TOFAN SINGH versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 29-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 39 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
[2020] 12 S.C.R. 583
583
TOFAN SINGH
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2013 Etc.)
OCTOBER 29, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
ss. 42, 53 and 67 – Power under s. 67 – Extent, nature,
purpose and scope of – Confession made under – Before the officers
designated u/ss. 42 or 53 – Whether admissible as a substantive
evidence – Held: Statement recorded under s. 67 cannot be admitted
as a substantive evidence – To hold that such statement can be the
basis to convict a person under the Act would be a direct infringement
of the constitutional guarantees contained in Arts. 14, 20(3) and
21 of the Constitution.
Evidence Act, 1872:
s.25 – Officers invested with powers u/s. 53 of NDPS Act –
Are ‘Police Officers’ within the meaning of s. 25 – Therefore, any
confessional statement made to such officers, would be barred u/s.
25.
s.25 – ‘Police Officers’ – s. 25 – Held: Expression ‘Police
Officers’ in s.25 does not only mean a police officer who belongs to
State Police force, but includes officers who may belong to other
departments – Where limited powers of investigation are given to
officers for some purpose other than the prevention and detection
of crime, such persons cannot be said to be police officers – Where
a person, not a police officer properly so called, if invested with all
powers of investigation, which culminates in filing of police report,
such person can be called police officer.
Interpretation of statutes:
Marginal note – Is an important internal tool for indicating
the meaning and purpose of a Section in a statute.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
Words and Phrases:
‘Enquiry’ – Meaning of
Expression ‘Custody’ – Meaning of – Distinction from the
expression ‘arrest’.
‘Police Officer’ – Meaning in the context of s. 25 of Evidence
Act.
Answering the Reference, the Court
PER R. F. NARIMAN, J (FOR HIMSELF AND NAVIN
SINHA, J.)
HELD: 1.1. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is to be construed in the
backdrop of Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The fundamental rights contained in Articles 20(3) and 21
are given pride of place in the Constitution. By the 44th
Amendment to the Constitution, it is now provided that even in
an Emergency, these rights cannot be suspended – see Article
359(1). The interpretation of a statute like the NDPS Act must
be in conformity and in tune with the spirit of the broad
fundamental right not to incriminate oneself, and the right to
privacy. A delicate balance is maintained between the power of
the State to maintain law and order, and the fundamental rights
chapter which protects the liberty of the individual. Several
safeguards are thus contained in the NDPS Act, which is of an
extremely drastic and draconian nature. [Para 27][662-F-G]
1.2 Section 25 of Evidence Act, 1872 states that a confession
made to any police officer, whatever his rank, cannot be relied
upon against a person accused of any offence. “Police officer” is
not defined in the Evidence Act or in any cognate criminal statute.
Section 25 is to be viewed in contrast to section 24, given the
situation in India of the use of torture and third-degree measures.
Unlike section 24, any confession made to a police officer cannot
be used as evidence against a person accused of an offence, the
voluntariness or otherwise of the confession being irrelevant – it
is conclusively presumed by the legislature that all such
confessions made to police officers are tainted with the vice of
coercion.  [Para 29][664-B-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
The ‘First Report of Her Majesty’s Commissioners
Appointed to Consider the Reform of the Judicial
Establishments, Judicial Procedure and Laws of India
& C.’ (1856) – referred to.
1.3 The interpretation of the term “accused” in section 25
of the Evidence Act is materially different from that contained in
Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The scope of the section is not
limited by time – it is immaterial that the person was not an
accused at the time when the confessional statement was made.
Thus, whereas a formal accusation is necessary for invoking the
protection under Article 20(3), the same would be irrelevant for
invoking the protection under section 25 of the Evidence Act.
[Paras 31 and 33][665-B-C; 666-D]
1.4 Section 26 of the Evidence Act extends the protection
to confessional statements made by persons while “i

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