NDPS seizure from a vehicle falls under Section 43; uncorroborated Section 67 statements cannot sustain conviction.

Interception and seizure of contraband from a cargo vehicle in a public place was treated as falling under Section 43 of the NDPS Act, not Section 42, and Section 50 was held inapplicable because there was no personal search of the accused. Compliance with seizure, sealing, storage, inventory and sampling under Section 52A was accepted, and the forensic report confirmed ganja, sustaining conviction of the appellants found in the vehicle. By contrast, where the remaining appellants were not shown to be present in the vehicle and the case depended mainly on Section 67 statements without independent corroboration, the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and their conviction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure and sampling of the contraband from the cargo vehicle complied with the requirements of the NDPS Act, including the applicability of Sections 42, 43, 50 and 52A, and whether the conviction of the appellants found in the vehicle could be sustained. (ii) Whether the conviction of the remaining appellants could rest on statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure and sampling of the contraband from the cargo vehicle complied with the requirements of the NDPS Act, including the applicability of Sections 42, 43, 50 and 52A, and whether the conviction of the appellants found in the vehicle could be sustained.

Analysis: The interception and seizure took place in a public place from a cargo vehicle, so the matter fell within Section 43 of the NDPS Act rather than Section 42. The officers were found to be empowered, the informer's information was reduced into writing, and the subsequent seizure, sealing, storage and sampling were treated as duly complied with. Section 50 was held inapplicable because there was no personal search of the accused, only seizure from the vehicle. The inventory and sampling procedure under Section 52A was accepted as properly followed and the forensic report confirmed the substance as ganja. The evidence was sufficient to establish possession and transport by the appellants found in the vehicle.

Conclusion: The challenge to conviction failed for the appellants who were found in the vehicle, and their conviction and sentence were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction of the remaining appellants could rest on statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The remaining appellants were not shown to be present in the vehicle and the case against them substantially depended on statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. In the absence of independent corroboration, such statements could not safely form the basis of conviction. The evidence did not establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The conviction of the remaining appellants was unsustainable and was set aside in their favour.

Final Conclusion: The appeals of the appellants found in the vehicle were dismissed, while the appeals of the remaining appellants were allowed and they were acquitted. The judgment thus sustained the conviction only against those directly connected with the intercepted transport.

Ratio Decidendi: In an NDPS prosecution, seizure from a public place or vehicle is governed by Section 43, Section 50 does not apply to a non-personal search, and a conviction cannot rest solely on an uncorroborated Section 67 statement.

---