Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. Heard. According to the prosecution, on 12.6.1998 an information was received from the Narcotic Control Burearu, New Delhi in the office of Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh that there was a gang of narcotic drug traffickers, operating in village Majari, Bilaspur (HP). Thereafter there was a specific information received from the reliable source that on 19.7.1998 between 7.00 PM and 11.00 PM Amrit Singh would be delivering narcotic substance at a point i.e. on the main road from Dher to Anandpur Sahib. Information further went on that in case any effort was made to intercept him, he might resort to violence. On receipt of the aforesaid information on 19.7.1999 - Shri Sarabjit Singh, Director Narcotic Control Burearu, Chandigarh Shri R.P. Singh, Shri O.P. Bhatt, Shri Malkiat Singh and Mrs. Ranjana Rai - all Investigating Officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh and certain police officials left Chandigarh at about 4.15 PM and they held a naka at Kiratpur- Nangal Road, outside village Surewal at about 8.45 PM. They spotted two scooters carrying two persons each. On one scooter accused-Amrit Singh and his co-accused Sarabjit Singh alias Sonu were there. On other scooter there were two other persons. A small sack was there is between them (Amrit Singh and Sarabjit Singh alias Sonu) which they were carrying while coming from village Dher towards Anandpur Sahib. Investigating Officer Sh. OP Bhatt and Sepoy Paramjit Singh identified Amrit Singh and asked him to stop but they diverted their scooter towards Surewal Village. Raiding party chased them. On seeing the raiding party, they threw the sack on the Surewal Link road. Sh. R.P. Singh took possession of the sack while the rest of the members of the raiding party followed the accused-Amrik Singh and his accomplices. Since it was dark and the village has narrow lanes, they left the scooter there and disappeared. Despite best efforts they could not be apprehended at the spot. Further investigation revealed that the scooter No. PB-16-2611 which was used by the accused belonged to one Amar Singh son of Arjan Singh r/o of village Majari Tehsil Surewal, Dist. Bilaspur HP. Amrit Singh-accused surrendered before the Special Judge, Ropar on 27.7.2000. At first Amrit Singh was sent to judicial custody from where his physical custody was taken over by the officials of Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh. On 24.8.2000 he made confession before Sh. Bilaspur HP. Amrit Singh-accused surrendered before the Special Judge, Ropar on 27.7.2000. At first Amrit Singh was sent to judicial custody from where his physical custody was taken over by the officials of Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh. On 24.8.2000 he made confession before Sh. RP Singh - Intelligence Officer, Narcoic Control Bureau, Chandigarh that his companion was Sarabjit Singh alias Sonu Singh who had thrown the sack being carried by them on scooter on 19.7.1998 weighing 18 Kgs and 400 grams of opium. 2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they were not identified at the spot. Further, none of them was identified while running away from the spot after throwing the sack containing opium and scooter by any member of the raiding party. Learned counsel further submits that to connect the petitioner with the recovery of this haul of opium, there is statement of co-accused Amrik Singh only that Sarabjit Singh alias Sonu was with him while carrying opium weighing 18 Kgs 400 grams on the said scooter on 19.7.1998, which is not admissible into evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that confession made before the officers of Narcotic Control Bureau is not admissible into evidence, as they are as good as police officers, empowered to interrogate the accused and extract information from him concerning the case. In support of this submission, learned counsel relies on Balbir Singh v. State of Orissa, 1995 Crl.L.J. 1762. 4. Learned Additional Central Govt. Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that not only there is a confession of co-accused Amrit Singh who is tarnishing himself with the same brush with which he is tarnishing Sarabjit Singh alias Sonu, there is also his own confession before Shri RP Singh, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau. He submits that confession of co-accused before the officer of the Narcotic Control Bureau is admissible into evidence in view of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 5. In Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 45 : 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 719, the Honble Supreme Court has laid down that the officers appointed under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, 1985 are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of Evidence Act and therefore confession made before them is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 6. 6. In Sumarkhan Sidiqkhan Sindhi v. Collector of Customs, 1999(3) RCR(Criminal) 46 a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held that officers appointed under Section 53 of NDPS Act, 1985 are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of Evidence Act and therefore statements made before them under Section 67 of the Act are not hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Section 67 of the NDPS Act reads as under : "Power to call for information etc. - Any Officer referred to in Sec. 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 any provision of this Act - (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." 7. In Nathubhai Babarbhat Patel v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 Criminal Law Journal 536, Honble Bombay High Court held that officers empowered under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. For the reasons given above, this criminal misc. fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.