NDPS conviction fails where complainant and investigator are the same officer, and exclusive possession is not proved.

A conviction under the NDPS Act was unsustainable where the same police officer acted as complainant and investigating officer, as that combination impaired the fairness and impartiality of the investigation. The prosecution also failed to prove exclusive possession of the room from which the articles were recovered, and the evidence did not support sustained liability under the charged NDPS provisions on the facts. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside and the accused acquitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction was vitiated because the same police officer acted as complainant and investigating officer; (ii) Whether the prosecution proved exclusive possession and sustained the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in view of the nature and quantity of the articles recovered.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction was vitiated because the same police officer acted as complainant and investigating officer.

Analysis: The information was reduced into writing, the search was conducted, the recovery was effected, and the case was registered and investigated by the same officer. Such a course deprives the accused of a fair and impartial investigation and is inconsistent with settled criminal jurisprudence, particularly where the complainant is also the sole investigating agency.

Conclusion: Yes. The investigation was legally infirm and the conviction could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved exclusive possession and sustained the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in view of the nature and quantity of the articles recovered.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the room from which the articles were recovered was in the exclusive possession of the appellant. The materials also indicated that the items recovered were in the nature of small quantities or medical-use psychotropic substances, which at the highest could have attracted a lesser offence, but the prosecution case remained unsustainable in view of the foundational infirmities in possession and investigation.

Conclusion: No. The conviction under Section 22 could not be upheld, and no sustainable conviction under Section 27 survived on the facts.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant, directing release unless required in any other case.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction under the NDPS Act cannot be sustained where the same officer acts as complainant and investigating officer and the prosecution also fails to establish exclusive possession of the place from which the alleged contraband was recovered.

---