NDPS baggage recovery upheld as Section 50 inapplicability, translated proceedings, and voluntary Section 67 statement defeated challenge.

Conviction under the NDPS Act was sustained where heroin was proved recovered from checked-in baggage, and Section 50 was held inapplicable because the search was of baggage rather than the person. Any claim of prejudice from English documents failed because the notice and panchnama were translated into Persian and explained through interpreters. Non-examination of the interpreter and one panch witness did not undermine the prosecution evidence, as the remaining witnesses supported recovery and the interpreter had been transferred. The Section 67 statement was treated as voluntary and corroborated by other material, and the delayed retraction carried no persuasive allegation of coercion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were liable to be set aside on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with Section 50, non-examination of an interpreter and one panch witness, and the alleged involuntariness of the statement recorded under Section 67.

Analysis: The recovery of 2.680 kg of heroin was held to have been proved from the appellant's checked-in baggage. Section 50 was found inapplicable because the search was of baggage and not of the person. The appellant's claim of prejudice from the use of English documents failed because the proceedings were translated into Persian through interpreters, and the record showed that the contents of the notice and panchnama were explained to him. Non-examination of the interpreter and one panch witness did not weaken the prosecution case, as the evidence showed that the interpreter had been transferred and the remaining witnesses consistently supported the recovery. The statement under Section 67 was treated as voluntary and truthful, the retraction being delayed and unsupported by allegations of coercion. The statement also contained details within the appellant's special knowledge and was corroborated by other evidence on record.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appellant's challenge was rejected.

---