Voluntary Section 67 statements and valid search under Section 41(2) upheld, with sentence reduced to the statutory minimum.

Statements recorded under Section 67 were accepted as voluntary and reliable because the trial court, after cross-examining the witnesses, found no infirmity sufficient to displace that conclusion. A search was not invalid for want of written authorisation under Section 41(2) because no further authorisation is needed where the gazetted officer himself conducts the raid. The convictions were affirmed, but the punishment was reduced to the statutory minimum in view of the comparatively small quantity recovered, and the sentences for the first accused on the two counts were ordered to run concurrently.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statements recorded under Section 67 were voluntary and could be relied upon; (ii) whether the search was invalid for want of written authorisation under Section 41(2); (iii) whether the sentence warranted reduction to the minimum prescribed.

Issue (i): Whether the statements recorded under Section 67 were voluntary and could be relied upon.

Analysis: The statements attributed to the accused were scrutinised by the trial court after cross-examination of the relevant witnesses, and no special reason was shown to displace that finding. The challenge was confined to the alleged want of proof of voluntariness, but the record did not disclose any infirmity sufficient to undermine the acceptance of the statements.

Conclusion: The statements under Section 67 were held to be voluntary and reliable.

Issue (ii): Whether the search was invalid for want of written authorisation under Section 41(2).

Analysis: Section 41(2) requires authorisation only when a gazetted officer authorises another subordinate officer to conduct the search. Where the gazetted officer himself conducts the raid, no further authorisation is necessary. On that footing, the search could not be treated as unauthorised.

Conclusion: The search was held to be valid and the objection was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the sentence warranted reduction to the minimum prescribed.

Analysis: Although the conviction was maintained, the quantity of narcotic substance recovered was comparatively small. In the circumstances, the Court considered it to confine the punishment to the minimum term prescribed under the Act and to make the sentences run concurrently in respect of the first accused where two counts were involved.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 21, and, for the first accused, the sentence under Section 25 was also reduced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with the sentences to run concurrently.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were affirmed, but the punishment was materially reduced to the minimum prescribed, resulting in only partial relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary statement under Section 67, once accepted by the trial court on evidence, can be relied upon absent a specific infirmity; a gazetted officer need not obtain further authorisation when he himself conducts the search under Section 41(2); and sentence may be reduced to the statutory minimum in appropriate circumstances while sustaining the conviction.

---