Chapter I

1. INTRODUCTION

“Whatever thing in whatever form appears (reported), to discover its true nature is
called the knowledge of reality.”

- Thirukural

The Researcher is going to discuss about the procedures of Investigation process under NDPS
Act and researcher explains why CrPC is not applicable to accused who have committed the
offence of having concealed drugs i.e. Special Law v. General Law, NDPS Act is an
specific act empowered by central government to deal with drug related cases .The offences
under NDPS Act is an cognizable offense and are investigated by both police officer and
officer of central and state government(sec 53 of NDPS Act), but CrPC is a set of procedures
given, to be followed in criminal cases. If both CrPC and NDPS Act contradict each other
then what law will prevail; based upon the principle “Generalia Speciallibus Non
Derogant” Special Law will prevail over General Law. So NDPS Act a special law prevails
over CrPC a general law for drug related cases.

Statement recorded by Investigation officer, Investigation done under NDPS is totally

different from the investigation process under CrPC; whatever is not valid under CrPC is
valid under NDPS Act such as confession given to police officer not admissible as
evidence(violation of Article 20(3)), only judicial confession has evidentiary value and can
be used against him. But in the case of NDPS there is no concept called judicial confession
and it allows the Intelligence officer to call for voluntary statement from the accused and all
other persons who are well acquainted with the facts and circumstance of the case (sec 67 of
NDPS Act).1 This concept is highly debated in every NDPS cases which will be broadly
discussed by the Researcher in the forthcoming chapters. There is no concept called Charge
sheet under NDPS Act, but charge sheet will be filed in every criminal cases i.e. Final report.
Under NDPS cases, final report will be the complaint copy given to Magistrate.

The information upon which Investigation starts is FIR under criminal cases and the person
who conveyed the information, his name must be disclosed (Sec 154 CrPC), But in NDPS
Act it’s not necessary to disclose the name who informed about the concealed drugs because

1
Raj Kumar Karwal v. UOI, (1990) 2 SCC 409. In this case the court held that the confession given to
Intelligence officer is valid.

9
they are just the informer and if it’s disclosed there will be threat to the informer and this can
also prevent the informer to come forward and say about the occurrence of concealed drugs
and drug trafficking. Thus confidentiality of name of informer has been maintained. But the
procedures given under NDPS Act must be properly followed otherwise it would vitiate the
conviction i.e. Information must be recorded in writing

Both NDPS Act and CrPC procedures have few similarities such as, investigation not
defined. Under NDPS act, clause (xxix) of Section 2 of NDPS Act provides that words used
in the expression not defined but defined in the code of criminal procedure, 1973 have the
meanings respectively assigned to them in the code. Under sec 2(h) of CrPC, the expression
investigation includes all the proceedings under code for collection of evidence conducted by
police officer or by any person authorised by the magistrate .Still NDPS Act follow the
definition of investigation given under CrPC. 2 the concept of “Investigation” and whether
investigation made by the recovery officer is valid will be answered by the Researcher in
Chapter I with what is Information and how it’s important for investigation and the search
,seizure and arrest procedure must be complied with CrPC.

1.1.Outline/Roadmap

Here is the Roadmap of the Research Paper, the Research Paper is divided in to three parts, In
Part I, The Researcher is trying to explain what is information, how information is important
for starting the investigation, trying to explain about the concept of investigation. In part II,
The Researcher is trying to analyse the legality of the police officer investigating the offence
and explain about charge sheet. In part III, the Researcher is trying to discuss about the power
of investigating officer to call for information, where researcher will try to explain about the
concept of enquiry, finally the scope and evidentiary value of statement recorded under Sec
67 of NDPS.

1.2.Objective
1. To study the difference between the Investigation process under CrPC and NDPS Act.
2. To study the evidentiary value of statement recorded under Sec 67 of NDPS Act.

2
H.N Rishbud and another v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 195 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali,
AIR 1959 SC 195,from this cases the court have elaborated the steps of investigation even the NDPS case
follows the process of investigation given under Crpc with certain changes.
 3. To analyse the legality of Police officer investigating the offense.

1.3.Research Question
1. Whether Sec 67 of NDPS Act is constitutionally valid?
2. What is Investigation and whether investigation done by police officer regarding
drugs is valid?
3. Whether Confession can be used against the accused as the sole basis of conviction?

