NDPS confessional statements, recovery evidence and Section 42 compliance upheld where empowered Gazetted Officer conducted search and seizure.

Voluntary confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were treated as admissible because the officers recording them were not police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the delay was explained, and no timely allegation of coercion was made. Recovery was also upheld despite non-examination of independent witnesses and seizure at the Customs Office, since official evidence was found reliable and no prejudice was shown. Section 42(2) was held inapplicable where arrest, search and seizure were conducted by an empowered Gazetted Officer under Section 41(2) and (3). The conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were voluntary and could sustain the conviction; (ii) whether the recovery was vitiated because independent witnesses were not examined and the seizure was effected at the Customs Office; (iii) whether Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied when the arrest, search and seizure were conducted by an empowered Gazetted Officer under Section 41.

Issue (i): whether the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were voluntary and could sustain the conviction.

Analysis: The appellants' statements were recorded by officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, who are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and were therefore admissible. The delay in recording was explained by the distance to the Customs Office, the volume of contraband, and the need to arrange a Hindi-speaking officer. No complaint of coercion was made before the Magistrate, and only a vague allegation was raised later under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the evidence, the statements were not shown to be involuntary.

Conclusion: The confessional statements were voluntary and could be relied upon against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether the recovery was vitiated because independent witnesses were not examined and the seizure was effected at the Customs Office.

Analysis: Non-examination of independent witnesses did not by itself discredit the recovery where the evidence of official witnesses was otherwise reliable and the confessional statements were voluntary. The seizure at the Customs Office was explained by the practical circumstances of the case, and the material showed no prejudice or meddling with the contraband. Relevant evidence is not excluded merely because search or seizure may have been irregular, and the facts did not justify doubting the recovery.

Conclusion: The recovery and seizure were upheld and were not rendered doubtful on these grounds.

Issue (iii): whether Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied when the arrest, search and seizure were conducted by an empowered Gazetted Officer under Section 41.

Analysis: Sections 41 and 42 were construed together. An empowered Gazetted Officer under Section 41(2) may himself arrest or search, and Section 41(3) confers the powers of an officer acting under Section 42. The requirement in Section 42(2) to forward the recorded information to a superior applies to the officer contemplated by Section 42(1) and also to a Gazetted Officer only when acting under the relevant Section 42 power. Where the search, seizure and arrest are carried out by an empowered Gazetted Officer under Section 41(2) and (3), Section 42(2) is not attracted. The cited decisions dealing with Section 42 did not govern that situation.

Conclusion: Section 42(2) was not applicable, and there was no procedural illegality on that score.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained, and the challenge to the High Court's judgment failed on all material grounds. The appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: When an empowered Gazetted Officer himself conducts arrest, search and seizure under Section 41(2) and (3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the forwarding requirement in Section 42(2) is not attracted; voluntary confessional statements and a duly proved recovery may sustain the conviction even without independent witnesses.

---