Section 66: Presumption as to documents in certain cases

Where any document–

(i) is produced or furnished by any person or has been seized from the custody or control of any person, in either case, under this Act or under any other law, or

(ii) has been received from any place outside India (duly authenticated by such authority or person and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government) in the course of investigation of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by a person,

and such document is tendered in any prosecution under this Act in evidence against him, or against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him, the court shall–

(a) presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the court may reason ably assume to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that persons handwriting; and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested;

(b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence;

(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumcontrary is proved, the truth of the contents of such document.

Simplified Explanation

Section 66 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) deals with the presumption as to documents in legal proceedings related to offenses under the Act. The section provides that certain documents produced or seized during the investigation of an offense under the NDPS Act can be presumed to be authentic unless proven otherwise. Here’s a detailed breakdown of this provision:

Key Points of Section 66:

Presumptions Regarding Documents (Sub-section i):

1. Documents Produced or Seized:
   • The section applies to documents that are either:
     • Produced or furnished by any person during the investigation or legal proceedings under the NDPS Act or any other law; or
     • Seized from the custody or control of any person during the investigation of an offense under the NDPS Act.
   • This can include documents that have been seized by law enforcement from an individual’s possession as part of the investigation into drug-related offenses.
2. Documents Received from Outside India:
   • The section also applies to documents received from outside India, which are duly authenticated by the relevant authorities or persons, and in the prescribed manner as decided by the Central Government.
   • Such documents could be foreign records or documents that have been obtained as part of an investigation where the offense is alleged to have occurred in India but involves foreign connections.

Presumptions by the Court (Sub-sections a, b, and c):

3. Presumption About the Signature and Handwriting (Sub-section a):
   • When such a document is tendered in evidence during a prosecution under the NDPS Act, the court is required to presume (unless proven otherwise) that:
     • The signature on the document is in the handwriting of the person it purports to be from, or the court reasonably assumes to be from.
     • Similarly, if the document is executed or attested, it will be presumed that it was done by the person it is said to have been executed or attested by.
4. Admissibility of Documents (Sub-section b):
   • The court is required to admit such a document into evidence, even if the document is not duly stamped (which might typically be a requirement for other documents to be legally valid).
   • This means that if a document is not properly stamped, it can still be admitted as evidence, provided it meets other requirements for admissibility.
5. Examination of Persons Acquainted with the Facts (Sub-section c):
   • The court can examine any person who is acquainted with the facts of the document, including its authenticity, context, or content. This person could testify to confirm the truth of the document’s contents.
   • Presumption of Truth: If the document is presented as evidence, and no contrary evidence is provided, the court may assume the document’s contents to be true, including the facts stated in it.

Legal Significance:

• This provision allows documents to be accepted more easily in court by simplifying the process of proving their authenticity, especially in complex cases involving documents from multiple jurisdictions.
• It shifts the burden of proof onto the party challenging the document, as the court will assume the document’s authenticity unless evidence is presented to the contrary.

Practical Example:

• If a document containing evidence of a drug shipment is seized from an individual’s office during an investigation, and the document is signed by a foreign supplier, the court would presume the signature is authentic and in the handwriting of the person it claims to be from, unless evidence is provided to suggest otherwise.
• Even if the document lacks the proper stamp or formality, the court can still admit it into evidence if it meets the criteria laid out in the Act.

Summary:

Section 66 simplifies the use of documents in prosecution under the NDPS Act by establishing presumptions about the authenticity of certain documents, such as those produced or seized during investigations or received from foreign jurisdictions. It presumes the genuineness of signatures, allows the admission of unstamped documents, and permits examination of witnesses to confirm the truth of the document’s contents. This section is designed to streamline legal proceedings and make it easier for authorities to present evidence in drug-related cases.