NDPS search and seizure must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; retracted Section 67 statements alone cannot sustain conviction.

In an NDPS prosecution, the Karnataka HC found the search and seizure doubtful because the alert message and original records were not properly proved, material witnesses were not examined, and the role of the gazetted officer and identification of the accused were inconsistent. The Court held that conscious possession was not established beyond reasonable doubt, and that retracted statements under Section 67, without reliable corroboration, could not by themselves sustain conviction. As the prosecution failed to prove a genuine and lawful recovery and did not satisfactorily show compliance with mandatory safeguards, the convictions were unsustainable and the accused were entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband was lawfully and genuinely recovered from the accused so as to sustain the convictions under the NDPS Act, and whether the voluntary statements and surrounding material were sufficient to uphold guilt despite alleged procedural lapses.

Analysis: The prosecution case was found to suffer from serious infirmities in the receipt and proof of the alert message, the absence of the original documents, the non-examination of material witnesses, and inconsistencies regarding the presence and role of the gazetted officer during the search. The search and seizure were treated as doubtful in view of the unexplained delay in arrest, the lack of corroboration from independent witnesses, and the failure to establish how the accused were identified and their baggage recovered in the airport setting. The Court also held that the prosecution had not proved conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt and that the retracted statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, without reliable corroboration, could not by themselves sustain conviction.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove a genuine, lawful search and seizure and failed to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions under the NDPS Act were unsustainable and the accused were entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the NDPS Act, where the genuineness of the search and seizure is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and mandatory safeguards are not satisfactorily shown to have been complied with, conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated or retracted statements under Section 67.

---