Admissibility of Section 67 statements under the NDPS Act upheld with reliable recovery and intact custody evidence.

Conviction under the NDPS Act was sustained on reliable recovery evidence, admissible Section 67 statements, and intact chain of custody. The Court held that officers acting under the Act are not police officers for Evidence Act purposes, so the appellants' un-retracted confessional statements were admissible. It also rejected the challenge based on non-examination of the bus driver, conductor, passengers, or other independent witnesses, holding that corroboration is a rule of prudence rather than an absolute requirement where prosecution evidence is cogent. In the absence of material showing tampering, and with the second appellant's own statement indicating participation, the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was sustainable on the basis of recovery, confessional statements recorded under Section 67, and the other evidence on record.

Analysis: The recovery of heroin from the blue bag was proved through the testimony of the official witnesses and the independent witness associated at the spot. The statements recorded under Section 67 were held admissible, as officers acting under the Act are not police officers for the purpose of the Evidence Act, and the appellants had not retracted those statements. The plea that the independent witness was absent or that the bus driver, conductor, or passengers were not examined was rejected because independent corroboration is a rule of prudence, not an absolute requirement, when the prosecution evidence is otherwise cogent. The Court also found the chain of custody intact, with no material to show tampering of the samples or case property. The objection that the second appellant was not in conscious possession was rejected in view of his own statement showing active participation in the trafficking.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A confessional statement made before an empowered officer under the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence, and a conviction may be sustained on reliable official and corroborative evidence even where the defence challenges the absence of further independent witnesses or alleges non-tampering without material proof.

---