Section 67 statements and contraband quantity proof: conviction limited to lesser narcotics offence, with sentence already served.

Section 67 statements were treated as admissible, but the prosecution failed to prove with reliable evidence the quantity of contraband or satisfactorily connect the seized articles to the appellants. As the material did not establish involvement with commercial quantity, the conviction could not be sustained to that extent. The Supreme Court sustained the conviction only for dealing in narcotic drugs under Section 18(b). Considering the long period of custody already undergone, the sentence was treated as sufficient and the fine was waived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' conviction could rest on the Section 67 statements despite the absence of reliable proof of the quantity of contraband, and whether the conviction and sentence called for interference.

Analysis: The statements recorded under Section 67 were treated as admissible, but the prosecution did not establish with reliable evidence the quantity of contraband allegedly dealt with by the appellants. The seized articles were not satisfactorily connected to the appellants, and the evidence did not prove that they were involved with commercial quantity. On that material, the conviction could not stand at the highest level alleged by the prosecution, and the limited evidence justified conviction only to the extent of dealing with narcotic drugs under Section 18(b). In view of the long period of custody already undergone, the sentence already served was found sufficient, and the fine was waived.

Conclusion: The conviction was sustained only to the limited extent of Section 18(b), the sentence was treated as sufficient by the period already undergone, and the fine was waived.

---