JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under section 374[2] Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction of the appellants in CC.No.151/2004 dated 04.10.2010 by the learned Special Judge, Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai 600 104 by allowing this appeal.) 1. The above criminal appeal is filed by the appellants/accused who are arrayed as A-1 and A-2, challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on them by the learned Special Judge, Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chenai-104, dated 04.10.2010 in CC.No.151/2004. Totally, there were three accused in this case and the 3rd accused, viz., Yesudoss, died during investigation and hence, the charges against him, got abated. The appellants/A-1 and A-2 stood charged and tried for the offences under sections 8[c] r/w 21[c], 23 and 29 of NPDS Act, 1985 [Amended Act 9/2001] and the Trial Court, vide impugned judgment, had acquitted them for the alleged offence u/s.8[c] r/w 23 of NDPS Act, 1985, Amended Act 9/2001 and however convicted them for the offences under section 8[c] read with 29 and 8[c] read with 21[c] of NDPS Act, 1985, Amended Act 9/2001 and sentenced each of them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each with a default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences u/s.8[c] read with 21[c] and 8[c] read with 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 Amended Act 9/2001. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of incarceration already undergone by them, was also given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants herein/A-1 and A-2 along with one Yesudas [A-3] were found in possession of 1 Kg of Heroin which they had criminally conspired to export to Srilanka. After completion of the investigation, the Final Report had been laid by the Investigating Office against the appellants/accused for the offences under sections 8[c] read with 21[c], 23 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 [Amended Act 9/2001]. 3. The case was taken on file in CC No.151/2004 on the file of the learned Trial Judge, viz., the learned Special Judge, Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, and necessary charges were framed. The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial. 3. The case was taken on file in CC No.151/2004 on the file of the learned Trial Judge, viz., the learned Special Judge, Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, and necessary charges were framed. The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.9 and Exs.P1 to P34 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was let in. 4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313[1][b] of Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused had come with the version of total denial and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, convicted the appellants/A-1 and A-2 for the aforesaid offences and awarded punishment, as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal. 6. When the appeal came up for hearing on 27.06.2019, there was no representation for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 and therefore, the matter was directed to be listed on 01.07.2019. On 01.07.2019, this Court had called for a Report from the learned Trial Judge with regard to the said aspect and directed the case to be listed on 08.07.2019. On 08.07.2019, there was no representation for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor had submitted that the appellants/A-1 and A-2 are not complying with the condition imposed on them and hence, this Court directed the Legal Services Authority, Chennai to appoint a counsel from the Panel of Advocates to represent on behalf of the appellants/A-1 and A-2 and accordingly, Mrs.A.Veeramarthini, learned counsel was appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel to appear on behalf of the appellants/A-1 and A-2. 7. Mrs. A. Veeramarthini, learned counsel appearing as the Legal Aid Counsel for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, had put forth the following submissions: (a) The impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Judge is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 7. Mrs. A. Veeramarthini, learned counsel appearing as the Legal Aid Counsel for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, had put forth the following submissions: (a) The impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Judge is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. (b) The seizure effected by the Intelligence Officers is illegal and not as per the norms mandated under the provisions of NDPS