Power to call for information, etc
Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with power to call for information, etc. 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 provision of this Act,-- (a) call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying him The Act came into force on 14 Nov 1985.
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 provision 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.
Section 67, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Power to call for information, require production of documents, and examine persons during inquiry - central provision in dispute
-
Derajram Jat vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond shadow of doubt but requires a high degree of probability. Courts are not obligated to grant benefit of doubt based on fanciful possibilities or lingering suspicion when evidence is strong enough to leave only a remote possibility in favor of the accused that can be dismissed with the statement 'of course it is possible but not in the least probable.' The presumption of innocence must be judged on the basis of conceptions of a reasonable prudent man, not on meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent at the cost of allowing many guilty to escape. When both the Trial Court and High Court concurrently conclude on the basis of the same evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless there is manifest error or perversity.
On this section: Statements recorded under this section regarding admission of drug purchase and possession were key evidence. Court upheld reliability of these statements except for Appellant Iqbal Moosa Patel whose statement was rejected
-
Mohd. Aslam Khan vs Narcotics Control Bureau
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt, through independent corroborating evidence, that an accused person owns and is in actual possession of a premises from which contraband is seized. Retracted confessions, uncorroborated documents without established authenticity, and circumstantial information alone are insufficient to prove such ownership. The burden rests entirely on the prosecution to independently establish these foundational facts through proper evidence such as documents from concerned authorities, identification by independent witnesses, or expert verification, before invoking procedural provisions like Section 66 of NDPS Act. Possession of contraband at a location does not, by itself, establish ownership of that location.
On this section: Relates to statements given by persons during investigation. Court noted that statements retracted by the accused without loss of time cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration
-
Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs Narcotics Control Bureau
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person or company cannot claim immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which protects intermediaries from liability for third-party information) when engaged in illegal drug trafficking operations. Section 79 provides immunity only from prosecution under the Information Technology Act itself, not from prosecution under other statutes such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. When a company uses technology platforms and internet services as a facade to actively facilitate, design, develop, host, and control the distribution of banned psychotropic substances, it is not a mere intermediary but an active participant in the illegal trade and can be prosecuted under Sections 24 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Bail should be denied when overwhelming inculpatory evidence establishes a prima facie case and there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty or would not resume illegal activities.
On this section: Provides authority to issue notice requiring appearance; NCB issued notice to appellant under this section
-
Kailash Mandal @ Kailash Chandra Mandal vs The State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In NDPS cases involving poppy cultivation on land, anticipatory bail may be extended for a defined period to facilitate investigation and verification of the accused's claim regarding prior alienation of property, provided the accused cooperates with the investigating officer, produces documentary evidence (such as sale deed) supporting the claim, and ultimately surrenders for regular bail proceedings. Elderly accused persons should receive expeditious consideration of bail applications within a reasonable timeframe, balancing procedural fairness with the seriousness of narcotics offenses.
On this section: Notice provision under which petitioner was required to provide information regarding ownership and sale of the disputed land; central to the factual dispute regarding proof of alienation
-
Anilbhai Nayaka vs The Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Non-applicability of the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to controlled substances does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. The court can refuse bail if there is seizure of huge quantity of controlled substance with potential for manufacturing narcotic substances, existence of incriminating material, and likelihood of non-availability during trial, particularly in cases involving trans-border drug trafficking operations.
On this section: Recording of statements during investigation. Petitioner's counsel argued statements of co-accused recorded under this section are inadmissible per Supreme Court decision in Tofan Singh case.
-
Anilbhai Nayaka vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even though Section 37 of the NDPS Act (twin test for bail) may not strictly apply to controlled substances as opposed to narcotic drugs, the non-applicability of this section does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. Courts retain discretion to refuse bail in controlled substance cases based on: (1) seizure of huge quantity of controlled substance with potential for manufacturing narcotic drugs, (2) presence of incriminating material establishing active participation in drug trafficking, (3) likelihood of accused absconding or becoming unavailable for trial, particularly when accused are non-residents of the trial jurisdiction, and (4) transnational/international aspects of the drug trafficking operation. The burden remains on the accused to satisfy the court that bail should be granted, and in cases involving serious drug trafficking with international linkage, courts should exercise caution in granting bail.
On this section: Recording of statements during investigation. Petitioner's counsel argued that statements of co-accused recorded under this section would not be admissible, citing Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Made under this section, and citing it
2 instruments state that it was made under this provision — the power to make it comes from here, so a change to any of them changes what this section requires in practice. Newest first.
Questions about Section 67
What have the courts held on Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer (29 Oct 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Power to call for information, require production of documents, and examine persons during inquiry - central provision in dispute. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 1996 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: NDPS Act 67, section 67 NDPS Act, section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. People searching for it also type ndps 67 notice and 67c ndps act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer (29 Oct 2020).
What should I read with Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 42 (Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation), so none of them can safely be read on its own. The rules and notifications made under it are where it actually bites, and there are 2: most recently SO 821-826 (E) (1985), then SO 821-826 (E) (1985).
When did Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act come into force?
Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cited as NDPS Act 67, came into force on 14 Nov 1985, having been enacted on 16 Sep 1985. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1747 words
- 68B. Definitions819 words
- 9. Power of Central Government to permit, control and regulate816 words
- 36A. Offences triable by Special Courts631 words
- 10. Power of State Government to permit, control and regulate568 words
- 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation507 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.