1.4. Research Methodology

The research method adopted by the researcher is both doctrinal and comparative method of
Research. The researcher has tried to comparative analyse the Investigation process under
NDPS Act and CrPC.

1.5. Sources

The Researcher has made use of relevant cases relating validity of Investigation process
under NDPS Act .Constitution of India and NDPS Act has been referred to know about the
validity of procedure relating investigation and to find whether process of investigation given
under NDPS Act is constitutionally valid. The above serve as the primary sources to the
Research paper. Secondary sources such as books, articles, journals and web sources have
also been referred.

11
 Chapter II

2. Investigation-Definition: CrPC and NDPS

Investigation plays a significant role in ascertaining the facts and circumstance of the case
upon which the offense has occurred. It helps the police officer to determine the audacity
of crime and investigation by police officer can be used against the accused to secure
justice to the victim. The question is why there is the necessity of Investigation, why can’t
police arrest the accused without investigation i.e. because it’s felt that “man is innocent
until he is proved” this is the Criminal Justice system of India. Even he charged of serious
offense he must be given chance to heard and unless it proved, he can’t be considered as
an accused, and then he cannot be charged for an offense without solid proof against him.
So investigation help to get proof against him and this will be used in Trial against him.
So Investigation is an important tool which can be used against the accused, but because
some loophole in the investigation it vitiates the conviction.

It helps the defence from questioning the procedures done by police, even best
investigation by police officer mistakes are committed. So it easily helps the accused
escape from conviction and it prevents the victim from getting justice, the accused is free
even after committing serious offense only victim suffers from the pain. Criminal Justice
System is silent in securing justice to victim of the offense. So the court and Law in
various time have clearly pointed that Investigation must be done properly and also court
have set out procedure How investigation must be done in various case as CrPC and even
NDPS will be broadly discussed.

2.1.Initiation of Investigation-CrPc and NDPS

Investigation will be initiated based on the information given to police officer FIR will be
registered, but there is no term of “FIR” under CrPC code. But in general terms the police
call it as the FIR. 3 It is very important in starting the investigation process and it is
mandatory to register FIR. 4 In non-cognizable there is no duty of police officer to

3
FIR (First Information report),A FIR means the information given to charge of police station in relation to the
commission of cognizable offense and it’s the FIR from which investigation is commenced.
4
LalitaKumari v. Govt of UP,(2014) 2 SCC 1.In this case the question raised was whether it was the obligation
to register FIR based on the information received .the court answered affirmative it said that the officer must
register the case based on the information received of the commission of cognizable offense. Then registering
FIR it’s the mandatory provision.

12
 investigate unless the magistrate orders to investigate.5The offense under NDPS Act are
cognizable offense and investigation will started based upon the information or person
knowledge same as CrPC, they can inquire and investigate even before the formal
accusation is made or FIR is registered.6Sec 42 of NDPS Act has given power to search,
seize, arrest without warrant or authorisation based upon the information received. Under
Sec 42(1) of NDPS Act requires the officer to take down the information and information
must recorded in writing, also ground of belief. It must be sent to official superior within
72 hours (Sec 42(2)). If the officer fails to comply with this provision, then it affects the
prosecution case.7 It is not necessary to disclose the informer under NDPS Act unlike
CrPC where it’s necessary to disclose the name in registering FIR.

2.2. Investigation Process –NDPS AND CrPC

The term “Investigation” not defined under NDPS Act .Sec 2(xxix) of NDPS Act clearly
says that the word investigation used in the Act is not defined, but it’s defined under
CrPC which will be adopted under NDPS Act. Under Sec 2(h) of CrPC defines the
Investigation as collection of evidence conducted by police officer or any persons
authorised by magistrate. NDPS Act follows the definition of CrPC given for
investigation, but the problem is that they have not given the stages of Investigation, but
provide with what all will cover under Investigation. The definition “Investigation is
interpreted in various cases and especially by SC in H.N Rishbad and another v. State of
Delhi 8 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali 9 investigation comprises of
following steps
1. Reaching the spot,
2. Ascertaining the facts and circumstance of case,
3. Discovery and arrest of suspected offender,
4. Collection of evidence relating to commission of offence which
consist of (a)examination of person and reduce it to writing and
(b)the search and seizure of thing important for investigation
and to be produced before trial.

