NDPS confession evidence and conspiracy proof: inadmissible Section 67 statement could not sustain conviction without admissible proof.

A conviction under the NDPS Act cannot rest on a Section 67 statement treated as a confessional statement to a Section 53 officer, because such material is inadmissible against the accused. The prosecution must also prove, through legally admissible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused supplied the contraband or joined a criminal conspiracy under Sections 22(c) and 29. Where the consignment was booked by a co-accused, no recovery was made from the accused, no reliable evidence linked him to delivery or conspiracy, and a crucial transport witness was withheld, the essential ingredients of the offences are not established. The conviction was unsustainable and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be used against the accused in the prosecution under the Act. (ii) Whether the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had supplied the psychotropic substance or was a party to a criminal conspiracy attracting Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be used against the accused in the prosecution under the Act.

Analysis: A statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is a confessional statement made to an officer invested with powers under Section 53 of the Act. Such a statement cannot be treated as admissible evidence for conviction. The prosecution and the courts below had relied upon the appellant's Section 67 statement, but that material could not legally be read against him.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had supplied the psychotropic substance or was a party to a criminal conspiracy attracting Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The consignment was booked by the co-accused, and there was no recovery from the appellant. There was no admissible evidence showing that the contraband was delivered by or on behalf of the appellant, nor any reliable proof of his participation in a criminal conspiracy. The prosecution also withheld the crucial transport witness, warranting an adverse inference. In the absence of legal evidence, the ingredients of Sections 22(c) and 29 were not established.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable in law, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal on the charges framed against him.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cannot rest on an inadmissible Section 67 confession or on unproved allegations of supply or conspiracy; the prosecution must establish the essential ingredients through legally admissible evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

---