FOOD SAFETY ACT & MAGGIE CASE

Food protection is a major public health issue in one of the most populated countries on the
planet, India. The challenges of feeding a large geographically dispersed population, millions
of whom are poor and undernourished, are immense.
There is no reference to the term food safety in the Constitution of India. However, Entry 18
in List III of the Constitution empowers both the parliament and the state legislature to enact
the law on the adulteration of food. And in this respect, various laws have been enacted.
Accordingly, every citizen of the country has a fundamental right to safe and nutritious food
as Article 21 imparts the right to life, and Article 47 imposes a duty on the state to raise the
level of nutrition and public health by safeguarding the right to food from any adulteration.
In order to streamline the vast array of food legislation, the Food Safety Standards Agency of
India (FSSAI) was officially set up, under the Food Safety and the Standard Act, 2006.
The following are the duties and responsibility of the food authority of India-

1. To control and track the manufacturing, production, delivery, selling, and import
of food as to maintain nutritious diet.
2. The Food Licensing Authority specify –Requirements and recommendations
relating to food articles.
3. Establishing an effective framework for the compliance of the different standards
listed under this Act.
4. Can also specify Constraints on the usage of dietary chemicals, harmful chemicals,
manufacturing supports, etc.
5. Methods and implementation of quality assurance in respect to every item of food
transported into India.
6. Many FSSAI initiatives have been introduced to spread the knowledge of safe
food at home, schools, workplaces etc.
According to Section 65, Offences and Penalty of FSSAI Act, 2006. Any individual or an
entity manufactures or distributes or imports any item of food that induces harm or death to
the customer shall be liable to

(a) not less than five lakh rupees in case of death;

(b) not exceeding three lakh rupees in case of grievous injury; and

(c) not exceeding one lakh rupees, in all other cases of injury:

Compensation should be paid within 6 months.

The FSSAI regulations for food adulteration: Adulteration means the action of making
something poorer in quality by the addition of another substance. The penalty for this offense
is minimum imprisonment of six months that may extend up to 3 years and a minimum fine
of Rs 1000. If a false guarantee is issued in writing in support of any food item. The penalty
shall be a fixed jail sentence of six months, which can be increased to 3 years and a total
penalty of Rs 1000.

Section 31. Licensing and registration of food business. No person shall commence any food
business without a licence. However, a petty manufacturer who himself manufactures or sells
any food article to a petty retailer, hawker etc do not need license; but they shall register
themselves with such authority and in such manner as may be specified by regulations. Any
person desirous to commence any food business shall make an application for grant of a
licence to the Designated Officer. The Designated Officer may either grant the licence or
refuse to grant the licence after giving the applicant a chance to present his case. The refusal
should be on reasonable grounds.

Section 23. Packaging and labelling of foods. No person shall manufacture, distribute, sell
any packaged food products which is not marked and labelled in the manner as may be
specified by regulations: Labels shall not contain any statement or claim which is false or
misleading in any any manner such as concerning the food products contained in the package
or concerning the quantity or the nutritive value or the place of origin of the said food
products. Every food business operator shall ensure that the labelling and presentation of
food, including their shape, appearance or packaging, the packaging materials used, the
manner in which they are arranged and the setting in which they are displayed, and the
information which is made available about them through whatever medium, does not mislead
consumers.

FSSAI dealing with deceiving consumers. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
(FSSAI) has finalised the regulations pertaining to claims and advertisements by food
business operators in respect of their food products. These regulations are aimed at
establishing fairness in claims and advertisements of food products and make food businesses
accountable for such claims /advertisements so as to protect consumer interests.

As per these regulations, food business cannot use the words/phrases such as natural, fresh,
original, traditional, authentic, genuine, real etc. on the food labels except under specific
conditions detailed therein. Such restrictions are primarily aimed at restricting an open-ended
use of these words/phrases by food businesses on frivolous grounds.

