Voluntary unretracted Section 67 statement and inapplicability of Sections 42 and 50 upheld conviction in an NDPS matter.

In NDPS prosecutions, a voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 may be relied upon where it is not retracted, including at the Section 313 CrPC stage, and it can validly support conviction on the facts found. The challenge based on alleged non-compliance with Sections 42(2) and 50 failed because the search and seizure were conducted by an empowered Gazetted Officer under Section 41, so Section 42(2) was not attracted and Section 50 was inapplicable on the facts. The father's licence theory was also rejected as unsupported. The trial court conviction was restored and the High Court acquittal set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the accused's statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be relied upon in the absence of any retraction; and (ii) whether alleged non-compliance with Sections 42(2) and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the father's licence could sustain the acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether the accused's statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be relied upon in the absence of any retraction.

Analysis: The statement recorded under Section 67 clearly implicated the accused in relation to the seized contraband. The record showed no retraction at any stage, including at the time of examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The contention that the confession was involuntary or unsupported was rejected, and the earlier decisions relied on were applied to hold that such a statement could form a valid basis for conviction on the facts found.

Conclusion: Yes. The statement under Section 67 was rightly treated as admissible and reliable, and the challenge to its use failed.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged non-compliance with Sections 42(2) and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the father's licence could sustain the acquittal.

Analysis: The search and seizure were held to have been conducted by an empowered Gazetted Officer acting under Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, so Section 42(2) was not attracted. Section 50 was also held inapplicable on the facts. The suggestion that the seizure could be linked to the father's licence was found to be without foundation. The High Court's reasons for acquittal were therefore found unsustainable.

Conclusion: No. The acquittal based on alleged non-compliance with Sections 42(2) and 50 and the licence theory could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the trial court was restored and the acquittal passed by the High Court was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS prosecutions, a voluntary and unretracted statement under Section 67 may be acted upon, and where search and seizure are conducted by an empowered Gazetted Officer under Section 41, Section 42(2) does not apply.

---