RAM SINGH versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 967 · Decided: 28-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 5 S.C.R. 967 
RAM SINGH 
v. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 451-452 of 2005) 
APRIL 28, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
NARCOTIC 
DRUGS 
AND· "PSYCHOTROPIC 
A 
B 
SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985. 
C 
ss. 8 and 18-'Conscious possession'-Recovery of 
opium from a room belonging to a hotel-Conviction of the 
servant of the hotel on the basis of his confessional 
statements that he brought the opium to the hotel from the 
0 
house of its owner on his direction and opium tablets were sold 
to truck drivers-Affirmed by High Court-Held: Control over 
the goods is one of the tests to ascertain conscious 
possession so also the title - A servant of a hotel cannot be 
said to be in-possession of contraband belonging to his 
master unless it is proved that it was left in his custody over E 
/which he had absolute· control - There is no evidence on 
record to suggest that the accused was in occupation of the 
room from where opium was recovered - Further, the 
evidence clearly points out that title to the opium vested in 
the owners of the hotel - Jn the face of the state of evidence 
F 
it is difficult to hold that the accused was in conscious 
possession of the opium-Conviction and sentence of 
accused set aside-Evidence Act, 1872-ss.25 and 26. 
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 
G 
t 
' 
' 
' 
ss. 25 and 26 - Confession made to officer of Central. 
Bureau of Narcotics-Held: The officers of the Central Bureau, 
of Narcotics are not police officers within the meaning of ss. 
967 
H 
968 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 
A 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, confessions 
made before them are admissible in evidence - Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 173. 
Confession - Evidentiary value of - HELD: A confession, 
B if it is voluntary, truthful, reliable and beyond reproach is an 
efficacious piece of evidence to establish the guilt of the 
accused - However, before solely acting on confession, as a 
rule of prudence, the court requires some corroboration but 
as an abstract proposition of law it cannot be said that a 
C conviction cannot be maintained solely on the basis of the 
confession made uls 67 of the Act. 
The appellant, who was working as a servant in a 
hotel, was arrested in connection with recovery of 2.1 kg. 
of opium from a room adjoining the kitchen of the hotel. 
D While in custody of the Investigating Officer, namely, the 
Inspector, Central Bureau of Narcotics (P W-8), the 
appellant made two confessional statements (Ext. P·12 
and Ext. P-15) to the effect that he had been working in 
the hotel for two months and he brought the opium to the 
E hotel from the house of its owner on his direction; and 
that the opium tablets used to be sold to the truck drivers. 
The trial court held that the appellant was in possession 
of the opium and, accordingly, convicted him u/s 8 read 
with s.18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
F Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to 10 years RI 
and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac. The High Court affirmed the 
conviction and the sentence. 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused, the 
questions for consideration of the Court were: (i) whether 
G the confessions made before the officers of the Central 
Bureau of Narcotics were admissible in evidence; (ii) 
whether the confessions made were voluntary in nature 
and if so without corroboration, could it form the basis 
H 
RAM SINGH v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS 969 
for conviction; and (iii) whether the appellant could be 
A 
said to be In possession of the opium or selling the same. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The officers of the Central Bureau of 
Narcotics are not police officers within the meaning of ss. 
8 
25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and, therefore, 
confessions made before them are admissible in 
evidence. [para 1 OJ [977-A-B] 
1.2 The important attribute of police officer is not C 
only to investigate but also to launch prosecution by filing 
a report or charge-sheet. True it is that s. 53 of the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985, confers 
powers on the Central Government to invest officers of 
the specified categories, the powers of an officer-in- o 
charge of police station, but that itself shall not make 
. them the police officers within the meaning of ss. 25 and 
26 of the Evidence Act. The power to submit report u/s 
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is necessary 
to make the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics 
E 
polic

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