NDPS prosecution evidence found unreliable where seizure witnesses were untraceable and Section 67 statements lacked voluntariness.

Prosecution evidence was found insufficient to disturb an acquittal under the NDPS Act because the claimed independent witnesses to the raid and seizure were either untraceable or not produced, and their purported signatures did not match the seizure memo and Section 67 statement. The seizure of currency at the residence was also not proved through reliable independent evidence, and the police witness did not support the prosecution version. The court accepted the trial court's view that the Section 67 statements were not shown to be voluntary, especially in light of the accused's injuries and the surrounding circumstances, so leave to appeal was declined and the acquittal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal was to be granted on the ground that the prosecution evidence, including the seizure proceedings and statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, was sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Analysis: The prosecution version was found doubtful because the supposed independent witnesses to the raid and seizure had fictitious or untraceable addresses and were not produced in court. The alleged witness signatures on the seizure memo and the Section 67 statement did not match, creating a serious doubt about the genuineness of the proceedings. The seizure of currency at the residence was also not proved through an independent witness, while the statement of the police witness did not support the prosecution. The Court further accepted the trial court's finding that the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were not shown to be voluntary, particularly in view of the injuries found on the accused and the surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was declined and the acquittal was left undisturbed, as the prosecution failed to establish a case for interference.

---