NDPS evidence rules exclude section 67 confessions, require section 52A sampling compliance, and demand proof of possession.

Statements recorded by officers empowered under section 53 of the NDPS Act are treated as police statements for section 25 of the Evidence Act, so section 67 confessions are inadmissible in trial. Independent-witness statements were also excluded because the prosecution failed to show any statutory ground for non-production of those witnesses. Sampling at seizure without the Magistrate-supervised procedure under section 52A was held not to satisfy the statutory scheme and seriously undermined the seized material. On the facts, possession of the contraband was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, as the appellants were not shown to have custody or control. The conviction could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confessional statements recorded by officers empowered under the NDPS Act could be relied upon against the accused. (ii) Whether the statements of independent witnesses were admissible in the absence of proof that their presence could not be secured. (iii) Whether the drawing of samples at the time of seizure, without compliance with section 52A of the NDPS Act, vitiated the prosecution case. (iv) Whether the prosecution proved possession of the contraband by the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue (i): Whether confessional statements recorded by officers empowered under the NDPS Act could be relied upon against the accused.

Analysis: Officers invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers for the purpose of section 25 of the Evidence Act. A statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in a trial under the NDPS Act, and such statements must be excluded from consideration.

Conclusion: The confessional statements were inadmissible and could not be used against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the statements of independent witnesses were admissible in the absence of proof that their presence could not be secured.

Analysis: The relevant statutory requirement made such statements relevant only in specified circumstances, including where the maker was dead, unavailable, incapable of giving evidence, kept out of the way, or where attendance could not be obtained without unreasonable delay or expense. The prosecution failed to establish any of these conditions, and no explanation was offered for the non-examination of the witnesses.

Conclusion: The statements of the independent witnesses were not admissible in evidence.

Issue (iii): Whether the drawing of samples at the time of seizure, without compliance with section 52A of the NDPS Act, vitiated the prosecution case.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the seized contraband to be forwarded for inventory, certification, and drawing of representative samples in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate. Samples drawn at the stage of seizure, without following that process, do not satisfy the requirement and create serious doubt about the prosecution version regarding the seized substance.

Conclusion: The sampling process was not in conformity with section 52A and seriously undermined the prosecution case.

Issue (iv): Whether the prosecution proved possession of the contraband by the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The contraband was recovered from a room occupied by another accused, while the appellants were not shown to have custody of the bag or control over the room. The evidence did not establish that they brought the contraband there or were in actual or constructive possession of it. In the absence of reliable corroborative evidence, the prosecution case remained doubtful.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove possession of the contraband by the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained because the inadmissible confessional material, the defective sampling process, and the absence of proof of possession left the prosecution case unproved.

Ratio Decidendi: Confessional statements made to officers empowered under section 53 of the NDPS Act are barred by section 25 of the Evidence Act, and compliance with section 52A is mandatory for representative sampling and evidentiary use of the seized contraband; absent reliable proof of possession, conviction cannot stand.

---