BALWINDER SINGH (BINDA) versus THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 22-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 100 : 2023 INSC 852
100
CASE DETAILS
BALWINDER SINGH (BINDA)
v.
THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1136 of 2014)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2023
[B.R. GAVAI, HIMA KOHLI AND 
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to admissibility in evidence 
of the confessional statement recorded by the Narcotics Control Bureau 
officers u/s. 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985; and proving of possession of contraband by the prosecution beyond 
reasonable doubt.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s. 67 – 
Confession statement made by an accused u/s. 67 before an offi  cer of 
Narcotics Control Bureau – Admissibility in evidence: 
Held: Statement made by an accused and recorded u/s. 67 cannot be 
used as a confessional statement in the trial of an off ence under the NDPS 
Act – Any confessional statement made by an accused to an offi  cer invested 
with the powers u/s. 53 of the NDPS Act, is barred for the reason that such 
offi  cers are “police offi  cers” within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evidence 
Act – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 25. [Para 10]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s. 
54 – Presumption from possession of illicit articles – “Proof beyond 
reasonable doubt vis-a-vis “preponderance of probability”: 
Held: Initial burden is cast on the prosecution to establish the essential 
factors on which its case is premised – After the prosecution discharges the 
said burden, the onus shifts to the accused to prove his innocence – However, 
the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence, is not 
101
as high as expected of the prosecution – For attracting the provisions of s. 
54, it is essential for the prosecution to establish the element of possession 
of contraband by the accused for the burden to shift to the accused to prove 
his innocence – This aspect of possession of the contraband has to be proved 
by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 15 and 16]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss. 
67 and 54 – Two persons convicted for possession of commercial 
quantity of heroin – Out of the two, only accused was apprehended 
by Narcotics Control Bureau-NCB from the spot where Naka laid and 
co-accused was arrested later – Co-accused being repeated off ender 
sentenced to death u/s. 21(c) rw s. 31A(1a) which was modifi ed to 
14 years of rigorous imprisonment – Accused sentenced u/s. 21(c) 
to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years with fi ne, by the courts 
below – Sustainability of: 
Held: Confessional statement of the accused recorded by the NCB 
offi  cers u/s. 67, who had attributed a role to co-accused and subsequently 
statement of co-accused was recorded u/s. 67 are rejected as it cannot be 
used as a confessional statement having been recorded by the NCB offi  cials 
who are to be treated as “police offi  cers” u/s. 25 of the Evidence Act – 
Furthermore, no other independent incriminating evidence for convicting 
co-accused, thus, his conviction cannot be sustained – As regards the 
accused, the conviction does not hinge solely on his confessional statement 
made to the NCB offi  cials – His case rests on the testimonies of prosecution 
witnesses, which are consistent and there are no material contradictions in 
their depositions to extend any benefi t to the accused – Plea by the accused 
that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against him and 
thus, the burden of proving his innocence did not shift back to him cannot 
be accepted – As regards the plea of failure to establish foundational 
facts, the prosecution was able to discharge the onus cast on it to prove 
the foundational facts – Prosecution produced adequate evidence to prove 
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the knowledge of the car being 
used for transporting narcotics, the presumption u/s. 35 would have to be 
drawn against him to hold that he had a culpable mental state – As regards, 
the plea of the accused being in the custody of the NCB much before the 
naka was laid, there has been no arbitrariness or undue favour shown to the 
BALWINDER SINGH (BINDA) v. THE NARCOTICS 
CONTROL BUREAU
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
prosecution witnesses from the accused to claim any bias – In view thereof, 
accused failed to make out a case for acquittal, thus, order of conviction and 
the sentence imposed by the courts below upheld, however, the co-accused 
stands acquitted. [

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.