Chance recovery and Customs statement admissibility under NDPS and criminal procedure safeguards upheld on the facts stated.

Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was stated to be inapplicable where recovery occurred during a routine baggage check as a chance recovery, not on prior information or a search under Section 42; alleged lapses under Sections 52A, 55 and 57 were said not to vitiate the prosecution absent demonstrated prejudice. A statement recorded by a Customs officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act was treated as outside the safeguards of Section 164(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because it was not a Magistrate-recorded confession; the statement was regarded as voluntary, and belated retraction did not reduce its evidentiary value. The conviction under the NDPS Act and Customs Act was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act applied to the search and whether alleged non-compliance with Sections 52A, 55 and 57 vitiated the prosecution. (ii) Whether the statement recorded by the Customs officer was inadmissible for want of compliance with Section 164(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act applied to the search and whether alleged non-compliance with Sections 52A, 55 and 57 vitiated the prosecution.

Analysis: The recovery was made on suspicion during a routine baggage check, and not on prior information or a search initiated under Section 42. The concealment was detected after the appellant was taken for search, which brought the case within a chance recovery situation. In such a setting, the safeguard under Section 50 was held inapplicable. As to Sections 52A, 55 and 57, the record showed compliance with the prescribed procedure, and any lapse in the remaining requirements was held not to vitiate the case in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

Conclusion: The challenge based on non-compliance with Sections 50, 52A, 55 and 57 failed and was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the statement recorded by the Customs officer was inadmissible for want of compliance with Section 164(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The statement was recorded by a Customs officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act, not by a Magistrate or police officer acting under Section 164 of the Code. The safeguards applicable to a judicial confession under Section 164(2) were therefore held inapplicable. The statement was treated as voluntary and true, and the belated retraction did not impair its evidentiary value.

Conclusion: The statement was held admissible and the objection based on Section 164(2) failed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the Customs Act was upheld, and the appellate challenge did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 50 is not attracted to a chance recovery made during a routine search without prior information, and a statement recorded by a Customs officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not governed by the confession safeguards in Section 164(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---