Advertisements in respect of a food product that undermines the importance of healthy

lifestyles or portrays the food product as a complete replacement of normal meal are not
permitted. Further, food businesses are also prohibited to advertise or make claim
undermining the products of other manufacturer so as to promote their own food products or
influence consumer behaviour.

Any person, including a third party, who advertises or is a party to the publication of any
misleading advertisement not complying with these regulations would be penalised with a
fine extending up to Rs ten lakh, as per Section 53 of the Food Safety and Standards Act
2006.
M/s Nestle India Limited v. The Food Safety and Standards

In the case of M/s Nestle India Limited vs The Food Safety And Standards, Maggie, a Nestle
commodity, was tested by the FSSAI and faced legal implications for impermissible amounts
of monosodium glutamate (‘MSG’) and lead in the noodles. FSSAI held Maggi accountable
for the following reasons:

1. Excessive lead content

2. Misled customer by labeling product with ‘No added MSG’
3. Was marketing maggie without FSSAI product approval.

WHITE COLLAR CRIME

The most influential criminologist of the 20th century and also a sociologist, Edwin Hardin
Sutherland, for the first time in 1939, defined white collar crimes as “crimes committed by
people who enjoy the high social status, great repute, and respectability in their occupation”.
Related to the corporate sector, white collar crimes are defined as non-violent crimes,
generally committed by businessmen and government professionals. In simple words, crimes
committed by people who acquire important positions in a company are called white collar
crimes.
Corruption, fraud, and bribery are some of the most common white collar crimes in India as
well as all over the world.
India is a developing country and white collar crimes are becoming a major cause for its
under development along with poverty, health, etc. The trend of white collar crimes in India
poses a threat to the economic development of the country. These crimes require immediate
intervention by the government by not only making strict laws but also ensuring its proper
implementation.
Greed, competition and lack of proper laws to prevent such crimes are the major reasons
behind the growth of white collar crimes in India.

The nature of white collar crimes is different from the conventional nature of crimes. Most
people are not aware of it and fail to understand that they are the worst victims of
crime. People who are victims of these crimes fail to comprehend the notion of the crime and
understand the exact offence which has been committed and whom to approach or lodge a
complaint against because most of the time it involves a large corporation and there may be
little or no evidence to essentially produce a criminal and in certain crimes such as scam or
fraud people may not even realise that they have fallen victim to a crime such as a bank
fraud.

The difference between ‘blue collar crimes’, which are crime of a general nature, and ‘white
collar crimes’ was laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat v.
Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr[2]. Justice Thakker elucidated that one person can
murder another person in the heat of the moment, but causing financial loss or say
committing economic offences requires planning. It involves calculations and strategy
making in order to derive personal profits.

Include some examples of scams or frauds.

