MOHAMMED KHALID AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA

                  [2024] 3 S.C.R. 23 : 2024 INSC 158

                    Mohammed Khalid and Another
                                 v.
                       The State of Telangana
                   (Criminal Appeal No(s). 1610 of 2023)
                                 01 March 2024
                [B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of
       the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants
       for the charge u/s. 8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and
       Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

                                   Headnotes
       Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.8(c)
       r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) – Prosecution case that PW-1-Inspector and
       team members intercepted a vehicle and A-1 and A-2 were
       present in the vehicle – It was alleged that three bundles of
       ganja weighing around 80 kgs found lying in the vehicle were
       seized in the presence of PW-1 and the panchas – A-1 and A-2
       were arrested on the spot and interrogated – Acting on their
       interrogation/confession, A-3 and A-4 were arrested – Propriety:
       Held: A perusal of the evidence of the Seizure Officer (Inspector
       PW1) and the confession-cum-seizure panchnama (Exhibit P-3)
       would reveal that the prosecution claims to have recovered the
       contraband from three bags wherein the ganja as well as green
       chillies were present – Seizure Officer(Inspector PW-1) made
       no effort whatsoever to conduct a separate weighment of the
       contraband by segregating the chillies – Rather, the panchnama
       is totally silent about presence of chillies with the bundles of ganja
       – When PW-5-Investigating officer appeared for deposition, he
       produced the muddamal ganja in the Court and it was seen that
       the same was packed in seven new bags as against the three
       bags referred to in the seizure memo (Exhibit P-3) – Neither
       any proceedings were conducted nor any memo was prepared
       by the police officers for repacking the seized ganja bundles in
       new packaging – Two independent panchas were not examined
       – LW-10, who prepared three samples of ganja as per PW-5 was
       also not examined – In addition thereto, the prosecution neither
* Author
24                                                            [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


      examined any witness nor produced any document to satisfy the
      Court regarding safe keeping of the samples right from the time
      of the seizure till the same reached the FSL – No proceedings
      u/s. 52A were undertaken by the Investigating officer for preparing
      inventory and obtaining samples in presence of jurisdictional
      Magistrate – As far as A-3 and A-4 are concerned, it is not the
      case of the prosecution that the accused A-3 and A-4 were found
      in possession of ganja – The entire case of the prosecution as
      against these two accused is based on the interrogation notes of
      A-1 and A-2 – It is trite that confession of an accused recorded
      by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is
      hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act – The evidence of the police
      witnesses is full of contradictions and is thoroughly unconvincing
      – The conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the
      trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is illegal on the face of
      record and suffers from highest degree of perversity. [Paras 19-24]

                                 List of Acts
      Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Evidence
      Act, 1872.

                              List of Keywords
      Recovery of narcotics; Confession-cum-seizure panchnama; Power
      of seizure and arrest in public place; Power to stop and search
      conveyance; Independent panch witnesses; Safe keeping of
      samples; Preparation of inventory; Obtaining samples in presence
      of jurisdictional Magistrate; Confession recorded by Police.

                             Case Arising From
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1610
      of 2023
      From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2022 of the High Court
      for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLA No. 594 of 2011
                          Appearances for Parties
      C. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Adv., Vikram Hegde, Chitwan Sharma, Ms.
      Chinmayi Shrivastava, Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Tushar Singh, Praseena
      Elizabeth Joseph, Advs. for the Appellants.
      Kumar Vaibhaw, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Mohd. Ashaab, Advs. for the
      Respondent.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                        25

       Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment
     Mehta, J.
1.   These appeals take exception to the final impugned judgment
     dated 10th November, 2022 passed by the High Court for the State
     of Telangana at Hyderabad rejecting the Criminal Appeal No.
     594 of 2011 preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment
     dated 30th May, 2011 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
     Hyderabad(hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’) in Sessions
     Case No. 563 of 2010.
2.   By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court, convicted the
     appellants for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read
     with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
     Substances Act, 1985(hereinafter being referred to as the
     ‘NDPS Act’) and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous
     imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of
     Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for
     a period of six months.
3.   During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, A-1 (Mohd.
     Ishaq Ansari) expired and, therefore, the proceedings qua him stood
     abated before the High Court.
4.   For the sake of convenience, the accused will be referred to as
     A-1(Md. Ishaq Ansari)(expired), A-2(S.A. Shafiullah), A-3(Mohd.
     Khalid) and A-4(Md. Afsar).
     Brief Facts :
5.   Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police(PW-1), West Zone Task
     Force (hereinafter being referred to as ‘Inspector PW-1’) claims
     to have received credible information on 8th May, 2009 regarding
     transportation of ganja by two persons from Sangareddy to
     Hyderabad in a ‘Toyota Qualis’ vehicle. PW-1 apprised his superior
     officers about such source information and after obtaining permission,
     secured the presence of two panchas, namely, Shareef Shah and
     Mithun Jana, to associate as panchas and proceeded to the spot
     along with his team. The Inspector PW-1 and the team members
     intercepted a Toyota Qualis vehicle bearing registration no. AP 09
26                                                         [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


