Public-place recovery under NDPS Section 43 and corroborated Section 67 statement sustained conviction despite sampling objections.

Recovery of contraband from an open or public place attracted Section 43 rather than Section 42, so prior recording requirements under Section 42 were inapplicable. Alleged defects in label, sealing, or sampling did not undermine the prosecution case where no objection was raised at production of the bag and the samples were shown to have remained sealed and duly tested. The conviction was also supported by surrounding recovery evidence and the appellant's pre-arrest Section 67 statement; the Court noted that voluntariness must be assessed on the facts of each case and that the statement was not the sole basis of guilt. The concurrent findings and conviction were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the requirement of Section 42 was attracted when the contraband was recovered from an open/public place, and whether the recovery was otherwise vitiated for want of label or sampling infirmities; (ii) whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the appellant's statement under Section 67 and the surrounding recovery evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the requirement of Section 42 was attracted when the contraband was recovered from an open/public place, and whether the recovery was otherwise vitiated for want of label or sampling infirmities.

Analysis: The recovery was made from a public place, so the statutory scheme governing prior recording and search under Section 42 was not applicable. In such a case, the governing provision is Section 43. The absence of objection at the time of production of the bag, coupled with the evidence that the samples remained sealed and were duly tested, meant that the alleged defects in label and identity did not dislodge the prosecution version. The concurrent factual finding on recovery did not suffer from any serious infirmity.

Conclusion: The challenge to recovery and seizure failed, and the finding on lawful recovery stood affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the appellant's statement under Section 67 and the surrounding recovery evidence.

Analysis: The conviction was not founded on the statement alone. The prosecution case was supported by direct recovery from the co-accused immediately after the sale, the surrounding circumstances, and the appellant's own pre-arrest statement indicating sale to an unauthorised purchaser. The Court held that the voluntariness of a Section 67 statement depends on the facts of each case, and that even apart from that statement, the evidence sufficiently established the sale by the appellant. The burden then shifted to the appellant to explain lawful authorization, which he did not discharge.

Conclusion: The conviction was sustainable and the Section 67 based challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of guilt were upheld and no ground was made out to interfere with the conviction or sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery from a public place is governed by Section 43 and not Section 42, and a conviction may be sustained on recovery evidence together with a voluntary pre-arrest statement under Section 67 when the surrounding circumstances independently establish the offence.

---