JUDGMENT 1. - This leave Appeal is directed against judgment dated 11-12-93, passed by the Special judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jodhpur, by which the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused-respondent Gani Khan. 2. Accused Gani Khan was tried by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 21, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'the Act'). The case of the prosecution is that twenty two bags, containing 42.620 Kgs. of Charas, was recovered in the workshop of one Babu Lal by the Narcotic Department on 9-3-91. It was reported by Babu Lal the-owner of the workshop - that these bags were kept by. one Alphuddin Ghoshi. Alphuddin Ghoshi was summoned and his statement was recorded under Section 67 of the Act. He admitted the ownership of the Charas and placing the same in the workshop of Babu Lal. He further stated that he purchased this Charas on 8-3-91 from Gani Khan (9), 1200/- per Kg. and paid him a sum of Rs. 27,000/- as advance toward the price of the Charas. On 9-3-91, Gani Khan brought this Charas in a jeep bearing No. RST 4083, and delivered the same to him at about 3.30 a.m. at Jodhpur. After this, the search of the house of Gani Khan, also, made by the Narcotic Officers but nothing incriminating was found there. Even the accused was not available there. Gani Khan was, thereafter, summoned on 21-3-91, 18-4-91 and 26-5-91, for recording his statement under Section 67 of the Act but he did not cooperated with the investigating agency. There after Gani Khan was detained under Section 3(1) of the Act and on 20-2-93, his statement was recorded under Section 67 of the Act at 8.00 p.m. in the office of the petitioner at Jodhpur and his statement Ex.P.28 was recorded, in which he admitted the fact of receiving the advance amount and selling the Charas to Alphuddin Ghoshi. The prosecution in support of its case, examined ten witnesses and exhibited thirty documents. The accused, in his defence, examined four witnesses. The independent witnesses, produced by the prosecution did not support the prosecution case during the trial, and they were declared hostile. The prosecution in support of its case, examined ten witnesses and exhibited thirty documents. The accused, in his defence, examined four witnesses. The independent witnesses, produced by the prosecution did not support the prosecution case during the trial, and they were declared hostile. The learned trial Court, also, did not believe the statement of the accused recorded under Section 67 of the Act as well as that of Alphuddin Ghoshi to corroborate this statement and acquitted the accused-respondent. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Department that the accused, in his statement under Section 67 of the Act, has admitted his guilt and this statement Ex.P.28 of the accused- respondent finds corroboration from the statement of Alphuddin Ghoshi recorded under Section 67 of the Act and the case of the prosecution, therefore, stands proved from these two statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act and as such the trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused-respondent. His further case is that even from the other evidence, the case against the accused-respondents stands proved. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The case of the prosecution solely rests upon the statement of accused Gani Khan (Ex.P.28) recorded under Section 67 of the Act, which is sought to be corroborated from the statement of Alphuddin Ghoshi recorded under section 67 of the Act. So far as the other evidence is concerned, that does not connect the accused with the crime. Section 67 of the Act has been enacted for taking care of the investigatory emergencies. The sole purpose of an enquiry from the accused under the Act is to ascertain whether there is any contravention of the provisions of this Act or the Rules or the Orders made there under and any person, who is conversant or suspected to be conversant with such contravention, can be examined under Section 67 of the Act. 'Any person' under this Section, includes a person who has subsequently become an accused. But if he has already been named as an accused then his statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act can not be read against him in view of the bar created by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, as no person accused of an offence, shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. But if he has already been named as an accused then his statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act can not be read against him in view of the bar created by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, as no person accused of an offence, shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The statement of accused Gani Khan under Section 67, was recorded on 20-2-93, i.e., after about two years of the incident. The explanation, given by the Department that he was under the Preventive Detention under Section 3(1) of the Act and, therefore, his statement could not be recorded, does not inspire confidence. Even the statement recorded by the Officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau was retracted by the accused. The trial Court, also, opined that the statement given by the accused was not voluntary and the same was the out-come of duress and coercion. There is no corroboration to the statement Ex.P.28 from any other evidence. The prosecution, however, wants to place reliance over the statement of Alphuddin Ghoshi recorded under Section 67 of the Act for the purpose of corroborating the statement of the accused-respondent, but that can not be read against the accused because in this case Alphuddin was not an accused. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Alphuddin Ghoshi was an accused, though in some another case but before the same Court, therefore, his statement can be read against Gani Khan, but the statement of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the Act, can be read against a co-accused when they are jointly tried for the same offence and not in the case where they are facing different trials. Section 30 of the Evidence Act provides that when more persons that one, are tried jointly for the same offence and the confession made by one of such persons affects himself and some other person, then the Court may take into consideration such confession against such other person as well as against the person who make such confession. As Gani Khan and Alphuddin Ghoshi were not jointly tried, therefore, the statement made by Alphuddin Ghoshi under Section 67 of the Act, can not be read against accused Gani Khan for the purpose of corroborating the retracted statement Ex.P.28, alleged to have been made by accused Gani Khan. As Gani Khan and Alphuddin Ghoshi were not jointly tried, therefore, the statement made by Alphuddin Ghoshi under Section 67 of the Act, can not be read against accused Gani Khan for the purpose of corroborating the retracted statement Ex.P.28, alleged to have been made by accused Gani Khan. The learned trial Court has considered the case of the prosecution in the right perspective and has appreciated the evidence in accordance with law. Neither the appreciation of the evidence can be said to have been made in an arbitrary, unjust or improper manner nor the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court can be said to be, in any way, erroneous. 6. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this Leave to Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The Leave prayed for is refused.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******