TOFAN SINGH vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.152 OF 2013 TOFAN SINGH …Appellant Versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU …Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1750 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2214 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 827 OF 2010 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 835 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1826 OF 2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 433 OF 2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 6338 OF 2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2017 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1202 OF 2017 J U D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. These Appeals and Special Leave Petitions arise by virtue of a Signature Not Verified reference order of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Tofan Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2020.10.29 18:54:11 IST Reason: Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC 31. The facts in that 1 appeal have been set out in that judgment in some detail, and need not be repeated by us. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court recorded that the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 had challenged his conviction primarily on three grounds, as follows: “ 24.1. The conviction is based solely on the purported confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act which has no evidentiary value inasmuch as: ( a ) The statement was given to and recorded by an officer who is to be treated as “police officer” and is thus, hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. ( b ) No such confessional statement could be recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. This provision empowers to call for information and not to record such confessional statements. Thus, the statement recorded under this provision is akin to the statement under Section 161 CrPC. ( c ) In any case, the said statement having been retracted, it could not have been the basis of conviction and could be used only to corroborate other evidence.” 2. Under the caption “Evidentiary value of statement under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (“ NDPS Act ”)”, the Court noted the decisions of Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 409 and Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India (2008) 4 SCC 668, as also certain other judgments, most notably Abdul Rashid v. State of Bihar (2001) 9 SCC 578 and Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417, and thereafter came to the conclusion that the NDPS Act, being a penal statute, is in contradistinction to the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excise Act, 1944, whose dominant object is 2 to protect the revenue of the State, and that therefore, judgments rendered in the context of those Acts may not be apposite when considering the NDPS Act – see paragraph 33. After then considering a number of other judgments, the referral order states that a re-look into the ratio of Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) and Kanhaiyalal (supra) would be necessary, and has referred the matter to a larger Bench thus:

3 3. Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 152 of 2013; 836 of 2011; 433 of 2014; 77 of 2015 and 1202 of 2017, outlined six issues before us, which really boil down to two issues, namely: “1. Whether an officer “empowered under Section 42 of the NDPS Act” and/or “the officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act” are “Police Officers” and therefore statements recorded by such officers would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act; and 2. What is the extent, nature, purpose and scope of the power conferred under Section 67 of the NDPS Act available to and exercisable by an officer under section 42 thereof, and whether power under Section 67 is a power to record confession capable of being used as substantive evidence to convict an accused?” 4. Shri Jain took us through the provisions of the NDPS Act which, according to him, is a special Act, and a complete code on the subject it covers. He referred to how the NDPS Act sometimes overrides the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“ CrPC ”); sometimes says that it is applicable; and sometimes states that it is made applicable with necessary modifications. According to Shri Jain, section 41(2) and section 42 of the NDPS Act refer to a ‘First Information Report’ being lodged by the officers referred to therein. As the source of information is required to be kept a secret under section 68 of the NDPS Act, the officer receiving information under these provisions is therefore treated as an informant. The tasks assigned to officers under section 42 of the NDPS Act are four in number, namely, entry, search, seizure or arrest. 4 As opposed to this, section 53 of the NDPS Act invests the designated officers with all the powers of an ‘officer-in-charge of a police station’ for the process of investigation, which would then begin after information collected by a section 42 officer is handed over to the officer designated under section 53, and end with a final report being submitted under section 173 of the CrPC to the Special Court under section 36A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act. According to the learned Senior Advocate, section 67 is to be read only with section 42, and is a power to call for information so that the “reason to believe” mentioned in section 42 can then be made out, without proceeding further under the NDPS Act. Thus, “reason to believe”, which is at a higher threshold than “reason to suspect” – which phrase has been used in section 49 of the NDPS Act – is a condition precedent to the officer thereafter moving forward. Shri Jain argued that the reason to believe must be formed before the officer acts, and that therefore, section 67 operates at a stage antecedent to the exercise of the powers of the officer designated under section 42. He then went on to argue that these provisions must be construed strictly in favour of the subject, inasmuch as they impinge upon the fundamental right to privacy, recently recognised by this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1. He also argued that the NDPS Act therefore incorporates a legislative balance between powers of investigation and the obligation to uphold privacy rights of the 5 individual. He then went on to argue that the “information” under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be equated with “evidence”, which is only evidence before a court, as per the definition of “evidence” under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“ Evidence Act ”). He cited judgments to show that even witness statements made under section 164 of the CrPC are not substantive evidence. He then contrasted section 67 of the NDPS Act with the power of officers under revenue acts to record evidence, such as section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, and section 14 of the Central Excise Act 1944. He then went on to state that as none of the safeguards contained in sections 161-164 of the CrPC are contained in the NDPS Act when the person is examined under section 67, obviously statements made to officers under section 67 cannot amount to substantive evidence on the basis of which conviction can then take place. An important argument was that it would be highly incongruous if an officer of the police department, empowered under section 42 and exercising the same powers under section 67, records a confessional statement which would be hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act, whereas officers exercising the same powers under the NDPS Act, who are not regular policemen, would be able to record confessional statements, and bypass all constitutional and statutory safeguards. Shri Jain contended that as the provisions of the NDPS Act are extremely stringent, they must be strictly construed, and safeguards 6 provided must be scrupulously followed. According to him, arbitrary power conferred under section 67 upon an officer above the rank of peon, sepoy or constable, but denied to a senior officer under section 53, would be ex facie contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. On the other hand, section 53 statutorily confers powers on the named officer of an officer-in-charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under the NDPS Act. This, according to the learned counsel, would contain the entire gamut of powers contained in sections 160-173 of the CrPC, including the power to then file a charge-sheet before the Special Court under section 36A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel argued that section 53A of the NDPS Act shows that confessional statements that are made under section 161 of the CrPC, which are otherwise hit by section 162 of the CrPC, are made relevant only in the two contingencies mentioned under section 53A of the NDPS Act, being exceptions to the general rule stated in section 162 of the CrPC. He contended, therefore, that section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used to bypass section 53A therein and render it otiose. He stressed the fact that all offences under the NDPS Act are cognizable offences, unlike under revenue statutes like the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944, and then argued that the “complaint” that is referred to in section 36A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act has only reference to a complaint filed under section 59(3) therein. He also pointed out the 7 anomalies of granting to the concerned officer under section 53 all the powers of the officer-in-charge of a police station, which, unless it ends up in the form of a final report, would leave things hanging. Thus, if the concerned officer finds that there is no sufficient evidence, and that the accused should be released, section 169 of the CrPC would apply. In the absence of section 169 of the CrPC, as has been contended by the other side, there is no procedure for discharge of the accused if evidence against him is found to be wanting. In a without-prejudice argument that complaints under the NDPS Act can be made outside of section 59(3), Shri Jain stressed the fact that there is in reality and substance no difference between the “complaint” under the NDPS Act and the charge-sheet under the CrPC, as investigation has already been carried out even before the complaint under the NDPS Act is made. He therefore argued that both Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) and Kanhaiyalal (supra) require to be overruled by us, as they erroneously applied earlier judgments which concerned themselves with revenue statutes, and not penal statutes like the NDPS Act. He then referred us to Article 20(3) of the