5
S.155(2) read with S.3(1)(a).
6
Intelligence officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) v. Amjad Hussein Khan,III (2003) CCR 518
(2003) 3 Mah LJ 954:2003 Drug Cases (Narcotics) 367(Bom).
7
State of Punjab v. BalbirSingh, AIR 1994 SC 1872.
8
AIR 1955 SC 195.
9
AIR 1959 SC 707.

13
 5. Formation of the opinion to whether material collected can
prove the accused for offense before magistrate for trial and
charge sheet must be file under Sec 173 i.e. final report of the
case and investigation.10

2.2.1. Process of Investigation under CrPC

Based upon FIR for cognizable offense, the officer charge of police station have the power to
inquire or try under the provision of CrPC(Sec 156 of CrPc),the officer have right to reach
the spot ,officer must say to the accused the ground of arrest(Sec 50(1) of CrPC)11and arrest
the person. Intimidation memo will be given to family member or friends, that he is arrested
in connection with alleged offense. The police officer must record statement of accused and
witness (161 statements).there is no evidentiary value, it can be used to contrary statement of
witness by defence counsel and judicial confession can be taken by magistrate, if the accused
agrees to confess before magistrate (164). The arrested person must not be detained for more
than 24 hours; he must be produced before the magistrate. If the officer fails to record the
statement, then police will file a petition requesting the accused must be sent to police
custody. Based upon the statement the police will search and seize before the independent
witness i.e. Mahazar. Then after investigation final report will be filed i.e. Charge sheet
(174).Then the magistrate will take cognizance of the offense (Sec 190 of CrPC).But if its
non-cognizable case then police officer cannot arrest without warrant.

2.2.2. Process of Investigation under NDPS

Similarly in NDPS cases, the officer based upon the information relating narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of the offense is punishable under
the Act is committed; the officer must take the information in writing. The officer who is
empowered under NDPS Act has right to enter, search, seize or break the door in case of
resistance in the place of commission of offense(Sec 42). The IO has right to search and seize
the drugs which is concealed in the building or enclosed place between sunrise and sunset. If
the officer want to search and seize the concealed drugs before sunset and sunrise, then there
is the need of warrant issued by the magistrate or if it’s not possible then he must search and
seize the drugs accompanied with the superior officer or both is not possible, he can search
and seize.

10
Kirpal Mohan Virmani v. B.D.Mishra, 1989 (3) Crimes 146.
11
Udaybhan Sukhi v. State of UP, 1999 Cri LJ 274(ALL).

14
After the information being received, the IO must rush to place where the drugs being
concealed .In order to perform search and seize procedures, before meeting the accused IO
must get two independent witness to witness the search and seizure proceeding i.e. IO or any
officer of NCB must not be an independent witness, anyone near the place can be taken as
independent witness. first he must introduce to the accused who have concealed the drugs as
IO (reasons for the ground of arrest), also must inform about the information and intention to
search him given under the provision of NDPS Act.IO must inform about the provisions of
sec 50 of NDPS and his right to opt for search before gazetted officer or before magistrate
and if he decline for the search by gazetted officer or magistrate .then IO can proceed for
search.

IO must start to search the place and if drugs been found, then first it must be tested drug
detection kit and if it is found positive, drugs given under NDPS Act then quantitative of
drugs must be taken. Sample of drugs must be sent to the chemical examiner for qualitative
analysis (because in the drugs various other natural minerals will be mixed) so in other to find
the correct amount of drugs qualitative analysis will be done. The sample must be sealed with
NCB no and the entire amount of drugs also must be sealed. even mixture or material that of
with or without natural material of any of drugs given under NDPS Act will be treated as
whole and be weighed and there are three quantity of drugs i.e. small quantity(1 year or
10,000 fine), in between quantity(10 years and fine of one lakh rupees) and commercial
quantity(not less than 10 years but which may extend to twenty years and shall be liable to
fine not less than one lakh but which may extend to two lakh rupees) .quantity of drugs will
be measured as whole not excluding the natural mineral to find whether it is falling under any
quantity given under NDPS Act.

