Section 67 NDPS Act: Power to call for information, etc

Section 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Power to call for information

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

Any officer referred to in section 42 who is authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, during the course of any enquiry in connection with the contravention of any provisions of this Act,—

(a) call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder;

(b) require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry;

(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 67

Section 67 of the NDPS Act empowers authorized officers to examine any person acquainted with the facts and call for information during an inquiry, a power dramatically circumscribed by the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Tofan Singh holding confessional statements inadmissible.

Inquisitorial Power to Call for Information: Authorizes designated central and state excise/narcotic officers to summon persons and requisition documents during preliminary drug inquiries.
Prohibition Against Involuntary Self-Incrimination: Protects summoned individuals under Article 20(3) against coerced self-incrimination during interrogation by investigating agencies.
Complete Evidentiary Inadmissibility of Confessions: Pursuant to the Constitution Bench judgment in Tofan Singh, statements recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as substantive confessional evidence against the maker.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1: Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that officers invested with powers under Section 53 are 'police officers', rendering confessional statements recorded under Section 67 inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India (2008) 4 SCC 668 (Overruled): Overruled by Tofan Singh, which held that Section 67 statements could previously be used as substantive confessions.
Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417: Supreme Court established that statements recorded under statutory powers must satisfy tests of voluntariness and fairness to be admissible.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In any NDPS trial where the prosecution case relies primarily on a confession recorded under Section 67, file an application for discharge or bail citing *Tofan Singh (2021)*; in the absence of independent contraband recovery, the confession has zero evidentiary value.

Section 67: Power to call for information, etc

Section 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Power to call for information

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 67