Constitution, and section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cited a plethora of case law to drive home the point that in this country, as coercive methods are used against persons during the course of investigation, all confessions made to a police officer, whether made during the course of investigation or even before, cannot be relied 8 upon as evidence in a trial. He then referred to several judgments of this Court to state that the expression “police officer” is not defined, and the functional test therefore must apply, namely, that a person who is given the same functions as a police officer under the CrPC, particularly in the course of investigating an offence under the Act, must be regarded as a police officer for the purpose of section 25 of the Evidence Act. In the course of his submissions, he referred to a number of judgments of this Court, and most particularly, the judgments of State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram (1962) 3 SCR 338; Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR 752; Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore (1966) 3 SCR 698; Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal (1969) 2 SCR 461; Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras (1969) 2 SCR 613; and Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 600. He also provided a useful chart of the difference in the provisions contained in the NDPS Act and the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, the Sea Customs Act, 1878, the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Shri Puneet Jain supplemented these arguments with reference to a recent judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine SC 700, and stated that as some discordant notes are to be found in that judgment, it may be referred to a larger Bench. In any case, he argued that the 9 comments made in that judgment about investigation starting from the section 42 stage itself were only in the context of the complainant and the investigator being the same, in which case, if prejudice was caused, the trial may be vitiated in terms of the judgment. 6. Shri Anand Grover, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2017, followed in the wake of the two Jains, père et fils. The learned Senior Advocate stressed the various provisions of the NDPS Act which showed that it was extremely stringent, in that it had minimum sentences for even possession of what is regarded as a “commercial quantity” of a drug or psychotropic substance, being a minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years, going up to 20 years. This, coupled with various presumptions raised against the accused, and stringent bail conditions, all made the NDPS Act a very stringent measure of legislation, which, the more stringent it is, must contain necessary safeguards against arbitrary search, seizure and arrest, or else it would fall foul of the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution. He argued that the NDPS Act was penal in nature, and contained regulatory provisions as well, but given the fact that we are concerned only with the penal provisions, could be distinguished from the revenue statutes whose dominant object is the collection of revenue, and not the punishment of crime. He stressed the fact that the “enquiry” under section 67 of the NDPS Act is not a judicial 10 enquiry, but only a preliminary fact-finding exercise before a “reason to believe” is formed under section 42, which could then lead to investigation of an offence under the Act. He also referred to section 50 of the NDPS Act, and stated that given a higher protection as to conditions under which a search of person may be conducted, it would be inconceivable to then conclude that under section 67, confessional statements can be recorded without more, subject to no safeguards whatsoever, on which convictions can then be based. He relied strongly on State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 and its aftermath Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 to argue that even after sub-sections (5) and (6) were added to section 50 of the NDPS Act, they did not dilute what was contained in section 50(1)-(4), and could only be used in emergent and urgent situations. He referred to statutes like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (“ TADA ”), and stated that where under certain limited circumstances exceptions were made to section 25 of the Evidence Act, they were hedged in with a number of safeguards, as were laid down by this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569. According to him, therefore, “police officer” needs to be construed functionally to include special police officers under the NDPS Act, in the context of confessions made, with reference to section 25 of 11 the Evidence Act. He joined Shri Jain in asking for an overruling of Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) and Kanhaiyalal (supra). 7. Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1826 of 2013, referred to sections 41 to 43 of the NDPS Act, and emphasised the fact that no powers to “investigate” any offences are vested in the officers mentioned in these sections. He then referred to section 36 of the CrPC, and said that the scheme followed in the NDPS Act could be assimilated to section 36, in that, police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. He emphasised the fact that section 25 of the Evidence Act only applies to confessions made against the maker, as against statements recorded under section 161 of the CrPC, which are completely barred from being received in evidence under section 162 of the CrPC, save and except for purposes of contradiction. He argued that a confessional statement made to a section 41 or section 42 officer was also hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. He added that the special procedure in section 36A of the NDPS Act applies only qua offences punishable for a term of more than three years, and where offences under the Act are punishable for terms up to three years, they are to be tried by a Magistrate under the CrPC. Obviously, officers 12 under section 53 of the NDPS Act would investigate an offence under the Act that is punishable for a term up to three years, and file a police report, as no complaint procedure, being the procedure under section 36A of the NDPS Act, would then apply. According to him, this would show that investigation does culminate in a police report for offences punishable for a term up to three years, as a result of which section 36A(1)(d) has to be read as providing two methods of approaching a Special Court – one, by way of a police report, and the other, by way of a complaint to the Special Court. 8. Shri Uday Gupta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 2013, supplemented the arguments of his predecessors, and stressed the fact that the “enquiry” under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot possibly be governed by the definition of “inquiry” under section 2(g) of the CrPC, as that “inquiry” relates only to inquiries conducted by a Magistrate or Court. Hence, the expression “enquiry” under section 67 must be given its ordinary meaning, which would indicate that it is only a preliminary fact-finding enquiry that is referred to. He relied strongly on the Directorate of Law Enforcement Handbook, in which the Directorate made it clear that when statements are recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act by the police, these would amount to statements under section 161 of the CrPC. He contended that if this is so, it would be extremely anomalous 13 to have statements recorded under section 67 by officers other than the police – mentioned under sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act, which are not statements made under section 161 of the CrPC – being admissible in evidence, on which a conviction of an accused can then be based. 