After the search and seizure proceedings, mahazar must be signed by the two independent
witnesses and by the officer who have performed the search and seizure proceedings. Then
the officer must call the accused and other witnesses who are acquainted with the facts and
circumstance of the case to give voluntary statement under sec 67 of NDPS Act, only after
the voluntary statement the officer arrest the accused. Instead of charge sheet, complaint will
be filed by the Intelligence officer before magistrate in NDPS cases.

15
 Chapter III

3. Validity of Police Officer Investigating the NDPS case

Under CrPC, the officer who registers FIR or search and seize the things can continue to
investigate the case, but if the investigation has done biased or if he has any personal interest
towards the case then it can be questioned by defence counsel. In NDPS cases at the
beginning the drugs been seized by the officer, then statement and other investigation will be
carried out. So the question is whether Recovery officer i.e. seizing the drugs can continue to
investigate the case, because under CrPC only after receiving statement of accused they go
and search and seize the things. NDPS the recovery officer who is empowered under NDPS
Act can continue to investigate the offense unless he is not biased or not have any personal
interest. 12 The issue is if the police officers registers an FIR and also do investigation
regarding NDPS cases, then it’s not valid. So the court will not accept this investigation made
by police officer and it can also vitiate the conviction, the issue will be answered with the
relevant cases.

3.1. Cases on Legality of Police Officer Investigating NDPS offense.

A. Whether the accused can continue to investigate case?

(i)In Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 13The SC rejected the investigation done by the
head constable against whom the bribe was offered and also he was the one who register FIR.
The SC clearly said that the accused cannot investigate the case and also person who register
FIR cannot investigate the case, because he will be biased and he will try to hide certain facts
in order to escape from the offence and SC relied on the case Megha Singh v. State of
Haryana, 14where similar facts that head constable arrested the accused and recovered the
contraband who filed FIR and investigated the case, the SC rejected the investigation done by
head constable.

12
Dharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 Cr LJ (NOC) 127:2008 Cr LJ 4141.
13
AIR 1976 SC 985.
14
AIR 1995 SC 2339.

16
B. Whether the police officer who did recovery proceedings can investigate the case?

(i) In Nathiya and Others v. State of Rajasthan, 15

Rajasthan High Court was in the view that the investigation must be done by independent
officer i.e. empowered officer not by the Police officer and this procedure can only secure
justice. The court relied on various judgements to reach to the conclusion. 16 In Naushadv.
State of kerala,17sub inspector of police, Mattancherry police station, received a phone call
from unidentified persons that drugs been sold in the accused house. After receiving
information the officer rushed to house and procedures of NDPS Act is followed for arresting
the person, but the police officer started to investigate the case. So the issue raised by defence
counsel is the investigation done by police officer is not valid and the court interpreted that if
the recovery done by police officer, then the investigation must be done by superior officer
not by him.

If recovery done by police officer and if he investigate the case, in such a case the accused
will be deprived of their valuable rights.18The statement given by the accused must not be
used against him and also sec 25 of Indian evidence Act clearly says that confession given to
police officer is not allowed. So even if the accused have given confession to police officer is
not valid and also the court said that the police officer can recover the drugs but the
investigation must be done by Intelligence officer empowered under NDPS Act. So the court
acquitted the accused on the ground of non-compliance with NDPS Act. In Niranjan Singh
v. State of Haryana,19Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab,20in Dev Raj v. State of Punjab,21and
in Mohmed Salim v. State of Haryana,22the court took a similar view of Naushad v. State of
Kerala and said that police officer cannot investigate the drug related the offence, it vitiates
the conviction.

15
1992 Cr LJ 2342.
16
The court took the similar view in Ronald MarkasGoondar v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr LR 678.the court
was in the view that officer who seizes the drug and sends FIR to police station then the court expects that
investigation must be done by higher official.
17
2000 (1) KLT 785.
18
Gyan Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cri. L.J. 3716 and Xavier v. State of Kerala,1998 (1) KLT 686.where
the court held that police officer cannot investigate NDPS case.
19
1995 (4) Crimes 392.
20
1998 Cr LJ 4696.
21
2000 Drug Cases 642.
22
2008 Cr LJ 2697.

