JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant seeks to quash the judgment dated August 5, 2004 of the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Cases Jodhpur rendered in Sessions Case No. 71/1997, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'N.D.P.S. Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri B.L. Soni, the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer received an information that the accused Rahim, who had jumped the bail in a case under TADA, has come from Pakistan with white bag and concealed the same in his village at about 2 kms. away and 300 yards from the road. On the basis of such information the officers of Narcotic Bureau, Jodhpur reached at Jaisalmer and deputed Amra Ram Circle Inspector, Ramgarh to conduct the search and issued the warrants for searching the house of Rahim Khan. In pursuance of the warrants the alleged house was searched in presence of Rahim's mother on August 25, 1996. Some Narcotics were recovered from a concealed cavity inside the house. Recovery of heroin was also effected from an open place. The case was registered against Rahim and investigation commenced. On May 7, 1997 when Rahim Khan reached at Jaisalmer the information was sent by the Superintendent of Police to the Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur who deputed Bhupendra Chheepa as Investigating Officer. Bhupendra Chheepa apprehended Rahim on May 8, 1997. Rahim made confessional statement under section 67 of Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and thereafter he was arrested. Necessary memos were drawn and after usual investigation charge-sheet was filed. Charge under sections 8/23, 8/21, 8/27-A and 8/29, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act 3/6 IPPR was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as sixteen witnesses. The appellant in his explanation under section 313, Cr.P.C. claimed innocence and stated that he had no house in Tekri of Sumar. He stated that the officers have got his thumb impression by force. 3. The contention advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the provisions of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act were not complied with. He stated that the officers have got his thumb impression by force. 3. The contention advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the provisions of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act were not complied with. The alleged secret information has not been taken down in writing nor copy thereof has been forwarded to the superior officers. The Superintendent of Police after receiving the secret information much prior to August 24, 1996 waited for the officers of Narcotic Control Board to conduct the search. Although the warrants were issued by the TADA Court against the accused, but the Superintendent of Police did not arrest the accused and waited for the officers of Narcotic Control Board. Reliance is placed on Raj Mal v. Union of India, 1998 (2) RCC 390 , and Raman Lal Bhogi Lal Shah and another v. D.K. Guha and others, 1973 Cr.L.R. (SC) 454 . 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India canvassed that the statement recorded under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act of the appellant can be read against him and he was rightly convicted and sentenced. 5. I have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 6. I shall first take up the arguments in respect of the confessional statements of the appellant Ex. P/35. A look at the statements (Ex. P/35) reveals that it was recorded on May 8, 1997 at 10.30 p.m. by Bhupendra Chhipa (P.W. 121). In his deposition Bhupendra Chhipa stated that pursuant to the summons issued the appellant appeared before him at 4.00 p.m., the appellant then volunteered to give statement which was recorded at 10.30 p.m. by him vide Ex. P/35. In his statement the appellant confessed that he took heroin from Pakistan and concealed it in the house. Bhupendra Chhipa further stated that the appellant was arrested vide Ex. P/36 on May 8, 1997. A look at Ex. P/36 goes to show that the arrest was effected on May 8, 1997 at 11.00 p.m. Evidently the arrest came to be made after the statement of appellant was recorded. The statement of Bhupendra Chippa could not be shattered in the cross examination. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced before me a look at section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act appears necessary. The statement of Bhupendra Chippa could not be shattered in the cross examination. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced before me a look at section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act appears necessary. Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act provides as under: 67. Power to call for information etc.-Any officer referred to in section 42 who is authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, during the course of any enquiry in connection with the contravention of any provision of this Act- (a) call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder; (b) require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry; (c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case." 8. The Apex Court in Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 1167 , and Bhanabhai Khalpa Bhai v. The Collector of Customs, 1994 (1) Crimes 40 , indicated that the statements of accused recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act can be used against him if it is recorded before the accused is taken into custody. Provisions contained in section 108 of the Customs Act are pars material with the provisions of section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. 9. In the instant case as already noticed the statements of the appellant were recorded at 10.30 p.m. on May 7, 1997 and he was taken into custody at 11.00 p.m., therefore it cannot be said that the provisions contained in section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act are not attracted. Ratio indicated in Raj Mal v. Union of India , (supra) and Raman Lal Bhogi Lal Shah and another v. D.K. Guha and others (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 10. The confessional statement of the appellant recorded under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act by the officer of the Narcotic Department is admissible in evidence and it can be read against the appellant. 10. The confessional statement of the appellant recorded under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act by the officer of the Narcotic Department is admissible in evidence and it can be read against the appellant. In my opinion the appellant does not have any protection under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution in view of the provisions contained in section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. 11. A look at the statement of D.S. Tomar (P.W. 2) goes to show that he recorded the statements of Fatima Begum, mother of the appellant, under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act on August 25, 1996, wherein she deposed that the house from where heroine was recovered owned by the appellant. Amara Ram (P.W. 3) also stated that Fatima Begum, mother of the appellant, told them that the house belonged to appellant and it could be searched. From the material on record it is established beyond reasonable doubt that heroin was recovered from the place which was in the conscious possession of the appellant. 12. Having closely scrutinised the testimony of prosecution witnesses from the point of view of trustworthiness, I find them reliable. The guilt against the appellant under section 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act is established in view of his confessional statement recorded under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. In such a situation non-compliance of the provisions of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act does not effect the prosecution case. 13. For these reasons I do not find any merit in the appeal, it stands dismissed accordingly. *******