NDPS contraband handling compliance and custodial Section 67 statement issues led to affirmation of acquittal

Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act in handling seized contraband undermined the prosecution case, because the record did not satisfactorily show lawful disposal or production of the bulk material and this weakened the genuineness of the samples. The statement recorded under Section 67 was also rejected as a voluntary confession, since it was taken after arrest while the accused was in custody, the timing was unclear, and independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. On these facts, the conviction could not be sustained and the acquittal was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution's failure to follow the procedure under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in relation to the seized contraband vitiated the conviction. (ii) Whether the accused's statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be treated as a voluntary confession.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution's failure to follow the procedure under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in relation to the seized contraband vitiated the conviction.

Analysis: The record showed that after samples were drawn, the remaining bulk contraband was handed back to the investigating officer and there was no proper order or application for destruction or disposal of the seized opium by the competent Magistrate. The trial record did not satisfactorily establish what happened to the bulk quantity, and the absence of production or lawful disposal of the seized material weakened the prosecution version and the genuineness of the samples.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish lawful compliance with Section 52A, and the finding of doubt against the prosecution was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused's statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be treated as a voluntary confession.

Analysis: The witnesses' evidence showed that the statement was recorded after arrest while the accused was in custody, the time of recording was not mentioned, and the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. On these facts, the statement could not be regarded as a voluntary confession made free from custody influence.

Conclusion: The statement under Section 67 was not voluntary and could not sustain the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal recorded by the High Court was affirmed and no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution fails to establish lawful compliance with the procedure for handling seized contraband and the alleged confession is shown to have been recorded in custody rather than voluntarily, the conviction cannot be sustained.

---