Act. (c) The witnesses, viz., Jaffar Sadique and John, who were respectively, the Incharge and Manager of the Guest House, and who stood as the witnesses to the seizure of the contraband, were not examined on the side of the prosecution and only the officials from the Intelligence Department/respondent herein, were examined as the prosecution witnesses and the non-examination of the independent witnesses casts a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. (d) The Trial Court had failed to take into consideration that the statements recorded from the accused under section 67 of NDPS Act, are not voluntary in nature and that the same were obtained under threat and coercion and the same has been retracted at the earliest point of time. (e) The mandatory provisions contemplated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have not been complied with. (f) The 1st appellant/A-1 is stated to be a Srilankan National and the prosecution has not informed about the arrest of the 1st appellant/A-1 to the Srilankan Embassy which throws a considerable doubt in the case of the prosecution. (g) Non compliance of the provision under section 57 of NDPS Act would vitiate the case of the prosecution. In sum and substance, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 submitted that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, warrants interference and prayed for allowing of the appeal. 8. Per contra, Mr. N.P. Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor [NDPS Cases] appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and made the following submissions:- i. Though the independent witnesses were not examined in the Court, their statements were obtained after duly complying with the norms prescribed u/s.67 of NDPS Act pursuant to the issuance of the summons to them under Exs.P.29 and 31. ii. ii. Section 57 of NDPS Act has been duly complied with and the Reports under section 57 of the Act was prepared by P.W.7 within 48 hours. iii. As regards seizure of the contraband, the prosecution has amply proved the same by cogent and clear evidence of the Intelligence Officials, viz., P.Ws.3 to 7 and there is no discrepancies in their evidence and that the appellants/A-1 and A-2 had not retracted the proceedings of the officials at the earliest stage and they, in fact, had accepted of having the possession of contraband in question and A-1 had volunteered himself to produce the same. In a nutshell, it is the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the Trial Court, by its detailed judgment had analysed the above aspects in extenso and awarded the punishment and the same warrants no interference. 9. In support of his contentions, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent placed reliance on the following decisions:- [a] 2008 [1] Crimes 154 [SC] [Kanhaiyalal V. Union of India] ; [b] 2015 [0] Supreme [SC] 1042 [Baldev Singh V. State of Haryana] ; [c] 2016 [4] Crimes [SC] 326 [Dilbagh Singh V. State of Punjab]. 10. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction, including the relevant provisions of Law and authorities of various Courts. 11. The point arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether the Trial Court is right in convicting the appellants/A-1 and A-2 for the aforesaid offences? 12. While analysing the evidence of the prosecution, P.W.1-Karthikeyan, had stated that he was the Investigating Officer of DRI, at Chennai, and that he laid the Intelligence Report under Ex.P.1 stating that on 21.03.2004 between 11.15 a.m. and 11.30 a.m., A-2 in this case was to hand over 1 Kg of Heroin to A-1, a Srilankan, who was staying at Room No.110, Royal In Guest House, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, who in turn, was to hand over the same to Yesudass [A-3], a Srilankan, in the same room. He had further stated that he had handed over the said Intelligence Report to his superior officer who had countersigned the said report. He had further stated that he had handed over the said Intelligence Report to his superior officer who had countersigned the said report. In the cross examination, P.W.1 had stated that he did not mention about the time of gathering of intelligence and that the said report was given in original and that there was no other copy of the said report. He had further stated that he is having official authority to take action against A-1 if he was found in possession of the narcotic drug ; however, during his surveillance, A-1 was not found in possessing of the drug. It is further statement that he did not participate in search and seizure. 