HUMAN TRAFICKING
According to the definition of United Nations: “trafficking is any activity leading to
recruitment, transportation, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of threat or use of
force or a position of vulnerability”. Human trafficking is the trade of humans for the purpose
of forced labour, sexual slavery, or commercial sexual exploitation for the trafficker or others.
This may encompass providing a spouse in the context of forced marriage or the extraction of
organs or tissues, including for surrogacy and ovary removal. It can happen in any
community and victims can be of any age, race, gender or nationality. Traffickers might use
violence, manipulation, or false promises of well-paying jobs or romantic relationships to lure
victims into trafficking situations. People can be trafficked and exploited in many forms,
including being forced into sexual exploitation, labour, begging etc.
Article 23 It specifically prohibits “traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms
of forced labour”.
Article 39 It states that men and women should have the right to an adequate means of
livelihood and equal pay for equal work; that men, women and children should not be forced
by economic necessity to enter unsuitable avocations; and that children and youth should be
protected against exploitation.
Legal Framework against Human Trafficking in India. Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,
1956.
Section 3 It provides for punishment to a person for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to
be used as a brothel.
IPC. Section 363-A specifically punishes any person who kidnaps or maims a minor for
purposes of begging. Section 365 punishes any person who kidnaps or abducts another person
with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine him/her. Section 366 punishes any person who
kidnaps, abducts or induces woman to compel her marriage against her will, or be
forced/seduced to have illicit intercourse.
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 provides for the abolition of bonded labour
system with a view to preventing the economic and physical exploitation of the weaker
sections of the people. The Act prohibits anyone from compelling any person to render any
bonded labour and states further that any agreement or custom requiring any person to do
work as a bonded labour is void and provides for punishment for imprisonment up to 3 years
and fine up to 2000 rupees.
Human Trafficking and Child Prostitution. In Vishal Jeet v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 318
the Court laid down following directions in this regard: 1. All the State Governments and the
Governments of Union Territories should direct their law enforcing authorities concerned to
take appropriate and speedy action in eradicating child prostitution. 2. The State
Governments and the Governments of Union Territories should set up a separate Advisory
Committee within their respective zones to make suggestions regarding the measures to be
taken and the social welfare programmes to be implemented for the children and girls rescued
from the vices of prostitution.
Human Trafficking and Bonded Labour. Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union
of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 has elucidated the rehabilitation of bonded labour and directed
the Government to award compensation to released/rescued bonded labour under the
provisions of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 after taking note of serious
violation of fundamental and human rights.

MONEY LAUNDERING AND POWERS OF THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

Money laundering is defined as the process by which an illegal fund, perhaps, black money,
obtained from illegal activities is disguised as legal money, which is eventually portrayed to
be white money.
The impact of money laundering on the development of a nation: Increase in crime and
corruption rate, Threat to reputation and international repercussions, Weakened financial
institutions, Compromised economy and private sector.

Objectives of the act

1. To prevent and control the issue of money laundering.

2. To confiscate or take into custody any property that is likely derived from or has
involvement in cases of money laundering.
3. To penalise the offenders with the offence of money laundering.
Under Section 4 of the PMLA, any individual who commits the crime of money laundering
will be accountable to receive a punishment that involves rigorous imprisonment up to 3
years, which may extend to 7 years, and will also be culpable to pay a penalty.

A point must be noted that, in case if the crime in question is related to any offence
specifically mentioned under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the
penalty may be extended to a rigorous imprisonment of 10 years instead of 7 years.

Attachment of property involved in money laundering (Section 5)

A point must be noted that under Section 5 of the PMLA, the power of attachment has been
conceded to the director, the joint director, or any officer not below the rank of a deputy
director. The person in authority can attach property for up to 180 days, if there is a cause to
believe the property was obtained illegally or that the individual is in possession of proceeds
of crime and is charged with that crime, and proceeds of money are likely to be concealed or
transferred.

Under Section 6 of the PMLA, the Central Government is entrusted with the authority to
appoint an adjudicating authority.
Section 9 – As stated above, when the court passes an order that the property obtained
through money laundering has to be confiscated.

Section 18 that has provisions on the authority to search an individual states that if any
authorised official has grounds to believe that any person has suppressed any person or
anything under his custody, ownership, or control, any activity of a crime that may be helpful
or relevant to any proceedings under the PMLA, the person in power will have the capacity to
search such an individual and seize records of any such property.

Section 24 of PMLA has provisions relating to presumptions and onus of proof. In this
Section, the burden of proof lies with the individual who states that the proceeds of the crime
alleged to be involved in money-laundering, are not so involved.

Under Section 45 of the PMLA, every offence punishable under the Act will be cognizable.
Any individual who has been arrested for the offence of money laundering will not be
released on bail or bond, unless a change has been provided to the public prosecutor to
oppose the application of such a release. Further, if any opposition is raised by the public
prosecutor, a bail can be granted only if the court feels that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the individual arrested is not guilty of any offence and that he will not commit
any offence while he is out on bail.

