Vehicle recovery outside Section 50 safeguard; hostile panch witnesses and minor sample discrepancies did not vitiate conviction.

Recovery from a vehicle was treated as outside the scope of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, so the safeguard for personal search did not apply to contraband found in the glove compartment. The seizure was accepted despite hostile panch witnesses because they admitted their signatures on the recovery papers and the official witnesses consistently supported the recovery and chase. Minor variation in sample weight after laboratory testing was treated as natural, and no legal requirement was found for the test form to be completed at the spot on the same day. The Section 67 statement was not the basis of conviction, which remained supported by independent recovery evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recovery and seizure from the car were proved despite the panch witnesses turning hostile. (ii) Whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was attracted to a recovery from the glove compartment of the car. (iii) Whether the alleged discrepancies regarding sample weight, the test form, and the statement under Section 67 of the Act undermined the prosecution case.

Issue (i): Whether the recovery and seizure from the car were proved despite the panch witnesses turning hostile.

Analysis: The panch witnesses admitted their signatures on the panchnama, sample slips, and related documents, and their written statements were proved. A witness who admits presence at the spot and signs the recovery documents cannot, without explanation, discredit the seizure merely by turning hostile. The testimony of the official witnesses also supported the recovery and the manner in which the appellant was apprehended after the chase.

Conclusion: The recovery and seizure were duly proved, and the hostile testimony did not dislodge the prosecution case.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was attracted to a recovery from the glove compartment of the car.

Analysis: Section 50 applies to search of the person and not to recovery from a vehicle or other place not forming part of the body of the accused. Since the contraband was recovered from the glove compartment of the car, the safeguard under Section 50 was not attracted.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with Section 50 did not arise, and the objection was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged discrepancies regarding sample weight, the test form, and the statement under Section 67 of the Act undermined the prosecution case.

Analysis: A minor variation in sample weight after laboratory testing was treated as natural and not indicative of fabrication. There was no legal requirement that the test form be filled on the same day at the spot. The conviction was also not based on the Section 67 statement, and the prosecution evidence independently established the offence.

Conclusion: The alleged discrepancies did not create any reasonable doubt, and the prosecution case remained intact.

Final Conclusion: The conviction for possession of heroin was sustained on the basis of reliable recovery evidence and compliance with the material statutory safeguards, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery from a vehicle is outside the scope of Section 50, and a hostile witness does not destroy otherwise proved seizure evidence when the supporting documents and official testimony establish the recovery.

---