      AL 6323 near Galaxy Theatre at 15:00 hours. A-1 and A-2 were
      allegedly found present in the vehicle. The Inspector PW-1 served
      them a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. On the request of
      the accused, a Gazetted Officer i.e., Inspector PW-4(V. Shambabu)
      was called to the spot to associate in the proceedings. The accused
      were again given a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act by PW-
      4(V. Shyambabu) who also participated in the search proceedings
      and it is alleged that three bundles of ganja weighing around 80
      kgs found lying in the vehicle were seized in presence of Inspector
      PW-1 and the panchas.
6.    A-1 and A-2 were arrested and interrogated at the spot. Three samples
      weighing about 50 grams were drawn from each bundle contraband
      and remaining muddamal ganja was seized vide confession-cum-
      seizure panchnama (Exhibit P-3). One part of the sample was handed
      over to A-1 and A-2.
7.    Inspector PW-1 thereafter proceeded to hand over the accused along
      with the seized articles to LW-10(G. Naresh Kumar, Sub-Inspector
      of Police, Golkonda Police Station)(hereinafter being referred to as
      ‘Sub-Inspector LW-10’) for further action. Based on these proceedings,
      a complaint came to be lodged at the Golkonda Police Station and
      Criminal Case No. 181 of 2009 was registered and investigation
      was commenced.
8.    One part of sample collected from the recovered contraband was
      forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) from where a
      report (Exhibit P-11) was received concluding that the sample was
      of ganja as defined under Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act. Acting on
      the confession/interrogation of the two occupants of the car, i.e.
      A-1 and A-2, the Investigating Officer (PW-5 K. Chandrasekhar
      Reddy)(hereinafter being referred to as ‘Investigating Officer PW-
      5’) apprehended the accused A-3 and A-4. After concluding the
      investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the four accused in
      the trial Court.
9.    Upon being charged for the offence punishable under Section 8 read
      with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, the accused pleaded not
      guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses
      and exhibited 13 documents to prove its case as per the following
      table:-
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                      27

       Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana



      PW1           M. Srinivasa Rao, complainant-cum-investigating
                    officer
      PW2           Mohd. Illiyas Akber, panch witness
      PW3           Sk. Shamshuddin Ahmed, panch
      PW4           V. Shyambabu, Gazetted Officer
      PW5           K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Investigating Officer

      Exhibit P1    Notice to accused
      Exhibit P2    Complaint
      Exhibit P3    Confession-cum-seizure panchnama of A1 and A2
      Exhibit P4    Bunch of (2) photographs
      Exhibit P5    Signature of PW2 on panchnama of A3
      Exhibit P6    Signature of PW2 on panchnama of A4
      Exhibit P7    Signature of PW3 on panchnama of A3
      Exhibit P8    Signature of PW3 on panchnama of A4
      Exhibit P9    Notice to accused No. 1 and 2
      Exhibit P10 First Information Report
      Exhibit P11   FSL Report
      Exhibit P12 Seizure panchnama of A3
      Exhibit P13 Seizure panchnama of A4
10. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 of Code of
    Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’)
    denied the prosecution allegations but chose not to lead any evidence
    in defence. The trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the
    accused in the above terms by the judgment dated 30th May, 2011.
11. Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentence awarded by
    the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal under Section 374(2)
    CrPC in the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
    which stood rejected vide the judgment dated 10th November, 2022.
12. A-3 and A-4 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 2023 and
    A-2 has preferred Criminal appeal No. 1611 of 2023 for assailing
    the impugned judgment dated 10th November, 2022 of High Court
    whereby the conviction recorded and sentences awarded to the
    accused by the trial Court have been affirmed.
28                                                           [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