Stages of money laundering

1. Placement stage – It is the stage at which criminally derived funds are introduced into
the financial system
2. Layering stage – It is the stage at which complex financial transactions are carried out
in order to camouflage the illegal source.
3. Integration stage – It is the final stage at which the ‘laundered’ property is re-
introduced into the legitimate economy.
Offence of Money laundering
Scheduled offence – Section 2 (y) of the act provides that Scheduled offence are the offences
given in the Schedule A, B and C of the act.
Proceeds of Crime – Any property derived or obtained either directly or indirectly as result of
commission or any activity related to the scheduled offences.
Untainted Property – Property acquired by legitimate source of earning.
Union of India v. Hassan Ali Khan & Anr (2011)11 SCC 235
The Court has held that the scheme of the Act makes it clear that there has to be some
scheduled offence or scheduled offences which would generate the money that is being
laundered. A crime is committed. therefore, that it becomes necessary for a criminal to make
the proceeds of crime appear to be generated in some other way, i.e. by some other lawful
source, and it is for this purpose that money is laundered. Therefore, the existence of a
scheduled offence is a sine-qua-non for the offence of money laundering.
Scheduled offences are investigated by Police or NCB or CBI while Money laundering cases
are Investigated by Enforcement Directorate. Binod Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, the court
held that Scheduled Offences and the offence of money laundering shall be triable only by the
Special Court- Sections 44 – PMLA.
Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is a financial investigation agency established in 1956.
Established under the Union Government’s Department of Revenue. Responsible for
enforcing the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). ED was
entrusted with its enforcement w.e.f. 1st July 2005 by govt.
Do the rules of investigation applicable to police agencies under the Criminal Procedure
Code 1973 apply to the enforcement directorate under the PMLA? – ED has not been
classified as a ‘police agency’. These bodies are not obliged to follow the Code of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). Exemptions from the rules of Crpc granted under its Sections
5,17, 19 and 24.
Does the ability to use statements of the accused recorded by the Enforcement Directorate
during judicial proceedings violate the right against self-incrimination? - Section 50 allows
the ED to compel accused to make self-incriminating statements. It is Not a police agency
thus it can act on confession. Not protected under article 20.
Unlike an FIR, an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is not a statutory document,
nor there is any provision in the PMLA requiring the ED to record ECIR or to furnish copy
thereof to the Accused. Only the grounds for arrest shall be told to the accused.
Internal Checks and Balances are required to reduce the possibility of political misuse and
a consensus between the adjudicating authority and the officers of ED to make the
investigation more lucid. The ED's expanded powers should be welcomed with a greater
commitment to expeditiously resolve the cases, so both the judiciary and enforcement
agencies can move forward with speedy trials and convictions. Operational Vigilance: There
must be constant scrutiny over the operations of the Enforcement Directorate.
FUGITIVE ECONOMIC OFFENDERS ACT, 2018
It seeks to confiscate properties of economic offenders who have left the country to avoid
facing criminal prosecution or refuse to return to the country to face prosecution.
Fugitive economic offender: A person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued
for committing an offence listed in the Act and the value of the offence is at least Rs. 100
crores.
Some of the offences listed in the act are Counterfeiting government stamps or currency,
Cheque dishonour, Money laundering, Transactions defrauding creditors.
Declaration of a Fugitive Economic Offender: After hearing the application, a special
court (designated under the PMLA, 2002) may declare an individual as a fugitive
economic offender. It may confiscate properties which are proceeds of crime, Benami
properties and any other property, in India or abroad. Upon confiscation, all rights and
titles of the property will vest in the central government, free from encumbrances
(such as any charges on the property). The central government may appoint an
administrator to manage and dispose of these properties.
Bar on Filing or Defending Civil Claims: The Act allows any civil court or tribunal to
prohibit a declared fugitive economic offender, from filing or defending any civil claim.
Further, any company or limited liability partnership where such a person is a majority
shareholder, promoter, or a key managerial person, may also be barred from filing or
defending civil claims. The authorities may provisionally attach properties of an
accused, while the application is pending before the Special Court.
Powers: The authorities under the PMLA, 2002 will exercise powers given to them under
the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act. These powers will be similar to those of a civil
court, including the search of persons in possession of records or proceeds of crime, the
search of premises on the belief that a person is an FEO and seizure of documents.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
“Just as it’s hard to tell when and how much water a fish consumed, similar is the act of
stealing government money by officials.”
Corruption has existed in India for centuries. It begins with opportunistic leaders who see
any task that comes to them as a chance to gain money. Corruption is seen as one of the
most significant barriers to advancement, particularly in developing nations such as India,
and particularly in government agencies.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA, 1988) is an Act of the Parliament of India
enacted to combat corruption in government agencies and public sector businesses in India.
Taking gratification other than legal remuneration. (Section 7)

