Confession Under Section 67 NDPS Act Must Be Voluntary, True, and Corroborated to Sustain Conviction: Delhi High Court

"Minor Procedural Lapses in Section 42 and 50 Compliance Do Not Invalidate Prosecution When Substantial Compliance and No Prejudice is Proven - Delhi High Court upheld the convictions of three accused under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), while reducing their sentences to the periods already undergone in light of mitigating circumstances.

The appellants—Rajinder Kumar, Syed Abu Ala, and Mohd. Altaf—were convicted for conspiracy, possession, and unauthorized dealing in controlled substances used for heroin manufacture. The case centered on their roles in a heroin manufacturing and trafficking network, involving large recoveries of heroin and controlled substances like Acetic Anhydride.

In November 1999, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) received information about the arrest of Syed Abu Ala in Bangalore with 18 kg of heroin. A subsequent search of properties in Delhi led to the discovery of 32.2 kg of heroin, 28 bottles of Acetic Anhydride, and other chemicals at premises linked to the accused. Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act revealed the involvement of the accused in a conspiracy to manufacture and traffic heroin.

While the Special Court convicted the accused in 2010, the Delhi High Court was tasked with examining the procedural compliance under the NDPS Act, admissibility of confessions, and mitigating factors for sentencing.

The appellants argued non-compliance with Section 42 (recording of information before search) and Section 50 (informing accused of their right to be searched before a magistrate or gazetted officer).

Court’s Finding: The Court observed substantial compliance with Section 42 as the information was promptly documented and acted upon in an emergency situation to avoid removal of contraband. Citing Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009), the Court noted that minor procedural lapses did not cause prejudice to the appellants.

Section 50 Compliance: The appellants were informed of their rights, which they declined to exercise. The Court emphasized that under State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999), compliance with Section 50 must be established through evidence, which was satisfied in this case.

The appellants contended that their confessions were involuntary, coerced, and retracted, and thus inadmissible as evidence.

Court’s Finding: Relying on Sahoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966) and Shivappa v. State of Karnataka (1995), the Court underscored that a confession must be voluntary, true, and corroborated by independent evidence. The confessions of the accused were deemed voluntary, as no evidence of coercion was presented, and were corroborated by recoveries and other evidence on record.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants conspired to manufacture and traffic heroin.

Court’s Finding: The evidence established a clear chain of conspiracy. Rajinder Kumar supplied Acetic Anhydride to Syed Abu Ala, who manufactured heroin at the Teliwara property with the assistance of Mohd. Altaf. Statements under Section 67 NDPS Act and recoveries corroborated their roles.
The appellants sought leniency, citing advanced age, prolonged trials, and time already served in custody.

Court’s Finding: Acknowledging the appellants’ age, health, and lengthy incarceration, the Court reduced their sentences to the periods already undergone.
The Delhi High Court reaffirmed the convictions under the NDPS Act based on confessions, corroborative recoveries, and other evidence. However, it reduced the sentences of all three appellants, balancing the gravity of the offenses with mitigating factors such as advanced age, time served, and prolonged trials.

Date of Decision: December 24, 2024