      Submissions on behalf of the accused appellants :
13. Learned counsel representing A-2(S.A. Shafiullah) advanced the
    following submissions to assail the impugned judgment and seeking
    acquittal for the accused:-
      (i)    That the independent panch witnesses associated with the
             search and seizure were not examined in evidence and hence
             the entire search and seizure proceedings become doubtful
             and are vitiated;
      (ii)   That it is admitted that the contraband ganja was seized from
             three bags which were also having green chillies therein.
             However, the Seizure Officer made no effort whatsoever to
             segregate the chillies and the alleged contraband and hence it
             cannot be held with any degree of certainty that the recovered
             contraband ganja fell within the category of commercial quantity;
      (iii) That the prosecution failed to ensure compliance of the
            requirements of Section 52A of the NDPS Act inasmuch as,
            no sampling procedure was undertaken before the Magistrate;
      (iv) That the Seizure Officer (Inspector PW-1) claims to have
           collected a total of three samples (one from each bundle of
           ganja) and handed over one part of the sample to the accused.
           However, when the articles were received at the FSL, three
           distinct sample packages were found which upon testing gave
           the presence of ‘cannabis sativa’. It was thus submitted that
           only two samples remained with the Investigation Officer and
           hence there is a grave contradiction and doubt regarding the
           sanctity of the samples collected by the Seizure Officer (Inspector
           PW-1) at the time of seizure.
      (v)    Attention of the Court was also drawn to the evidence of PW-5
             who stated that three samples of ganja were taken by Sub-
             Inspector LW-10, who handed over these sample packets to
             witness. However, this fact is contradicted by the evidence of
             the Seizure Officer(Inspector PW-1)), who stated that it was he
             who collected three samples from the contraband(three bundles
             of ganja) and handed one over to the accused under proper
             acknowledgment. Thus, as per the learned counsel, the FSL
             report is honest in the eyes of law as the sampling procedure
             is totally flawed;
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                         29

       Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana


     (vi) That three bundles/packets of ganja were allegedly seized
          from the vehicle ‘Toyota Qualis’ in possession of A-1(Mohd.
          Ishaq Ansari) and A-2(S.A. Shafiullah) but when Investigating
          Officer PW-5 appeared in the witness box, he produced seven
          packets wherein the contraband was packed. These packets
          were not having any seals or identifying marks, i.e., signature
          of the accused and the panchas. Thus, it is apparent that the
          original muddamal seized at the spot was never produced and
          exhibited in the Court;
     (vii) That Sub-Inspector LW-10 who allegedly handed over
           the sample packets to Investigating Officer PW-5 was not
           examined in evidence. Furthermore, the carrier Constable who
           transmitted the samples to the FSL was also not examined by
           the prosecution;
     (viii) No document pertaining to deposit of the samples at the Police
            Station and the transmission thereof to the FSL was exhibited
            on record. The samples were forwarded to the FSL after a
            gross delay of more than two months and hence, the FSL
            report cannot be read in evidence because the required link
            evidence is missing.
14. Learned counsel representing A-3 and A-4 urged that these accused
    were not found present at the spot at the time of seizure. They were
    arrested on 30th May, 2009 merely on the basis of the interrogation
    notes of A-1 and A-2 and were charged for offence under Section 8
    read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act. As the prosecution never
    came out with a case that the contraband was recovered from the
    possession of these two accused, their conviction for the offence
    under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act is ex
    facie illegal and unsustainable on the face of the record.
     Arguments on behalf of State :
15. Per contra, learned counsel representing the State, vehemently and
    fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel
    for the appellants. He urged that two Courts, i.e., the trial Court as
    well as the High Court, have recorded concurrent findings of facts
    for convicting the appellants and for affirming their conviction and
    hence, this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of
    the Constitution of India should be slow to interfere in such concurrent
    findings of facts. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeals.
30                                                            [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


      Discussion and Conclusion :
16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
    advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment
    and the evidence available on record.
17. Before discussing the prosecution evidence, we would like to note
    that the case as set up by the prosecution is regarding recovery
    of narcotics from a vehicle which was stopped during transit.
    Thus, the procedure of search and seizure would be governed
    by Section 43 read with Section 49 of the NDPS Act which are
    reproduced below:-
          “43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place.—Any
          officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section
          42 may—
          (a)   seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug
                or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in
                respect of which he has reason to believe an offence
                punishable under this Act has been committed, and,
                along with such drug or substance, any animal or
                conveyance or article liable to confiscation under
                this Act, any document or other article which he
                has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the
                commission of an offence punishable under this Act
                or any document or other article which may furnish
                evidence of holding any illegally acquired property
                which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture
                under Chapter V-A of this Act;
          (b)   detain and search any person whom he has reason
                to believe to have committed an offence punishable
                under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic
                drug or psychotropic substance or controlled
                substance in his possession and such possession
                appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any
                other person in his company.
          Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the
          expression “public place” includes any public conveyance,
          hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible
          to, the public.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                            31

       Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana


           49. Power to stop and search conveyance.—Any officer
           authorised under Section 42, may, if he has reason to
           suspect that any animal or conveyance is, or is about to be,
           used for the transport of any narcotic drug or psychotropic
           substance [or controlled substance], in respect of which
           he suspects that any provision of this Act has been, or
           is being, or is about to be, contravened at any time, stop
           such animal or conveyance, or, in the case of an aircraft,
           compel it to land and—
           (a)   rummage and search the conveyance or part thereof;
           (b)   examine and search any goods on the animal or in
                 the conveyance;
           (c)   if it becomes necessary to stop the animal or the
                 conveyance, he may use all lawful means for stopping
                 it, and where such means fail, the animal or the
                 conveyance may be fired upon.”
18. We now proceed to some important excerpts from the prosecution
    evidence:-
     (a)   Complaint dated 8th May, 2009(Exhibit P-2)
           “Then I recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchnama
           of the accused persons A-1 and seized three bundles
           containing Ganja in it from their possession. On weighing
           the three bundles it was found about 80 kgs of Ganja in it.
           Out of the seized Ganja we have taken three samples and
           marked as S-1 and S-3 each sample packet containing
           50 grams of Ganja and affixed panch chits. Also seized
           Maroon, colour Qualis vehicle bearing No. AP 09AL 6323
           Engine No. 2L9722612, Chassis No. LF50-104863512/01
           from the possession of the accused persons. Out of the
           seized Ganja drawn three samples containing 50 grams
           marked S-1 to S-3, each packed in polythene covers and
           attached panch chits to them. The sample is supplied to
           the accused Mohd Ishaq Ansari and S.A. Ashafiullah.”
     (b)   Exhibit P-11(FSL Report) –
           “Received one sealed cloth parcel sealed with six seals,
           which are intact and tallying with the sample seal labelled as
32                                                         [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


            “Cr. No. 181/2009” containing a cardboard box containing
            three closed polythene packets each labelled as “S-1,
            S-2 & S-3” respectively described below through Sri K.
            Narsimulu, PC 7770 on 14/07/2009.”
      (C) PW-1
            “I collected three samples weighing about 50 gms each
            and given one sample to the accused under proper
            acknowledgement.”
            “M.O.I is the ganja packed in seven bags.”
            “There are no panch chits right now on M.O.I bags.”
            “It is true that the bags, deposited before the court are
            not having, seals. I, have weighed the Ganja only and it
            is weighing 80 Kgs, but I have not weighed the chillies.
            The total weight of the Ganja bundles as mentioned in
            the panchnama includes the weight, of chillies. I have not
            mentioned about sealing of samples in my panchnama. I
            have not mentioned in panchnama in what containers. I
            have taken, the samples.”
            “As per the panchnama one sample was given to the
            accused. I have taken 3 samples and out of them I have
            given one sample to both the accused and two samples
            I handed over in police station.”
      (d)   PW-4
            “PW1 seized 3 ganja bundles weighing around 80 kgs and
            collected samples of 50 grams from the bundles.”
      (e)   PW-5
            “Originally three bundles of ganja was seized from the
            accused and as the Ganja was becoming dry and turning
            into dust, and due to the holes of the bags it is coming
            out, and therefore we transferred the Ganja into 7 new
            bags, which was already marked as M.O.1.”
            “Three samples of Ganja have been taken by LW 10 and
            handed over the samples to me. We have forwarded the
            three samples to FSL through A.C.P., and submitted FSL
            report Ex. P.11.”
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                          33

       Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana


           “The samples were taken on 8.5.2009 and they were
           forwarded to FSL on 7.7.2009 i.e. after two months of
           taking of samples. The samples were not deposited in
           the court.”
           “I did not file any document to show that where the
           property was kept in Maalkhana. I did not produce any
           Maalkhana register in this case. The property was sent to
           FSL after two months of its seizure. The FSL report, does
           not disclose about the panch chits and seals and quantity
           of samples. The property deposited in court is not having
           any official seals.”
           “I did not report to the court till today that the ganja was
           getting dried up and becoming dust, I converted them from
           three bundles to 7 bags for safe custody.”
19. A perusal of the evidence of the Seizure Officer (Inspector PW-1) and
    the confession-cum-seizure panchnama (Exhibit P-3) would reveal
    that the prosecution claims to have recovered the contraband from
    three bags wherein the ganja as well as green chillies were present.
    Seizure Officer(Inspector PW-1) made no effort whatsoever to conduct
    a separate weighment of the contraband by segregating the chillies.
    Rather, the panchnama is totally silent about presence of chillies
    with the bundles of ganja. Thus, it cannot be said with any degree of
    certainty that the recovered ganja actually weighed 80 kgs. Seizure
    Officer(Inspector PW-1) also stated that he collected three samples
    of ganja at the spot and handed over one sample to accused. If this
    was true, apparently only two sample packets remained for being
    sent to the FSL. Contrary to the evidence of PW-1, PW-5 stated
    that three samples of ganja were taken by LW-10 who handed the
    same over to him. Thereafter, these samples were forwarded to the
    FSL through the ACP and a FSL report (Exhibit P-11) was received.
    When PW-5 appeared for deposition, he produced the muddamal
    ganja in the Court and it was seen that the same was packed in
    seven new bags as against the three bags referred to in the seizure
    memo (Exhibit P-3). Neither any proceedings were conducted nor
    any memo was prepared by the police officers for repacking the
    seized ganja bundles in new packaging.
20. The two independent panch witnesses i.e. Shareef Shah and Mithun
    Jana who were associated in the recovery proceedings, were
34                                                          [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