13. P.W.2-Ameer Raza Khan, had stated about the receipt of the sample drug marked as P1N1 on 31.03.2004 from the learned Judge along with a requisition letter to subject the said sample for examination through one Suresh, Chemical Examiner. He examined the sample drug as per the provisions contemplated under the United Nation Manual and issued Ex.P.2-Analysis Report, wherien he had opined that the said sample drug is Heroin [Diacetylmorphine] and its purity is assessed at 42.1%. 14. P.W.3-Joshua, the Investigating Officer had stated that he is having the authority/power to search, enquire and to seize the offended drugs under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On 21.03.2004, P.W.3 was called by Mr.Arul Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer and he had informed P.W.3 that A-1 [Mohamed Shiyam @ Mahesh], a Srilankan, was indulging in smuggling and that he was staying in Room No.110, Royal In Guest House and A-2 [Babulal] was to hand over the narcotic drugs to A-1, who in turn, was to hand over the same to A-3 [Yesudass] who is also a Srilankan and that, the said room and persons have to be searched. P.W.3 along with Arul Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer and other officials went to the Guest House and approached one Jafar Saddique, Guest House In-charge and John, Manager and explained about the search proceedings to be conducted and that, requested them to be as witnesses to the said proceedings. P.W.3 along with Arul Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer and other officials went to the Guest House and approached one Jafar Saddique, Guest House In-charge and John, Manager and explained about the search proceedings to be conducted and that, requested them to be as witnesses to the said proceedings. Mr.Arul Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer, examined the Register maintained by the Guest House and as against Room NO.110, an entry to the effect of one M.L.T.Afrin was staying along with one another person, has been made and that on enquiry, the witnesses had stated that it was A-1 [Mohamed Shiyam @ Mahesh] who was staying along with Afrin and that they know the identity of A-1. Thereafter, the officials went to Room No.110 and knocked the door. There were four persons in the room and the witnesses identified Afrin and A-1. The officials introduced themselves to the inmates of the room and A-1 introduced himself as a Srilankan National and that, he was staying with Afrin and that A-2 and A-3 who were a North Indian and a Srilankan, were his friends. P.W.3 had explained them the procedure mandated under section 50 of NDPS Act, i.e., the option of being searched in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and the occupants of the room had stated that the search can be made and when questioned the accused as to whether they were in possession of any narcotic drug, A-1 voluntarily came forward and admitted as to the possession of Heroin and produced the same from a blue and red coloured shoulder bag bearing the name ‘‘Rock’’. Heroin was kept in a polythene cover and on spot analysis using NDPS Test Kit, it was revealed that the said drug was Heroin. A-1 confessed that the said contraband/brown coloured powder was given to him by A-2 and that he was about to hand over the same to A-3. On weighing, the said Heroin was found to be 1 Kg. The said contraband was marked as M.O.1. He has further stated that from out of the said contraband, two samples of 5gms each were taken ; kept in a polythene cover ; sealed and DRI seal was affixed. The samples were labelled as P1S1 [M.O.2] and P1S2 [M.O.3]. The remaining contraband was kept in a polythene cover ; sealed and marked as P1. He has further stated that from out of the said contraband, two samples of 5gms each were taken ; kept in a polythene cover ; sealed and DRI seal was affixed. The samples were labelled as P1S1 [M.O.2] and P1S2 [M.O.3]. The remaining contraband was kept in a polythene cover ; sealed and marked as P1. The polythene covers and the bag seized from the accused were also sealed and DRI seal was also affixed and was marked as M.O.4. On examination of A-2, a platform ticket was seized under Ex.P.3. P.W.3 had further stated that on a thorough search of the room, a Srilankan Airline Ticket [Ex.P.4] as well as the Passport of A-1 [Ex.P.5] were recovered. The Mahazar prepared by P.W.3 on 21.03.2004 was marked as Ex.P.6. The documents seized by P.W.3 were handed over to Arul Singh, the Senior Intelligence Officer under a Special Report marked as Ex.P.7. 