Introduction For decades, the prosecution’s strongest weapon in NDPS cases was the “Voluntary Statement” recorded under Section 67. Officers of the NCB or DRI would record a confession from the accused, often while in custody, and use it as the primary basis for conviction.
The Tofan Singh Verdict (2021) In a historic 2:1 judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court radically changed the landscape.
Key Findings:
- Officers are Police Officers: The Court held that officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act (like NCB officers) are “Police Officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
- Inadmissibility: Therefore, any confession made to them is inadmissible in evidence. It cannot be used to convict the accused.
Impact on Trials Prior to this judgment, if the recovery was doubtful, the prosecution would rely on the Section 67 confession. Now, the prosecution must prove the case strictly through independent evidence (recovery memos, independent witnesses, FSL reports). A conviction based solely on a “voluntary statement” is no longer legally sustainable.
Disclaimer: This article is for academic and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific case inquiries, please consult a legal professional.
Article 9: Financing Illicit Traffic: Understanding Section 27A
Introduction Section 27A of the NDPS Act deals with “Financing Illicit Traffic” and “Harbouring Offenders.” It carries a minimum sentence of 10 years and is non-bailable under Section 37. Due to its severity, it is often misused to implicate individuals peripherally connected to a drug case.
The “Rhea Chakraborty” Precedent In 2020, the Bombay High Court provided crucial clarity on Section 27A in Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India.
Key Principles:
- Active Trade vs. Consumption: The Court held that “financing” implies providing capital or funds to sustain the illegal drug trade.
- Paying for Personal Use: Merely paying for drugs for one’s own consumption, or even for another person’s consumption, does not amount to “Financing Illicit Traffic.” It falls under Section 27 (Consumption) or Section 8(c) (Possession), which are lesser offences.
Defense Strategy If a client is charged under Section 27A solely for purchasing drugs or transferring money for a small purchase, the defense should argue that this constitutes a purchase for consumption, not an act of financing the drug syndicate.
Disclaimer: This article is for academic and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific case inquiries, please consult a legal professional.