17
(ii)In Dikush G Sinai v. State of Goa,the court gave an contrary judgement to the
abovementioned case that the trial of case is not vitiated merely because the investigation
done by police officer.

The following observation of SC in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh,23regarding the police

officer investigating NDPS cases is “when a police officer carrying on the investigation
including search, seizure or arrest empowered under the provision of CrPC comes across the
person being in possession of NDPS, then if he is empowered officer under NDPS then he
can continue to investigate the case. But if he is not an empowered officer, then he must
direct the case to empowered officer and they must start the investigation in accordance with
NDPS Act”. In Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 24referring to above observation the court
said that only empowered officer can investigate the case not police.

The court from the above mentioned case clearly proves that all the court accepted the
principle laid by SC that if police officer who is not empowered under NDPS cannot
investigate the case. He must direct the case to empowered officer otherwise it can vitiates
trial, could not held to be good law.25

23
JT 1994(2)SC 108.
24
1995 (2) RLW 360.
25
Rewant Ram v. State of Rajasthan,1995 Cr LJ 772.
 Chapter IV

4. Evidentiary Value of Confession under Sec 67 of NDPS Act and Confession Given
To Police Officer under Indian Evidence Act and CrPC.

The main difference between NDPS Act and CrPC is the evidentiary value of confession.
Because in NDPS Act the statement given to I.O (Intelligence Officer) is valid and has
evidentiary value. It can be used against the accused; it cannot be used as conclusive proof to
convict the accused, need further corrobation. But in criminal cases the statement given to
police officer will not be considered as valid confession as per Sec 25 of Indian Evidence
Act, only the confession given to judicial magistrate is validi.e.164 statements. The reasons
behind not approving the confession to police officer i.e. they are untrustworthy; they can
force the person to give confession, even if he is innocent by using third degree method. So
that’s why criminal justice system comes to the place, where it says the accused must not be
ill-treated. Before getting confession from the accused, the procedures must be followed to
check whether the accused is voluntarily giving the confession or it’s by force or threat.

The question here is whether the procedures given under CrPC must be followed in NDPS or
whether the confession by I.O is approved as evidentiary value. The reader must understand
what constitutes confession, what is the evidentiary value of confession given to police
officer, what is the evidentiary value of Sec 67 NDPS Act and whether statement given to I.O
considered as confession to police officer, this will be discussed with relevant cases.

4.1. What Constitutes Confession

The statement given by the accused will not be considered as confession unless the accused
confesses the crime or if he admits certain facts which constitute the offence26. Confession is
made to police officer or any person accepting the crime; if the confession was given during
the custody of police officer, then it will not be considered as admissible evidence unless it is
done with the presence of magistrate. Confession to any person or police officer can be
admitted unless it’s not incriminating the accused, if any statement by the accused self
incriminates, then confession to police officer will not be accepted. If there are both
exculpatory and inculpatory statement the court will try to reject exculpatory statement, the
court will try to rely on inculpatory statement with evidences.

26
PakalaNarainSwamy v. Emperor,AIR 1939 PC 47.the word confession is not defined under any Act. The
definition was adopted by Lord Atkin in PakallaNarainswamy case where the Lordship said “A confession must
either admit the offense or say some facts relating the offense”.
In IrshadAlam v. State of Bihar,27in this case the court said the appellant never proved the
accused carried ganja in the van knowingly and consciously .No evidence produced against
the accused, mere regret of accused that he have carried ganja without knowledge cannot
convict him. So the court acquitted saying that the confession of the accused will not be
considered as he never accepted the guilt expressly or impliedly.

4.2. Evidentiary Value of Confession given to Police officer

Sec 25 of Indian Evidence Act clearly says that “No confession made to police officer shall
be proved against the accused”. Under this Section its clearly says confession made to
police officer is not admissible except provided under Sec 27. 28First we must interpret “who
is police officer” then only we can find whether I.O will come under purview of police
officer, whether statement given to I.O will be taken admissible and also it will help to find
who will be police officer under the purpose of this section.

