https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263733 Conviction under the NDPS Act was sustained on reliable recovery evidence, admissible Section 67 statements, and intact chain of custody. The Court held that officers acting under the Act are not police officers for Evidence Act purposes, so the appellants' un-retracted confessional statements were admissible. It also rejected the challenge based on non-examination of the bus driver, conductor, passengers, or other independent witnesses, holding that corroboration is a rule of prudence rather than an absolute requirement where prosecution evidence is cogent. In the absence of material showing tampering, and with the second appellant's own statement indicating participation, the conviction and sentence were upheld. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2015 08:47:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263733 Conviction under the NDPS Act was sustained on reliable recovery evidence, admissible Section 67 statements, and intact chain of custody. The Court held that officers acting under the Act are not police officers for Evidence Act purposes, so the appellants' un-retracted confessional statements were admissible. It also rejected the challenge based on non-examination of the bus driver, conductor, passengers, or other independent witnesses, holding that corroboration is a rule of prudence rather than an absolute requirement where prosecution evidence is cogent. In the absence of material showing tampering, and with the second appellant's own statement indicating participation, the conviction and sentence were upheld. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263733