9. Shri Gupta was followed by Shri Sanjay Jain, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2009, who supplemented the arguments of his predecessors by referring to section 53A, and notifications made under section 53, of the NDPS Act. He reiterated that officers under section 42 and officers under section 53 of the NDPS Act perform different functions, and that a section 53 officer, being empowered to “investigate”, most certainly has the power to file a police report before the Special Court. 10. Shri Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, took us through the NDPS Act, and said, that read as a whole, it is a balanced statute which protected both the investigation of crime, as well as the citizen, in that several safeguards were contained therein. He was at pains to point out that it was not his case that a confession recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act, without more, would be sufficient to convict a person accused of an offence under the Act. According to him, this could only be done if section 24 of the Evidence Act was met, and the Court was satisfied that the confession so recorded was both voluntary and truthful. In any 14 case, he asserted that the safeguards that have been pointed out in D.K. Basu v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 416 at 435, 436, have now largely been incorporated in Chapter V of the CrPC, which safeguards would also operate qua confessions recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act. According to him, section 67 on its plain language does not refer to the “information” spoken of in section 42, as it uses the expression “require” any person to produce or deliver a document, as opposed to information “called for” from such persons. He also argued, based on judgments of this Court, that confessions, if properly recorded, are the best form of evidence, as these are facts known to the accused, about which he then voluntarily deposes. He also argued that section 190 of the CrPC is not completely displaced by section 36A(1) (d) of the NDPS Act, in that the requirement of the filing of a complaint and/or a police report contained in section 190 continues to apply, in support of the decision in Raj Kumar Karwal (supra). He then referred in detail to Badku Joti Savant (supra), and stated that this judgment was not considered in the reference order, and that finally, the only test that is laid down by several Constitution Bench judgments to determine whether a person is or is not a “police officer” is whether such person is given the right to file a report under section 173 of the CrPC. He made it clear that section 53 of the NDPS Act did not deem the officers named therein to be police officers – they were only given certain powers of 15 investigation, which did not ultimately lead to filing of a charge-sheet under section 173 of the CrPC. What was clear was that only a “complaint” could be filed by such officers under section 36A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act – the police report being only filed by the police force as constituted under the Police Act, 1861. He disagreed vehemently with the submission of Shri Jain that the “complaint” under section 36A(1)(d) would refer only to the complaint under section 59(3) of the NDPS Act, and referred to section 2(xxix) of the NDPS Act to refer to the definition of “complaint” under section 2(d) of the CrPC, which is used in the same sense as in the CrPC. He then pointed out several provisions in the NDPS Act, where the word “police” or “police officer” is used in contrast to the other persons or officers who are part of the narcotics and other setups. According to him, in any case, section 53A makes an inroad into section 25 of the Evidence Act. Equally, according to him, the majority judgment in Raja Ram Jaiswal (supra) is per incuriam, inasmuch as it does not consider several provisions of the CrPC, and therefore, arrives at the wrong test to determine as to who can be said to be a “police officer” within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act. In any case, he argued that the officers mentioned in sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act cannot be tarnished with the same brush as the regular police, as there is nothing to show that these officers use third- degree measures to extort confessions. He then referred to the 16 language of section 67 of the NDPS Act, in which, according to him, the expression “enquiry” is nothing but an investigation, and the expression “examine” is the same expression used in section 161 of the CrPC, which therefore should be accorded evidentiary value, as no safeguards as provided under section 162 of the CrPC are mentioned qua statements made under section 67 of the NDPS Act. He also argued that investigation begins from the stage of collection of material under section 67, and for this relied strongly upon the recent Constitution Bench judgment in Mukesh Singh (supra). According to him, therefore, the reference order itself being flawed, there ought to have been no reference at all, and that the judgments in Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) and Kanhaiyalal (supra) do not need reconsideration. Later judgments such as Noor Aga (supra) ought to be overruled by us, inasmuch as they are contrary to several Constitution Bench judgments of this Court. 11. Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh in SLP (Crl.) 1202 of 2017, largely reiterated the submissions of learned ASG, adding that when section 67 of the NDPS Act is used to record the confession of an accused, section 164 of the CrPC will not apply, but only section 24 of the Evidence Act makes such confessions relevant, if the conditions laid down in the section apply. He also reiterated that a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be assimilated to a statement 17 under section 161 of the CrPC, for the reasons outlined by the learned ASG. 12. Shri Aniruddha Mayee, learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 2214 of 2009; 344 of 2013; and 1750 of 2009, adopted the submissions of Shri Aman Lekhi, learned ASG. 13. Having heard wide-ranging arguments of counsel on both sides, it is first necessary to give a Constitutional backdrop to the points that arise in this case. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND THE NDPS ACT 14. The first most important constitutional protection provided in the fundamental rights chapter so far as these cases are concerned is provided by Article 20(3), which is the well-known right against self- incrimination. Article 20(3) reads as follows: “(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” 15. In an early judgment of this Court, M.P. Sharma and Ors. v. Satish Chandra 1954 SCR 1077, an eight-Judge Bench of this Court set out Article 20(3), and then went into the historical origin of this Article in English law. In an important passage, the Court held: “In view of the above background, there is no inherent reason to construe the ambit of this fundamental right as comprising a very wide range. Nor would it be legitimate to confine it to the barely literal meaning of the words used, since it is a recognised doctrine that when appropriate a constitutional provision has to be liberally construed, so as to advance the intendment thereof and 18

