NDPS conviction cannot rest on doubtful recovery and unreliable Section 67 statements without independent support.

Conviction under the NDPS Act could not be sustained where the alleged recovery was doubtful and unsupported by reliable independent evidence. The Court treated the raiding officers' version with caution because the independent panch witness turned hostile, the other panch was not examined, and the prosecution record showed contradictions on Section 50 compliance, no personal search, irregular investigative conduct, and delay in depositing the seized substance. Statements recorded under Section 67 were also found unreliable as voluntary confessions because the summons process appeared formal, the accused were not free to leave, and the statements were taken under circumstances suggesting control and pressure. The conviction and sentences were set aside and the accused were acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained on the basis of the alleged recovery from the first accused and the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of that Act.

Analysis: The evidence of the raiding officers regarding recovery from the first accused was examined with caution because the independent panch witness turned hostile and the other panch was not examined. The Court found material infirmities in the prosecution version, including contradictions regarding compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the absence of any personal search of the accused, unusual investigative conduct, and delay in depositing the seized substance. The Court further held that the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 did not inspire confidence as voluntary confessions, since the summonses were treated as a formality, the accused were not really free to leave, and the statements were recorded in circumstances suggesting control and pressure. The confessions of one accused and the coaccused were also held incapable of serving as independent corroboration.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the alleged recovery and possession beyond reasonable doubt, and the confessional statements were not reliable enough to sustain the conviction. The conviction and sentences were set aside and the accused were acquitted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded because the prosecution evidence was found unsafe for conviction and the accused were given the benefit of doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, conviction cannot rest on doubtful recovery evidence and untrustworthy confessional statements under Section 67 without reliable independent support.

---