Section 67 NDPS statements and corroborative evidence sustained convictions despite retraction and supported prosecution proceedings.

Statements recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act were treated as admissible and reliable despite later retraction because the retractions were delayed and unsupported by specific coercion allegations. The Court held that such a confession could be used against its maker and, where it implicated a co-accused jointly tried, could also be considered under section 30 of the Evidence Act. On the evidence as a whole, including retested chemical reports and surrounding circumstances, the Court found pilferage of heroin from the Chandigarh malkhana and a false projection of an unclaimed seizure at Amritsar proved, thereby affirming the NDPS convictions. The challenge to the prosecution order against Customs officers under sections 193 and 340 of the CrPC was rejected for want of jurisdictional error.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and later retracted could be relied upon to sustain the convictions and to implicate a co-accused under section 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872; (ii) Whether the evidence, including the retested chemical reports and surrounding circumstances, proved pilferage of heroin from the Chandigarh malkhana and the false projection of an unclaimed seizure at Amritsar; (iii) Whether the order directing prosecution of Customs officers under sections 193 and 340 of the CrPC called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and later retracted could be relied upon to sustain the convictions and to implicate a co-accused under section 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: The statement made by Naseeb Chand was treated as an inculpatory admission recorded during an inquiry under section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The Court held that the notice and service objections were not sufficient to discard the statement, especially as the accused did not dispute his presence before the NCB on the relevant date. The retraction was found ineffective because it was delayed and lacked specific particulars of coercion or force. The Court further held that such a statement could be read against the maker and, being a confession affecting another person jointly tried, could also be taken into consideration against Saji Mohan under section 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The statement of Naveen Kumar was similarly accepted, and the delay in retraction and absence of credible coercion were held insufficient to dislodge it.

Conclusion: The statements under section 67 were held admissible and reliable notwithstanding retraction, and were held usable against the makers and, in the case of Naseeb Chand, against the co-accused as well.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence, including the retested chemical reports and surrounding circumstances, proved pilferage of heroin from the Chandigarh malkhana and the false projection of an unclaimed seizure at Amritsar.

Analysis: The Court relied on the chain formed by Naseeb Chand's confession, Naveen Kumar's statement, the role of Balwinder Kumar as custodian of the malkhana, and the evidence of the Customs officers regarding the 10 kg seizure at Amritsar. The Court also accepted the retesting results showing marked variations in diacetyl morphine levels, treating them as corroborative of large-scale pilferage and adulteration. The circumstantial sequence, according to the Court, completed the link between the removal of heroin from the Chandigarh malkhana, its delivery to Naseeb Chand, and the later unclaimed seizure shown by the Customs Department.

Conclusion: The Court held that pilferage from the Chandigarh malkhana stood proved and that the convictions of the appellants were justified.

Issue (iii): Whether the order directing prosecution of Customs officers under sections 193 and 340 of the CrPC called for interference.

Analysis: The Court found no merit in the revisions, holding that the trial court's observations disclosed a prima facie basis for action and that no jurisdictional error was shown. In light of the overall evidence, the order directing initiation of proceedings was not disturbed.

Conclusion: The revisions were rejected and the order for prosecution was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences for the NDPS offences were affirmed, and the connected revisions challenging initiation of proceedings were also rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 during an inquiry can constitute substantive evidence and, if it is a confession affecting another accused jointly tried, may be considered against that accused under section 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872; a delayed and vague retraction does not by itself neutralize its evidentiary value.

---