Proof of recovery and seizure under NDPS law must be reliable; doubtful foundational facts defeat conviction on police evidence alone.

A conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot be sustained where recovery, seizure and deposit of the contraband are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The independent witness did not support the prosecution, and material discrepancies in the search, seizure and maalkhana deposit, including unreliable entries relating to seized currency, made the foundational facts doubtful. In the absence of proof of lawful recovery, the statutory presumption under the Act could not arise. The Court held that sole reliance on police testimony was insufficient on these facts, and the appellant was given the benefit of doubt; the conviction and sentence were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained when the recovery, seizure and deposit of the contraband were doubtful and the prosecution relied mainly on police testimony.

Analysis: The independent witness to the alleged recovery did not support the prosecution and the evidence of the investigating agency contained serious material discrepancies regarding the search, seizure and deposit of the seized article in the maalkhana. The entries relating to the seized currency were also found to be unreliable. In these circumstances, the recovery itself was not proved with certainty, and the statutory presumption under the Act could not arise when the foundational facts were doubtful.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained on the sole testimony of the police witness. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution fails to prove recovery and seizure of contraband beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot be maintained merely on police evidence.

---