      not examined in evidence and no explanation was given by the
      prosecution as to why they were not being examined.
21. Sub-Inspector LW-10, who prepared three samples of ganja, as per
    the testimony of PW-5, was not examined in evidence. In addition
    thereto, the prosecution neither examined any witness nor produced
    any document to satisfy the Court regarding safe keeping of the
    samples right from the time of the seizure till the same reached the
    FSL. The official who collected the samples from the police station
    and carried the same to the FSL was not examined at the trial.
    From the quoted portion of the evidence of Seizure Officer(Inspector
    PW-1), it is clear as day light that he handed over one of the three
    samples to the accused. The witness also admitted that he did not
    mention about sealing of the samples in the panchnama. Contrary
    to the evidence of PW-1, PW-5 stated that three samples of ganja
    were taken out by Sub-Inspector LW-10 and were handed over to
    the witness who forwarded the same to the ACP for sending it to
    FSL. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not file
    any document to show that the property was kept in malkhana. The
    malkhana register was not produced in the Court. The FSL report
    (Exhibit P-11) does not disclose about the panch chits and seals
    and signature of the accused on samples. The property deposited in
    the Court(muddamal) was not having any official seals. The witness
    also admitted that he did not take any permission from the Court for
    changing the original three packets of muddamal ganja to seven new
    bags for safe keeping. These glaring loopholes in the prosecution
    case give rise to an inescapable inference that the prosecution has
    miserably failed to prove the required link evidence to satisfy the Court
    regarding the safe custody of the sample packets from the time of
    the seizure till the same reached the FSL. Rather, the very possibility
    of three samples being sent to FSL is negated by the fact that the
    Seizure Officer handed over one of the three collected samples to
    the accused. Thus, their remained only two samples whereas three
    samples reached the FSL. This discrepancy completely shatters the
    prosecution case.
22. Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act
    were undertaken by the Investigating Officer PW-5 for preparing an
    inventory and obtaining samples in presence of the jurisdictional
    Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the FSL report(Exhibit P-11)
    is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence. The
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                          35

       Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana


     accused A-3 and A-4 were not arrested at the spot. The offence under
     Section 20(b)(ii)(c) deals with production, manufacture, possession,
     sale, purchase, transport, import or export of cannabis. It is not the
     case of the prosecution that the accused A-3 and A-4 were found
     in possession of ganja. The highest case of the prosecution which
     too is not substantiated by any admissible or tangible evidence is
     that these two accused had conspired sale/purchase of ganja with
     A-1 and A-2. The entire case of the prosecution as against these
     two accused is based on the interrogation notes of A-1 and A-2.
23. It is trite that confession of an accused recorded by a Police Officer
    is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by Section 25 of the
    Evidence Act. Neither the trial Court nor the High Court adverted
    to this fatal flaw in the prosecution case and proceeded to convict
    A-3 and A-4 in a sheerly mechanical manner without there being
    on iota of evidence on record of the case so as to hold them guilty.
24. As a consequence of the above discussion, we are of the firm
    opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges
    against the accused. The evidence of the police witnesses is full
    of contradictions and is thoroughly unconvincing. The conviction of
    the accused appellants as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed
    by the High Court is illegal on the face of record and suffers from
    highest degree of perversity.
25. Resultantly, the judgment dated 10th November, 2022 passed by the
    High Court affirming the judgment of the trial Court convicting and
    sentencing the accused appellants for the charge under Section 8(c)
    read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act is hereby quashed and set
    aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. They are in
    custody and shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other
    case.
26. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


     Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan                   Result of the case:
                                                           Appeals allowed.