Public-place narcotics interception falls under Section 43, with valid custody proof and Section 108 statements upheld.

Interception and seizure of narcotic contraband in a public place during transit fall under Section 43 of the NDPS Act, so Section 42 compliance is not required. A properly proved chain of custody, including seizure, sealing, malkhana deposit, register entry, specimen seal memo and an intact seal on laboratory receipt, is sufficient to establish safe custody and continuity of evidence. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are not automatically inadmissible; where the conviction rests mainly on recovery and link evidence, such statements do not by themselves defeat the prosecution case. On these principles, the conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the search and seizure were vitiated for non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, or were governed by Section 43 of the NDPS Act; (ii) Whether the prosecution failed to establish the link evidence and safe custody of the seized contraband; (iii) Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible or could not be relied upon against the appellants.

Issue (i): Whether the search and seizure were vitiated for non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, or were governed by Section 43 of the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The recovery was effected during nakabandi at a public place while the appellants were in transit and not from any building, conveyance, or enclosed place. On those facts, the search did not attract Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The relevant provision was Section 43 of the NDPS Act, which authorises seizure and arrest in a public place or in transit. Since the search and seizure were made in the course of public-place interception, no statutory breach was established.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Section 42 failed, and the search was held to be valid under Section 43.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution failed to establish the link evidence and safe custody of the seized contraband.

Analysis: The evidence of the malkhana incharge showed seizure, sealing, deposit in the malkhana, and entry in the register. The specimen seal memo was prepared, and the FSL report recorded that the seal remained intact when the sample reached the laboratory. This sequence was sufficient to establish continuity of custody and to negative any break in the evidentiary chain.

Conclusion: The contention of missing link evidence was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible or could not be relied upon against the appellants.

Analysis: The Court accepted that a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used mechanically without scrutiny, and that voluntariness is material. However, the conviction in the present case was not founded on those statements alone. The prosecution case was primarily supported by recovery from possession and by the established link evidence. In the absence of any customs prosecution or other legal infirmity showing inadmissibility in the facts of the case, the objection to the statements did not undermine the conviction.

Conclusion: The objection to the Section 108 statements was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained, and no interference was called for in the appellate challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where narcotic contraband is recovered during interception in a public place or in transit, Section 43 of the NDPS Act applies and Section 42 is not attracted; a properly proved chain of custody and recovery evidence can sustain conviction notwithstanding objections to statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

---