Non-representative sampling and an uncorroborated Section 67 statement could not sustain NDPS conviction after evidentiary doubt.

Non-representative sampling and inconsistencies in the field-test process undermined the reliability of the narcotic recovery evidence, especially where there was a real possibility of tampering before seizure. The retracted Section 67 statement was treated as unsafe to rely on because it lacked independent corroboration after the forensic material was disbelieved. With the testing and sampling evidence losing probative value, the prosecution failed to prove knowing export of heroin beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether inconsistencies in the witnesses' versions and the manner in which the substance was tested and sampled vitiated the prosecution case; (ii) Whether the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act was admissible and sufficient to sustain the conviction; (iii) Whether the prosecution had proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue (i): Whether inconsistencies in the witnesses' versions and the manner in which the substance was tested and sampled vitiated the prosecution case.

Analysis: The evidence was not consistent on whether the field test was conducted on one strip or on multiple strips, and whether it was done before or after the contents were mixed. One witness had already opened a strip before the NCB team arrived, creating a real possibility of tampering. The samples sent to the laboratory were drawn only after mixing the entire recovered powder, contrary to the requirement that samples be representative of each lot or package. In such circumstances, the reliability of both the field-test result and the laboratory report was undermined.

Conclusion: The sampling and testing procedure was held unsafe to rely upon against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act was admissible and sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Analysis: The statement was recorded in the course of a different investigation, was subsequently retracted, and was not supported by dependable independent evidence after the seizure and sample-testing material was disbelieved. The booking evidence only proved that the parcel had been handed over and booked; it did not independently establish its contents. In the absence of corroboration, the statement could not safely be treated as voluntary or as the sole basis of conviction.

Conclusion: The statement under Section 67 of the Act could not, by itself, sustain the conviction.

Issue (iii): Whether the prosecution had proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: Once the field-test and laboratory evidence lost evidentiary value and the Section 67 statement was found unsafe to rely on, no material remained to conclusively prove that the appellant had knowingly attempted to export heroin. In an offence under the NDPS Act, strict proof and strict compliance with procedural safeguards are required; where substantial doubt persists, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the NDPS charges.

Ratio Decidendi: Where narcotic recovery is tested through a non-representative sampling process, with material inconsistencies as to the manner of testing and a real possibility of tampering, the resulting forensic evidence loses reliability and a retracted Section 67 statement, without independent corroboration, cannot safely sustain conviction under the NDPS Act.

---