government has constituted the Narcotic Control Bureau while exercising its power conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. Alongwith other agencies, such as Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, and Revenue Intelligence. Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, the Narcotic Control Bureau is also supposed to detect and control the illicit trade, distribution and transport etc. of drugs throughout the country and beyond. A bare perusal of Notification No. S.O. 822 (E) dated 14-11-1985 clearly shows that officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector in the department of Narcotics and Revenue Intelligence and in Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and Narcotics Control Bureau are authorized to exercise the power and to perform the duty specified u/s 42 - which includes the duties to enter, search, seize and arrest without warrant or authorization and equally to exercise the power conferred u/s 67 of the Act - which includes the power to call for an information or the power to record the statements. Similarly, vide Notification No. S.O. 763(E) dated 27-9-1989, officers above the rank of Inspector in-the Department of Customs, Central Excise, Narcotics, Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and the Narcotics Control Bureau under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India are authorized for filing of complaints relating to an offence under the said Act before the Special Courts. Since the statements were recorded by an Inspector of the Bureau, since the complaint was also submitted by an Inspector of Bureau, both the actions were done by an authorized officer of the Bureau. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is without any force.

The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not deserve to be accepted. Through catena of cases, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the officer of Customs and Excise, Officer of the Revenue Intelligence, Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau are not officer-in -charge of Police Station u/s 53 of the Code. Therefore, statements made before such officers are not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Even if, in the present case, as claimed by the petitioner, he is retracted the confessional statement made by him, whether the confessional statement was made under inducement, threat and promise, this issue cannot be decided at this stage. It has to be necessarily left for a decision to the trial Court. (refer to Raj Kumar Karwal Vs. Union of India and others,

In the case of State Vs. Kulwant Singh, the Hon''ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the aforesaid notifications. The Hon''ble Apex Court not only held these notifications to be valid, but also held that the officers mentioned therein are duly authorized and empowered to carry out their duties under Sections 42, 67 and 36A of the Act. Thus, the first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also without any force.

Since both the contentions are without force, this petition is devoid of merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.