NDPS conviction can rest on credible official evidence and voluntary Section 67 statements despite absent panch witnesses.

A conviction under the NDPS Act can rest on credible official testimony and voluntary Section 67 statements even where panch witnesses are not examined. The non-examination of independent witnesses was not treated as fatal because the DRI officers were cross-examined and no material was shown to indicate false implication or unreliability. The defence also failed to prove tampering or unexplained delay, as the samples remained sealed and the chain of custody was intact. Section 67 statements were treated as voluntary and corroborated by recovery and officer testimony, so the conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-examination of the panch witnesses and reliance on official witnesses alone was fatal to the prosecution case; (ii) whether the defence was able to establish tampering in the chain of custody or delay in transmission of samples; (iii) whether the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act were voluntary and could form the basis of conviction.

Issue (i): Whether non-examination of the panch witnesses and reliance on official witnesses alone was fatal to the prosecution case.

Analysis: The absence of the panch witnesses did not, by itself, discredit the prosecution. Summons had been issued, one witness was found not residing at the given address, and the other was not produced. The testimony of the DRI officers was subjected to cross-examination and nothing material was elicited to show enmity, false implication, or unreliability. In such circumstances, the conviction could rest on credible official testimony even without independent witnesses.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the prosecution case was held not to fail for non-examination of the panch witnesses.

Issue (ii): Whether the defence was able to establish tampering in the chain of custody or delay in transmission of samples.

Analysis: The recovery was sealed, paper slips bearing signatures were affixed, and the sample parcels remained intact throughout the chain of custody. The record showed prompt forwarding of samples to the chemical examiner and deposit of the case property without unexplained delay. The defence could not elicit anything in cross-examination to show interference with the seals or the samples.

Conclusion: The defence plea of tampering and delay was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act were voluntary and could form the basis of conviction.

Analysis: The appellants did not complain of coercion before the court when produced on several dates, and retraction was raised only at the stage of Section 313 examination. The statement of one appellant was written in her own handwriting and the other was recorded by the officer. The statements were treated as voluntary and were supported by the recovery and the testimony of the officers. Such statements were admissible and could sustain conviction when found voluntary and corroborated by surrounding evidence.

Conclusion: The Section 67 statements were held voluntary and reliable, and they supported the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were found to be without merit, and the conviction and sentence were sustained on the basis of trustworthy official evidence, an unbroken chain of custody, and voluntary confessional statements.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction under the NDPS Act can be sustained on credible official testimony and voluntary Section 67 statements even if independent panch witnesses are not examined, provided the recovery and chain of custody remain intact and no material infirmity is shown.

---