Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 29-10-2020 in case of petitioner name Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu
| |

NDPS Act and Confessions: Supreme Court Rules on Admissibility of Section 67 Statements

The case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu is a landmark judgment concerning the admissibility of confessions recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether statements recorded by officers under this section could be treated as evidence and relied upon for conviction.

The judgment, delivered by Justice R.F. Nariman, overruled conflicting decisions and provided clarity on the evidentiary value of confessional statements made to NDPS officers. The ruling reaffirmed constitutional safeguards against self-incrimination and emphasized the importance of procedural fairness in criminal trials.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Tofan Singh, was convicted under the NDPS Act based on a confessional statement recorded under Section 67. His conviction was challenged on the ground that such statements should not be admissible in court, as they are made to officers performing investigative functions similar to the police. The case was referred to a larger bench due to conflicting precedents on whether NDPS officers are “police officers” for the purposes of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Legal Issues Raised

The primary issues before the court were:

  • Whether confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are admissible as evidence.
  • Whether officers under the NDPS Act should be treated as “police officers” under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
  • Whether statements recorded by NDPS officers violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that:

  • Confessions to NDPS officers should be treated as statements to “police officers,” making them inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
  • Section 67 of the NDPS Act only allows officers to call for information but does not permit them to record confessional statements.
  • The confessional statement was retracted, meaning it should not be the sole basis for conviction.
  • Convicting someone based on a statement made in the absence of legal safeguards violates the principles of a fair trial.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Tamil Nadu contended that:

  • Officers under the NDPS Act are not “police officers” and therefore statements recorded under Section 67 are admissible.
  • Confessions obtained by NDPS officers play a crucial role in combating drug trafficking and should be allowed as evidence.
  • The conviction was based not only on the confession but also on corroborative material.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The court examined the legal framework governing the NDPS Act and its relationship with the Indian Evidence Act. The key observations included:

  • “A confessional statement made to an officer under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as substantive evidence.”
  • “NDPS officers have the power to investigate and are thus considered ‘police officers’ under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.”
  • “Any statement recorded under Section 67 is hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects individuals from self-incrimination.”

Key Legal Precedents Considered

The court analyzed previous rulings, including:

  • Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India (1990): Held that NDPS officers were not police officers.
  • Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India (2008): Found that confessions made under Section 67 could be admissible.
  • Balkrishna Chhaganlal Soni v. State of West Bengal (1974): Stated that statements made to customs officers were not admissible.

The court ruled that previous decisions failed to fully consider the implications of treating NDPS officers as police officers and thus overruled them.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court held that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible as confessional evidence. The key points in the judgment were:

  • NDPS officers are police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, making confessions made to them inadmissible.
  • Self-incrimination protections under Article 20(3) extend to statements made under Section 67.
  • Confessions alone cannot be the basis for conviction in NDPS cases.
  • Independent corroboration is required for securing convictions.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling significantly impacts NDPS cases, ensuring that:

  • Convictions cannot be based solely on confessions made to NDPS officers.
  • Proper safeguards must be followed in drug-related investigations.
  • Authorities need independent evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • It reinforces the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

This landmark ruling strengthens the protection of accused persons while balancing the need for stringent drug enforcement mechanisms.


Petitioner Name: Tofan Singh.
Respondent Name: State of Tamil Nadu.
Judgment By: Justice R.F. Nariman.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 29-10-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-10-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Drug Possession Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts