LexRAJ KUMAR KARWAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAJ KUMAR KARWAL A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS . ., WITH KIRPAL MOHAN VIRMANI B v. STATE AND ANR. ( MARCH 21, 1990 [A.M. AHMADI AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.) G -" Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Sections 36A(d), 52, 52A, 53-Whether Officers of Department of Revenue Intelligence invested with powers under section 53 are "police officers' ...._..J._ within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act . D The officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted one truck. On search, a large quantity of hashish was recovered. In the course of investigation the names of the appellant and the petitioner surfaced. Both of them made confessional statements to the DRI officials. E /" Complaints were lodged against the appellant and the petitione1 under the Narcotic Drugs &.Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Customs Act, 1962. On their applying for enlrgement on bail, the self- incriminating statements made by them to the DRI officials were used .-:- ·-- against them by the prosecution. The appellant and the petitioner ,. argued before the Single Judge of the High Court hearing the hail F applications that the said statements were uot admissible in evidence in view of section 25 of the Evidence Act. The learned Single Judge refer- ~ ~ red the question of admissibility of the confessional statements to the Division Bench which concluded that the officials of the ORI invested with powers under section 53 of the Narcotic Act did not possess any of the attributes of an officer-in-charge of a police station conducting an G investigation under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against this decision of the Division Bench, the appellant and the petitioner have appealed to this Court. _,., " It was contended before this Court on behalf of the appellant and the petitioner that : (I) the expression 'police officer' used in section 25 H 63 A B c D 64 . SUPREME COURT REPORn I 1990] 2 S.C.R. of the Evidence Act must not be read in the narrow sense of only those officers belonging to the regular police force but must be construed broadly to include .all those who have been invested with powers of the police in the matter of investigation of a penal offence; (2) when such extensive powers are conferred on the officers appointed under the Act and the consequences are so drastic, it is desirable that the protection of section 25, Evidence Act, should be extended. to persons accused of the commission of any crime punishable under the Narcotic Act; (3) since the Act does not prescribe the procedure for investigation, the officers invested with power under section 53 of the Act must necessarily resort to the procedure under Chapter XH of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which would ·require them to culminate the investigation by sub- mitting a report under section 173 of the Code, and (4) since the officers referred to in section 53 have been invested with all the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station for investigation of offences under the. Narcotic Act, they have all the attributes of a police officer investigating a crime under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973 and would, therefore, fall within the expression "police officer" in section 25 of the Evidence Act. Dismissing the appeal and the special leave petition, this Court, HELD: (1) Section 25, Evidence Act, engrafts a wholesome pro- tection. It must not, therefore, be construed in a narrow and technical \ 1 E sense but must be understood in a broad and popular sense. But at the '°'· same tme it cannot be construed in so wide a sense as to include persons on whom only some of the powers exercised by the police are conferred within the category of police officers. [73B-CJ Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, J.T. 1987 l SC 210; The State of F Punjab v. Barkat Ram, Jl962] 3 SCR 338 at 347 and Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (1964] 2 SCR 752 at 761, referred to. (2). Even if an officer is invested under any special law with pow- ers analogous to those exercised by a police officer in charge of a police G station investigating a cognizable offence, he does not thereby become a police officer under Section 25, Evidence Act, unless re has the power to lodge a report under Section l7Jofthe Code. [76C] Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore, (1966) 3 SCR 698; Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, (1969] 2 SCR 461
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.