4.2.1. Interpretation of the term -“Police officer”

The term “Police officer” should not be interpreted in strict technical sense, but it must be
interpreted in a broad and popular meaning and also the term cannot be construed in a very
wider sense to include all persons on whom only some of the powers are conferred. The court
considered Chowkidar,29a police patel,30village headman,31an excise peon 32and excise officer
considered as police officer according to Bombay and Calcutta High Courts. According to
Orissa court, even the home guard is considered as police personal for this Section.

The question here is how can we determine, who can come under police officer for the
purpose of this section. The SC has held certain test for determining who is a police officer
for the purpose of this section and it is to check whether the power conferred him have a
direct or substantial relationship with the prohibition conferred on this Act i.e. whether the
procedure given to be followed by police officer under CrPC is there, then they will be
considered as police.33

27
2014 Cr LJ 2107.
28
When any fact deposed to discovered in the consequence of information received from the person accused of
offense .during the custody of police then such information whether confession or not can be proved against the
accused.
29
Queen Empress v. Salemuddin Sheikh, (1899) 26 Cal 569.
30
Empress v. Rama Birapa,(1878) 3 Bom 12.
31
Lu Bien v. Queen Empress, (1889) SJLB 479.
32
Emperor v. Dinshaw Driver, (1928) 31 Bom LR 49.
33
Raja Ram v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 828.

20
The Central Excise officer who have the power to investigate as police officer, but because
can’t frame charge sheet under Sec 173 of Cr PC is not the police officer.34The SC in Gulam
Hussain Sheikh Chogule v. S. Reynolds, 35the statement recorded by custom officer under
Sec 108 of Customs Act, 1962 is admissible as evidence. So it’s clear that officer who have
the power of police officer, but if the procedure of CrPC is not followed such as officer who
don’t have right to frame charge sheet then the confession to them will not be made
inadmissible. So it’s clear that officer who is empowered under NDPS Act, 1985 is not the
police officer and confession given to them is valid. This topic will be also discussed, when
the evidentiary value of Sec 67 of NDPS is discussed.

4.2.2. Confession given to Magistrate

Under Sec 26 of Indian Evidence Act “No confession made by police officer in custody of
police officer unless he made in immediate presence of magistrate shall be proved against
such person” .Under this Sec confession made is not admissible unless it’s made in the
presence of magistrate. There can be question raised why confession to magistrate is
admissible, but not the confession to police officer. Its mere belief that confession given to
magistrate can be trusted; because the police officer is untrustworthy they can force the
person to give confession, even if he is innocent by using third degree method.

Under CrPC before getting confession certain procedures must be followed, the magistrate
must explain to the accused that he is not bound to give confession and if he give, it can be
used against him. Warning must be given to the accused about the effects of the confession
such as it can be used against the accused .confession cannot be recorded, if it is made by
force and threat. The main condition is to check by the magistrate is whether confession made
voluntary and this must be done by the frequent question posed by magistrate to the accused.
The magistrate must make the accused to believe that he is free from the police officer; there
will be protection from the apprehended torture. The same procedures must be followed by
I.O when he gets the statement from accused relating the commission of NDPS offences. The
I.O mustissue warning under Sec 164(2) before recording statement under Sec 67 of NDPS
Act.

34
State of Punjab v. Barkhat Ram, AIR 1962 SC 276.
35
2001 Cr LJ 4755.

21
4.3 Scope and Evidentiary value of statement recorded under Sec 67 of NDPS Act

Sec 67 of NDPS Act confers the power to call for information on the officers to refer in the
Sec 42 of NDPS Act (officer empowered by central government).According to Sec 67 of
NDPS Act the empowered officer has right to call for information, require any person to
produce or deliver document relevant to the enquiry and examine any persons who are
acquainted with facts and circumstance. The question here is whether statement recorded
under Sec 67 of NDPS is valid, whether the empowered officer will be considered as police
officer under the purpose of Sec 25 of Indian Evidence Act. This question will be answered
with relevant case laws.