19

privacy” under the Indian Constitution, like the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, about which more shall be said a little later. What is important, however, is the fact that even in this early judgment, a mere literal reading was not given to Article 20(3). The Court recognised that

evidence, but also by producing documents – evidence being furnished through the lips of a person or by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes. It is important to stress that the protection was afforded to a person formally accused of an offence on the basis of a statement that may be compulsorily taken from him even before evidence is given in a court. 20

raised on some of the propositions contained in the eight-Judge Bench

before the Court, one of which involved proof of handwritten evidence, another of which involved comparison of handwriting under section 73 of the Evidence Act, and the third of which involved section 27 of the Evidence Act. After hearing arguments on both sides, the Court first

stated that the guarantee under Article 20(3) extended to testimony by a witness given in or out of courts, which included statements which incriminated the maker. However, the Court went on to state that “furnishing evidence” would exclude thumb-impressions or writing specimens, for the reason that the taking of impressions of parts of the body often becomes necessary for the investigation of a crime (see page 29). Incriminating information must therefore include statements based on personal knowledge. The Court then went on to consider whether section 27 of the Evidence Act would fall foul of Article 20(3), having already been upheld when a constitutional challenge under

information is given under compulsion, then the provisions of section 27 21 of the Evidence Act would not apply so as to allow the prosecution to place reliance on the object recovered as a result of the statement made (see pages 33-34). In the result, the Court held: “( 1 ) An accused person cannot be said to have been compelled to be a witness against himself simply because he made a statement while in police custody, without anything more. In other words, the mere fact of being in police custody at the time when the statement in question was made would not, by itself, as a proposition of law, lend itself to the inference that the accused was compelled to make the statement, though that fact, in conjunction with other circumstances disclosed in evidence in a particular case, would be a relevant consideration in an enquiry whether or not the accused person had been compelled to make the impugned statement. ( 2 ) The mere questioning of an accused person by a police officer, resulting in a voluntary statement, which may ultimately turn out to be incriminatory, is not “compulsion”. ( 3 ) “To be a witness” is not equivalent to “furnishing evidence” in its widest significance; that is to say, as including not merely making of oral or written statements but also production of documents or giving materials which may be relevant at a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. ( 4 ) Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression “to be a witness”. ( 5 ) “To be a witness” means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts by an oral statement or a statement in writing, made or given in court or otherwise. ( 6 ) “To be a witness” in its ordinary grammatical sense means giving oral testimony in court. Case law has gone 22 beyond this strict literal interpretation of the expression which may now bear a wider meaning, namely, bearing testimony in court or out of court by a person accused of an offence, orally or in writing. ( 7 ) To bring the statement in question within the prohibition of Article 20(3), the person accused must have stood in the character of an accused person at the time he made the statement. It is not enough that he should become an accused, any time after the statement has been made.” (at pages 36-37) 18. It is important to note that conclusions (1) and (2) were made in the context of repelling a challenge to section 27 of the Evidence Act. M.P. Sharma (supra), so far as it held that a person is accused the moment there is a formal accusation against him, by way of an FIR or otherwise, and that statements made by such person outside court, whether oral or on personal knowledge of documents produced, is protected by Article 20(3), remained untouched. 19. It is also important to note that in Balkishan A. Devidayal (supra), these judgments were referred to, and the Court then concluded:

23

Article 20(3) and section 161 of the CrPC as follows:

24

25

26

in the following terms:

27

28

29

validity of sections 9(7) and 15 of the TADA, also referred to Article 20(3) as follows:

30

31

constitutional validity of section 15, referred to Article 20(3) as follows:

32

dealt with the constitutional validity of narco-analysis tests as follows:

33