Raj Kumar Karwal (1990): NDPS Officers Not Police Officers

NDPS Officers Not Police Officers Under Section 25 Evidence Act: Supreme Court in 1990, Later Overruled

Published: 11 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

In this 1990 ruling the Supreme Court held that officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence invested with police-station powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not "police officers" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so confessions made to them are not barred (paras 1, 21-22). The decisive test was the power to file a police report under Section 173 of the Code (para 21). The ruling was later overruled by a majority of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020).

Key holdings

Section 25 of the Evidence Act is read broadly, but not so widely as to cover persons given only some police powers (para 10).

The power to file a police report or charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code is the important attribute of police power (paras 14, 21).

DRI officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not police officers, so confessions to them are not barred by Section 25 (paras 21-22).

Under Section 36A(1)(d) an investigation by an officer of another department ends in a complaint to the Special Court, not a police report (para 21).

Brief Facts

DRI officials intercepted a truck near Calcutta on 12 July 1986 and recovered about 743 kg of hashish concealed in machines meant for export; more was found at a farm house in New Delhi (paras 2-3). In the investigation, both appellants made confessional statements to DRI officials (para 3). A complaint was filed against them under Sections 21, 23, 29 and 30 of the NDPS Act and Section 135A of the Customs Act (para 4). When they sought bail, the prosecution relied on those statements. The appellants said Section 25 of the Evidence Act barred them; a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that statements to Section 53 officers were not hit by Section 25 (para 4).

Court's Findings

Section 25 protects an accused from third-degree treatment and ensures a proper investigation (para 4). It must be read in a broad and popular sense, but "it cannot be construed in so wide a sense as to include persons on whom only some of the powers exercised by the police are conferred within the category of police officers" (para 10). Reviewing Barkat Ram, Raja Ram Jaiswal, Badku Joti Savant, Ramesh Chandra Mehta, Illias, Durga Prasad and Balkishan Devidayal, the Court read the settled ratio as requiring the power to lodge a report under Section 173 of the Code (paras 12-18). Under the NDPS Act, an arresting or seizing officer other than a police officer finishes his role by forwarding the person and the goods under Sections 52 and 52A, much like a Customs Officer (para 20). "The nomenclature is not important, the content of the power he exercises is the determinative factor" (para 21). Nothing in the Act gives Section 53 officers all the Chapter XII powers, and Section 36A(1)(d) provides that an investigation by a non-police officer ends in a complaint, not a police report; this "clinches the matter" (para 21).

Legal Principle

An officer invested under a special law with powers analogous to those of an officer-in-charge of a police station is not a "police officer" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act unless he can file a report under Section 173 of the Code; Section 53 NDPS officers other than police officers cannot (paras 14, 21).

Precedents Relied Upon

Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana J.T. 1987 (1) S.C. 210
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10
Where a statute makes drastic provisions, the duty of care on the authorities investigating crime under it is greater and the investigation must be thorough and of a very high order (cited by counsel; the print reads ‘J.T. 1987 1 S.C. 2 10’).
The State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram [1962] 3 SCR 338
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 10, 12, 14
Section 25 of the Evidence Act is not to be read so widely as to include persons given only some police powers; Customs Officers, whose duties differ substantially from those of the police, are not police officers.
Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar [1964] 2 SCR 752
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 10, 13, 14
By majority, an Excise Inspector deemed an officer in charge of a police station was held a police officer, on a test of whether his powers facilitate obtaining a confession; distinguished in Badku Joti Savant.

View all precedents (12)

Sheikh Ahmed v. Emperor [1927] I.L.R. 51 Bombay 78
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Bombay High Court view under which officers of other departments with police powers would perhaps be police officers.
Radha Kishan Marwari v. King Emperor [1933] I.L.R. 12 Patna 46
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Patna High Court view contrary to Sheikh Ahmed (the print reads ‘[933] I.L.R. 12 Patna 46’).
Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore [1966] 3 SCR 698
Followed Discussed at ¶ 14, 16, 18, 21
A Central Excise Officer is not a police officer under Section 25; an officer with powers analogous to an officer in charge of a police station is not a police officer unless he can lodge a report under Section 173 of the Code.
Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal [1969] 2 SCR 461
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 15, 16
The test is whether the officer is invested with all the powers of a police officer for investigation, including the power to submit a report under Section 173 of the Code.
Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras [1969] 2 SCR 613
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 16
Customs officials under the Customs Act, 1962 are not police officers; approved the Badku Joti Savant test.
State of U.P. v. Durga Prasad [1975] 1 SCR 881
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 17
The right and duty to file a police report is the hallmark of investigation under the Code; an officer holding an enquiry under Section 8(1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 must file a complaint.
Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra [1981] 1 SCR 175
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 18
An RPF officer enquiring under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 has no power to file a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code and is not a police officer under Section 25.
Mahesh v. Union of India [1988] 1 F.A.C. 339
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 22
Allahabad High Court view, in accord with the impugned Delhi High Court judgment, which the Supreme Court upheld.
Mangal Singh v. The State of Gujarat [1988] 2 F.A.C. 173
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 22
Gujarat High Court view, in accord with the impugned Delhi High Court judgment, which the Supreme Court upheld.

Statutory Provisions

NDPS Officers Not Police Officers Under Section 25 Evidence Act: Supreme Court in 1990, Later Overruled

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Statutory Provisions

Related Judgments

120 kg Poppy Husk in His Vehicle: Supreme Court Makes Anticipatory Bail Absolute for Registered Owner

697 kg Ganja Case: Supreme Court Suspends Sentence on Parity as Co-Accused in Goods Carrier Got Bail

Inadmissible Section 67 Confession Is No Ground to Quash a Pending NDPS Case: Supreme Court