15. P.W.4-Sugumar Suresh, one of the Intelligence Officers in the Search Team had stated in the same lines as that of P.W.3. He had further stated that pursuant to the search made, the Passport [Ex.P.5] of A-1 and the Air ticket [Ex.P.4] were seized and that, after completion of the proceedings, he had issued summons to A-1 under Ex.P.8, in pursuance of the same, A-1 had appeared before P.W.4 and gave a voluntary statement under Ex.P.9, wherein he had admitted his guilt of smuggling and on arriving at a reasonable belief that A-1 had committed the offences as aforesaid, he had issued Arrest Memo on 21.03.2004 at 9.00 p.m. under Ex.P.10. He had further stated that on 22.03.2004, at about 9.00 a.m he had submitted his Report under section 57 of the Act to his Senior Officer, P.W.7, which was marked as Ex.P.11. 16. P.W.5-Harihar, one of the Intelligence Officers at the relevant point of time, had stated that he was empowered to search, seize, issue summons, enquire persons, record statement, arrest u/s.42 of NDPS Act. 16. P.W.5-Harihar, one of the Intelligence Officers at the relevant point of time, had stated that he was empowered to search, seize, issue summons, enquire persons, record statement, arrest u/s.42 of NDPS Act. He had also in a vivid manner, stated in the same lines as that of the other Intelligence Officers, viz., P.Ws.3 and 4 and further, he had stated that he had issued summons to A-2 u/s.67 of NDPS Act, marked as Ex.P.12, requiring A-2 to appear before him on 21.03.2004 at 4.00 p.m. Accordingly, A-2 appeared before P.W.5 and stated that he had studied upto 2nd standard and that he knows to read and speak Hindi ; but cannot write Hindi. As per the request of A-2, his statement was reduced in writing in Hindi by P.W.5. The said statement was marked as Ex.P.13. P.W.5 also translated the said statement of A-2 in English for administrative purpose and the same is marked as Ex.P.14 and A-2 had affixed his thumb impression on all the pages of his statement under Ex.P.13 and P.W.5 had also endorsed the same. P.W.5 and M/s. Hema, the yet another Intelligence Officer explained A-2 about the Arrest Memo issued under Ex.P.15. The Intelligence Report issued by P.W.5 under section 57 of NDPS Act is marked as Ex.P.16 and that the said report was submitted to Mr.Arul Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI. 17. P.W.6-Ramakrishnan, the Intelligence Officer who accompanied the Search Team also narrated the sequence of search proceedings in the same vein as that of the other Intelligence Officers, viz., P.Ws.3 to 5. Further, he had stated that he had issued summons to A-3 [Yesudoss] u/s.67 of NDPS Act, marked as Ex.P.17, requiring A-3 to appear before him on 21.03.2004 at 4.00 p.m. Accordingly, A-3 appeared before him and confessed about his role in the crime under Ex.P.18. Based on the confession statement of A-3, P.W.6 effected the arrest of A-3 on the same day at 10.00 p.m. The Arrest Memo is marked as Ex.P.19. The Intelligence Report issued by P.W.5 under section 57 of NDPS Act is marked as Ex.P.20 and that the said report was submitted to Mr.Arul Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI. 18. Based on the confession statement of A-3, P.W.6 effected the arrest of A-3 on the same day at 10.00 p.m. The Arrest Memo is marked as Ex.P.19. The Intelligence Report issued by P.W.5 under section 57 of NDPS Act is marked as Ex.P.20 and that the said report was submitted to Mr.Arul Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI. 18. P.W.7-Arun Singh, the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Chennai, had stated that he received the Intelligence Report from P.W.1-Karthikeyan about the smuggling of narcotic drug by the accused persons at Royal In Guest House at T. Nagar, Chennai and had, in extenso and brief, recounted the events as portrayed by P.Ws.3 to 6. In furtherance of the same, P.W.7 had stated that he had prepared the Remand Report and produced the seized goods and the accused persons before the learned Magistrate concerned and thereafter, there were housed in the Central Prison, Chennai. The Remand Application along with the Annexures containing list of documents and goods is marked as Ex.P.21. P.W.7 also prepared a Report under section 57 of the Act, marked as Ex.P.22 and handed over the same to the Assistant Director. The seized properties were produced the learned Magistrate and on his instructions, a Memo of Submission of Property [Ex.P.23] was produced before the Special Court. It is further stated that out of four persons found in Room No.110, A-1 and A-2 are present before the Court and that A-3 had passed away. 19. P.W.8-Paul Jesudas, the Intelligence Officer, DRI, Chennai, had stated that he had received the Report from P.W.7 along with the Marginal Note of the Assistant Director, DRI and he was