4.3.1. Cases on Evidentiary Value of Statement Recorded Under Sec 67 of NDPS Act

A. Whether the statement given to I.O has evidentiary value?

(i)In AlokBadridas Agarwal v. B.K.Bhatt and another, 36Gujarat High Court was of the
viewthat officer who are authorized under Sec 53 of NDPS Act are not to be considered as
officer in charge of police station and they cannot be considered as the officer in charge of
police station, even they are exercising the power of police officer conducting the
investigation, but here there powers are limited for investigating the offense under Act. This
abovementioned judgement was followed by many cases as precedent. The cases are
Gomaram Somoram Jat v. U.H.Patel and another,37the validity of statement recorded under
Sec 67 was questioned, the court held that the statement is admissible and can be recorded as
valid can be used against the accused and Hussain Bhenu Malad v. State of Gujarat,38the
statements made by the accused under Sec 67 of NDPS Act and 108 of Custom Act is done
by the accused voluntarily and not by threat or coercion because they were not in the custody
of the police. This statement can be used as corroborative evidence against the accused. So
from this is clear that statement recorded under sec 67 of NDPS Act has evidentiary value
and it can be used against the accused.

36
1989 Cr LJ 765.
37
2001 Drug Cases 343.
38
2003 Cr LJ 5070.

22
B.Whether the I.O is considered as Police officer under the purpose of Sec 25 of Indian
Evidence Act?
(i)In Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India,39the court held that the I.O vested with the
power of officer in charge of police station under Sec 53 of NDPS Act are not “police
officer” within the meaning of Sec 25 of Indian Evidence Act. So the confession given to I.O
is admissible evidence. From the above paragraph we have understood the definition of
“police officer”, is someone whom the CrPC gives certain procedures to be followed for
investigation. But in NDPS they are doing similar procedure of investigation as CrPC, not
every procedure of Investigation followed by the I.O for Investigation of NDPS offense.
Because the I.O has no right to frame charge sheet only to complaint to magistrate, so they
cannot be considered as police officer for the purpose of Sec 25 of Indian Evidence Act and
the final report of NDPS case will be complaint copy given to magistrate.

39
(1990) 2 SCC 409.

23
 Conclusion

The Researcher concludes that the Procedures of investigation under CrPC and NDPS is not
entirely different, because in general each Act provides only procedures in order to safeguard
the both victims and accused from injustice. Both accused and victim must be protected, they
must not be victimised unnecessarily .even the person who charged for offence will be
considered as innocent and he cannot be punished for his crimes unless it’s proved.
Investigation plays an important tool in proving him as accused or innocent, so Investigation
must be done properly, police officer investigating must not be biased. Their work is only to
ascertain facts and find the truth by investigation. He cannot presume someone as accused
and punish him or favouring the victim, he cannot investigate and he must not hide any
evidences which prove the accused guilty. So procedures elucidated in both CrPC and NDPS
Act is for protection of accused and victim.no evil must escape from the hands of law and no
innocent must be punished in the hands of law. This is the object of both CrPC and NDPS
Act.

But still now the procedures is not been followed by police, both CrPC and NDPS Act says
clearly ,before entering the premises during sunset and sunrise for catching a women in
CrPC and for catching the accused i.e. both man and women. The police must have a warrant
before arresting the person and for catching women, women police must accompany arresting
the accused. But both the procedures are not followed they only harass the person. Main thing
in NDPS Act before search of drugs the I.O must say to accused that he can be searched
before the gazette officer, but in practical not followed. The main procedures in both CrPC
and NDPS Act is confession given to magistrate and confession given to I.O, procedures such
as warning must be given ,it’s not followed and many innocent person is been framed false
cases and in court they are proved innocent, their suffering during the jail can’t be
compensated. Even after saying the laws are draconian in serving the interest of people, the
objects is been defeated by the police. The legislature must bring new laws in punishing the
police for not doing proper investigation.

24
Bibliography

Books Referred

1. K.N.ChandraSekharan Pillai, R.V.Kelkars Criminal Procedure,123-202(4thEdition,

Reprint 2015), Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.
2. Justice M L Singhal, Sohoni Code of Criminal Procedure, (21th Edition, 2016), Lexis
Nexis, Haryana.
3. RatanLal and DhirajLal, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 471-709(19th Edition,
Reprint 2015), Lexis Nexis, Haryana.
4. Sudeep Malik, Supreme Court on Criminal Procedure Code and Criminal Trial, 521 -
540(2nd Edition, 2015), Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.
5. Dr MC Mehanathan, Law on Control of Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substances
in India, 415-441(3rdEdition, 2015), Lexis Nexis, Haryana.