NDPS evidence and conscious possession: uncorroborated Section 67 statements cannot sustain conviction, but control over premises can establish possession.

A conviction under the NDPS Act cannot rest solely on an uncorroborated Section 67 statement when it is treated as inadmissible against the protection against police confessions; on the facts, Abdul Aziz's conviction failed because there was no independent recovery or corroborative material, and he was entitled to acquittal. By contrast, conscious possession was established against Rajeev Verma because he was the custodian of the iron almirah in the factory, failed to produce the key, consented to opening the lock, and heroin was recovered from that almirah; his plea of prior resignation was rejected, and the Section 42(2) objection failed for substantial compliance without shown prejudice. His conviction under the NDPS Act was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be relied upon as substantive evidence in the light of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (ii) whether the appellant Rajeev Verma was in conscious possession of the seized heroin and whether alleged non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vitiated the prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether a statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be relied upon as substantive evidence in the light of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: The statement under Section 67 was treated as inadmissible for the purpose of sustaining conviction when tested against the protection against police confessions and the need for voluntariness. The Court held that, in the facts of the case, the conviction of Abdul Aziz could not rest only on the Section 67 statements of the co-accused and the appellant, there being no independent recovery or corroborative material against him.

Conclusion: The conviction of Abdul Aziz could not be sustained on the basis of the Section 67 statements alone and he was entitled to acquittal.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant Rajeev Verma was in conscious possession of the seized heroin and whether alleged non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vitiated the prosecution.

Analysis: The Court applied the doctrine of conscious possession and the statutory presumption under Section 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It found that Rajeev Verma was the custodian of the iron almirah in the factory premises, did not produce the key, consented to opening of the lock, and heroin weighing 1 kg 450 gms was recovered from the almirah. His plea of prior resignation was rejected as an afterthought. On Section 42(2), the Court held that there was substantial compliance and no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: Rajeev Verma was held to be in conscious possession of the contraband and the conviction under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: One appeal succeeded and the other failed. The co-accused Abdul Aziz was acquitted, while the conviction and sentence of Rajeev Verma were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot rest solely on an uncorroborated and inadmissible confession, and recovery from premises under the accused's control may establish conscious possession, attracting the statutory presumption unless rebutted.

---