 In a significant judgement passed by the Supreme Court, very recently, the apex court ruled that the officers who are empowered with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are to be considered as police officers within the meaning assigned thereby by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers under the NDPS Act would be inadmissible or forbidden or barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. In other words, such confessions cannot be relied upon for convicting the accused or an accused under the NDPS Act. This ruling came as part of a judgement delivered in the month of October by the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Rohinton Nariman, the title of the case being Tufan Singh v. the state of Tamil Nadu. So basically the Supreme Court held that the officer investigating the matter under the NDPS Act would qualify as a police officer and the statement recorded by the said investigating officer under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be treated as a confessional statement. Section 67 of the NDPS Act basically deals with the power of the officers to call for information from any person during the course of any inquiry in connection with the contravention of any provision of the NDPS Act. This may include requiring any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the inquiry, examining any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers are similar to that of an officer in charge of a police station. Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession, as many of you would already know, no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offense. That is Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court based its ruling on the premise of predominantly I would say five fundamental grounds or reasons. First that the NDPS Act contained provisions for the prevention and punishment of crimes of very serious nature, though the object of the same act was to regulate and exercise control over narcotics, drugs and psychotropic substances. But the provisions of prevention, detection and punishment of crimes related there too were more important for the purposes of achieving the object of the act. Secondly, all the offenses to be investigated by the officers under the NDPS Act were cognisable in nature. Thirdly, the concerned provisions of the NDPS Act, unlike other revenue statutes did not prescribe any limitation, mind it, upon the powers of the officers to investigate an offense under the act. And therefore, it was clear that all investigated powers vested in an officer in charge of a police station under the CRPC, including the power to file a charge sheet, are vested in these NDPS officers when dealing with an offense under the NDPS Act. So, they were proceeding or having powers similar to that of a police officer in charge of a police station. Fourthly, with regard to a confessional statement made before an officer designated under section 42 or section 53 of the NDPS Act, the safe guards were imperative, Supreme Court felt, so as to ensure constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20 sub-clause 3 of the Constitution of India. Finally, the court relied also on the ground and reasoning that the interpretation of a statute like the NDPS Act needed to be in conformity and in tune with the spirit of the broad fundamental rights, not to incriminate oneself and to preserve the right of privacy. Definitely a historical judgment I feel delivered by the Supreme Court and a big relief for the accused and perhaps the victims under the NDPS Act. Thank you.