Doubtful seizure and unproved Section 67 statement cannot sustain NDPS conviction when possession remains unproven.

A conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot be sustained where the seizure evidence is doubtful and the alleged recovery is not proved with certainty. A statement recorded under section 67 supports the prosecution only if it is shown to be voluntary and it can at most corroborate reliable search and seizure evidence; it cannot cure defects in proof of possession or search. Where the statement is retracted and voluntariness is not established, it cannot substitute for dependable seizure evidence. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were set aside and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained on the basis of doubtful seizure evidence and a statement recorded under section 67 of the Act.

Analysis: The seized baggage forming the foundation of the prosecution case was not proved with certainty, as the evidence regarding the number and identity of checked-in baggages was inconsistent and created serious doubt about the alleged recovery. A statement recorded under section 67 of the Act can support the prosecution only if it is shown to be voluntary and can only corroborate reliable seizure evidence. In the present case, the statement was retracted and was not established to be voluntary, and it could not cure the defects in the search and seizure evidence. Since the proof of possession itself remained doubtful, the conviction could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot rest on a doubtful seizure and an unproved voluntary statement under section 67, because such a statement cannot substitute for reliable proof of possession and search and seizure.

---