Taking gratification to influence a public servant, through illegal and corrupt means.
(Section 8)

Taking gratification to wield personal influence with public servants. (Section 9)

Act of criminal misconduct by the public servant. (Section 13)

Investigation shall be done by a police officer not below the rank of:

 In the case of Delhi, of an Inspector of Police.

 In metropolitan areas, of an Assistant Commissioner of Police.
 Elsewhere, a Deputy Superintendent of Police or an officer of equivalent rank shall
investigate.
Bribery is a specific and a direct offence. Anyone taking bribes will face imprisonment for 3
to 7 years along with being levied a fine. Those giving bribes can also be punished with
imprisonment for upto 7 years and levied a fine.

Provisions to protect those who have been forced to pay a bribe in the event the matter is
reported to law enforcement agencies within 7 days.

In any corruption case against a public servant, the factor of “undue advantage” will have to
be established.

Section 2(b) of the Act defines “Public duty” as a duty in the execution of which the state,
the public, or society at large has an interest.
Section 2(c) of the Act defines “public servant” broadly and expressively. Thus the term
includes the following: Any individual who works for or is compensated by a local
government.

According to Clause (12) of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, which is equivalent to
Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a Minister, Prime Minister,
or Chief Minister is a public servant. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Karunanidhi v.
Union of India (1979), determined that a Minister is employed by and subject to the
authority of the Governor, receives compensation for labour or duties performed on behalf of
the public.

In P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State (1998), the definitions of “public duty” and “public servant”
were questioned. Thus the Supreme Court’s decision made it apparent that the terms “public
duty” and “public servant” would be given a broad construction. An MP would therefore be
subject to section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Sections 7 to 11 of the POCA define cases of receiving gratification, influencing public

officials, or accepting gifts. The Act categorises offences according to the severity of their
effects. Similarly, actions of abetment, conspiracy, agreement, and attempt to commit these
offences have been made criminal.

As previously stated, the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 applies to public workers. To
some extent, it also applies to a segment of private individuals. Though the Prevention of
Corruption Act of 1988 punishes violations committed by public workers, there are a few
occasions where it also applies to private individuals.

Section 8 describes the circumstances in which a person seeks illicit gratification in order to
influence a public worker. Thus, anytime an illegal payment is received by a person other
than a public worker under the criteria specified in Section 8 of the Act (which are the same
as those specified in Section 7), that person is equally responsible for the violation.

According to Section 20 of the POCA, there is a presumption that any expensive item or
pleasure discovered in the hands of a person under investigation was obtained for the reasons
described in Section 7 of the Act. This is a rebuttable presumption, and the individual under
investigation would have the burden of proving that the valued item or gratification was not
obtained in connection with the Act’s violation.

Section 24 of the POCA grants immunity to the bribe giver and states that the bribe giver’s
confession will not expose him to prosecution. The immunity granted to bribe providers
under this rule has been seen as a fundamental weakness as well as contradictory with
international norms.

