NDPS confessions under Section 67 are admissible, but conviction requires proof of conscious possession.

Statements recorded by narcotics officers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not barred as confessions before police officers and are admissible in evidence. A voluntary confession, absent inducement, threat or promise under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, may sustain conviction even without corroboration as a matter of prudence; the later retraction here did not displace voluntariness. However, sale was not proved and conscious possession of opium was not established on the facts, because the accused was only a hotel servant and lacked custody or control over the contraband. The conviction and sentence were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confessions made before officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are admissible in evidence; (ii) whether the confessions were voluntary and could, without corroboration, form the basis of conviction; and (iii) whether the appellant was in conscious possession of opium or selling it.

Issue (i): Whether confessions made before officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are admissible in evidence.

Analysis: Officers exercising powers under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are not police officers within the meaning of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The power to investigate under the Act does not include the power to file a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are therefore not hit by the statutory bar against confessions before police officers.

Conclusion: The confessions were admissible in evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether the confessions were voluntary and could, without corroboration, form the basis of conviction.

Analysis: A confession is excluded only when it is caused by inducement, threat or promise under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A voluntary, truthful and reliable confession may sustain a conviction, though corroboration is ordinarily sought as a matter of prudence. Here, the appellant did not promptly retract the confessions despite repeated production before the Court, and no contemporaneous complaint of coercion was made. The later retraction in the Section 313 statement was treated as insufficient to displace voluntariness.

Conclusion: The confessions were voluntary and could form the basis of conviction.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant was in conscious possession of opium or selling it.

Analysis: Selling the opium was not established by the confession or by evidence. As to possession, criminal liability under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 requires conscious possession. On the proved facts, the appellant was only a hotel servant, the contraband belonged to the hotel owners, and there was no evidence that he had custody or absolute control over the room or the opium. Conscious possession was therefore not proved.

Conclusion: The appellant was not proved to be in conscious possession of opium or to have sold it.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained because the admissible confessions did not establish the essential element of conscious possession or sale, and the appeal was accordingly allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession recorded by narcotics officers under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is admissible and may sustain conviction if voluntary, but liability for possession under Section 18 requires proof of conscious possession.

---