Co-accused confession under NDPS law cannot stand alone without independent evidence; acquittal remained undisturbed.

A co-accused statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act may be admissible, but it is not substantive evidence and can only lend assurance to independent material. Where no contraband was recovered from the respondent and the remaining links rested on co-accused statements and other disputed circumstances, there was no reliable independent evidence connecting the respondent to the offence. The acquittal was therefore not shown to be perverse or illegal, and leave to appeal was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against acquittal should be granted where there was no recovery from the respondent and the prosecution sought to rely mainly on statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

Analysis: There was no recovery of contraband from the respondent. The alleged link with the recovered narcotics depended on the statements of co-accused and on other incriminating circumstances such as call records and a disputed paper slip. The Court held that the statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act may be admissible, but such a statement is not substantive evidence by itself. The law permits a co-accused confession to be used only to lend assurance to other independent evidence, and not as the sole basis for conviction. In the absence of reliable independent evidence connecting the respondent with the contraband, the acquittal could not be said to be perverse or illegal.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was not warranted and the acquittal stood undisturbed.

---