NDPS ACT
In India, there are about 1 lakh farmers across 22 districts in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and
Uttar Pradesh with a licence to cultivate opium. The majority of them are from three districts
that border Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan — Mandsaur, Neemuch, and Chittorgarh.
Together, these districts produce 80% of India’s opium.
NDPS was enacted in 1985. In 1988 United nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substance took place and following it the first amendment
was brought to our act in the year of 1989 making the act very stringent the later amended in
2001 and 2014.
Illicit traffic – cultivating any coca plant, opium poppy or any cannabis plant; engaging in the
production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances. Even abetting to any such act.
Controlled Substance means any substance which the Central Government regards to be used
in the production or manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or to the
provisions of any International Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to
be a controlled substance;
Narcotic Drug means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, poppy straw and includes all
manufactured drugs;
Psychotropic Substance means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any such substance or
material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule.
Small Quantity, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity
lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government. Commercial Quantity means
any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government.
Section 8 becomes important as it prohibitory and section 9 provides regulatory power to the
Central Government and section 10 for the State Government. Offences and Penalties are
from section 15 to 40 describing different types of prohibitory act and offences.
The burden of proof is on the accused to prove innocence Abdul Rashil Ibrahim v. State of
Gujarat. Ratanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001) beyond reasonable doubt.
Attempt, abetment, conspiracy and Preparation are punished at every stage. Enhanced
punishment for the offences after previous conviction (Section 31). Death penalty for certain
offences (Section 31 A). No suspension, remission or commutation (Section 32 A).
Immunities – Officers acting in discharge of their duties in good faith are provided with
Immunity. Addicts charged with consumption of drugs volunteer for de-addiction. Central or
state governments can tender immunity to offenders. Juvenile offenders (below 18 years of
age).
Powers of the investigating officer - Section 4 Provides Central Government to create
Narcotic Control Bureau. Under which police officers, specialized departments such as
central excise, customs, revenue intelligence and empowered officers such as para military
and armed forces all have the power to investigate.
Sections 41 and 42 are attracted when there is a prior information about the presence of
contraband article in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. Section 41 deals with
power to issue warrant and authorisation subsection (1) deals with the power given to issue
warrant while subsection (2) deals with authorisation given by senior official to subordinate.
Section 42 of NDPS Act would be only applicable when search, seizure and arrest have to be
effected without warrant or authorization in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. If
such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant for authorization cannot be obtained
without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence of facility for the escape of an
offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time
between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. Such information
should be recorded in writing and a copy thereof sent to the superior immediate officer.
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh 1999(6) SCC 172 - The material difference between the
provisions of Section 43 and Section 42 is that whereas Section 42 requires recording of
reasons for belief and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the
commission of an offence before conducting search and seizure, Section 43 does not contain
any such provision and as such while acting under Section 43 of the Act, the empowered
officer has the power of seizure of the article etc. and arrest of a person who is found to be in
possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in a public place where such
possession appears to him to be unlawful.
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana 2004 - The compliance with the requirements of Sections
42 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy
thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the
officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the
information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed
by a reasonable period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of
urgency and expediency. Total non-compliance of requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of
section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay
will be acceptable compliance of section 42.
Section 43 provides seize in any public place or in transit and detain and search any person
whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act.
Section 67 provides that investigating officer can call for information from any person for the
purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any act prohibited under this law;
require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the
enquiry; examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu 2013 – Since the officers who are invested with powers
under S. 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of S. 25 of the
Evidence Act, any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions
of Section. Meaning, that confession recorded by officer empowered to investigate u/s 53 can
never be admissible in the eyes of law, unless there is such express provision in the NDPS
Act, as it would be against the policy and object of section 25 Evidence Act.
Defences available to investigating officers - Section 68 No officer acting in exercise of
powers vested in him under any provision of this Act shall be compelled to say place or
source where he got any information. Officers acting in discharge of their duties in good faith
under the Act are immune from suits, prosecution and other legal proceedings (Section 69).