Retracted confession, invalid sanction, and broken chain of custody cannot sustain a conviction in a contraband prosecution.

A retracted confession is inadmissible where surrounding circumstances show coercion, custodial ill-treatment, and unexplained injuries, as voluntary and reliable consent is absent. Sanction for prosecution is invalid if the order does not disclose the case facts, the sanctioning authority's satisfaction, or the materials considered, indicating no application of mind. The prosecution must also prove a reliable, untampered chain of custody for seized contraband from seizure to chemical analysis; failure to establish safe custody and transmission makes the evidence unsafe to rely on. On these principles, conviction could not stand on inadmissible confessions, invalid sanction, and unproved custody of the seized material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confessional statements relied on by the prosecution were voluntary and admissible in evidence. (ii) Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid. (iii) Whether the prosecution proved safe custody and transmission of the seized contraband so as to exclude tampering.

Issue (i): Whether the confessional statements relied on by the prosecution were voluntary and admissible in evidence.

Analysis: The confession attributed to the petitioner was retracted, and the surrounding circumstances indicated coercion and ill-treatment. The medical evidence showed injuries consistent with assault while in custody, and the prosecution did not explain those injuries. The contemporaneous complaints made by the accused also supported the claim that the statements were not voluntary. A confession made to a person in authority, when shown to have been obtained by inducement, threat, or coercion, cannot be treated as reliable evidence against the accused.

Conclusion: The confessional statements were not voluntary and were inadmissible against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid.

Analysis: The sanction order did not disclose the facts of the case or the grounds of satisfaction of the sanctioning authority. The authority who granted sanction was not examined, and no evidence was produced to show what materials were placed before it. A sanction granted in such a mechanical manner, without application of mind to the relevant facts, is not a valid sanction for prosecution.

Conclusion: The sanction for prosecution was invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether the prosecution proved safe custody and transmission of the seized contraband so as to exclude tampering.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish a reliable chain of custody from seizure to chemical analysis. The witnesses could not state with certainty where the seized articles were kept or how they were handled before dispatch to the laboratory, and the relevant custodians were not examined. In the absence of dependable proof that the seized material remained untampered with, the prosecution evidence on the contraband could not safely be relied upon.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove an unimpeached chain of custody of the seized contraband.

Final Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained on the basis of inadmissible confessions, an invalid sanction, and an unproved chain of custody, and the petitioner was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot rest on a retracted and involuntary confession, and where prosecution sanction is mechanical and the custody of seized material is not reliably proved, the prosecution fails for want of legally dependable evidence.

---