directed to investigate the case. Accordingly, P.W.8 perused the Intelligence Report of P.W.1 dated 21.03.2004 and the other documents. As per the direction of P.W.7, he submitted the properties seized before the Court and also handed over a requisition under Ex.P.24 for forwarding the sample to the Deputy Chemist, Central Revenue, Central Laboratory, Customs House, Chennai, together with a Test Memo [Ex.P.25]. It is further stated by P.W.8 that the sample was thereafter, handed over to Mr.Ameer Raza Khan, Assistant Chemical Examiner, Customs House, Chennai. The covering letter of the Court with acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P.26 and the Deposit Memo for handing over the sample to the Customs House is marked as Ex.P.27. The Report received from P.W.2 is marked as Ex.P.28. The covering letter of the Court with acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P.26 and the Deposit Memo for handing over the sample to the Customs House is marked as Ex.P.27. The Report received from P.W.2 is marked as Ex.P.28. P.W.8 also stated that he also issued summons to the Manager of the Guest House under Ex.P.29 on 06.07.2004 and on receipt of summons, the Manager appeared before P.W.8 and his statement u/s.67 of the Act, was recorded under Ex.P.30 and that, on 07.07.2004, he issued summons under Ex.P.31 to the In-charge of the Guest House and his statement u/s.67 of the Act, is marked as Ex.P.32 and on completion of the investigation, he filed the complaint before the Court on 19.07.2004 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 21, 23 and 29 of NDPS Act and the complaint along with the Annexure is marked as Ex.P.33. 20. P.W.9-Chenchuraman, the Intelligence Officer had stated that during the year 2004, on the instructions of his Senior Officer Mr.A.Manimaran, went to the addresses of the witnesses, viz., Jaffar Saddique and John, on 09.07.2004, and enquired about them and P.W.9 came to know the said witnesses were not residing in the said addresses and he submitted his Verification Report under Ex.P.34 and the same was produced before the Court on 12.07.2004. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants/A-1 and A-2, in short, raised three important contentions, viz., [1] Section 57 of NDPS Act not complied with ; [2] no independent witnesses were examined though two persons were made as witnesses to the seizure and arrest of the accused persons ; and [3] The provisions of Section 67 of NDPS Act, while recording the statements of the accused have not been followed and that the said statements were obtained under threat and coercion and the same were retracted by the accused at the earliest point of time. 22. Section 57 of NDPS Act states about the Report of arrest and seizure and whenever, any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior. 23. 22. Section 57 of NDPS Act states about the Report of arrest and seizure and whenever, any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior. 23. A close scrutiny of the testimonies of the witnesses, viz., P.Ws.3 to 6 would reveal that after completion of the search and seizure of the contraband in question, viz., Heroin, and after the arrest of the accused on 21.03.2004 at about 11.00 hours, P.W.3-Joshua had prepared the Report [Ex.P.7] u/s.57 of the Act on the same day at 17.00 hours ; P.W.4-Sugumar Suresh had prepared the Report [Ex.P.11] at 09.00 hours on 22.03.2004 ; P.W.5-Harihar had prepared the Report [Ex.P.16] at 08.30 hours on 22.03.2004 ; and P.W.6-Ramakrishnan had prepared the Report [Ex.P.20] at 08.00 hours on 22.03.2004 and P.W.7-Arun Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer, had prepared his detailed Report under Ex.P.22 at 18.30 hours on 22.03.2004 after the receipt of the above Reports from P.Ws.3 to 6. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dilbagh Singh V. State of Punjab [2016 [4] Crimes [SC] 328], had held that:- "15. The decision in Mohinder Kumar [supra] not only is distinguishable on facts, as the search therein was of the petitioner’s premises, the investigation was afflicted as well by several other omissions on the part of the authority conducting the same. Though in this rendering, it was observed that in State of Punjab Vs.Balbir Singh [1994] 3 SCC 299, the provisions of sections 52 and 57 of the Act had been held to be mandatory in character, it is pertinent to note that this Court in Sajan Abraham V. State of Kerala, [2001] 6 SCC 692 had exposited that Section 57 was not mandatory in nature so much so that if a substantial compliance thereof is made, it would vitiate the case of the prosecution. Incidentally, the decision rendered in Balbir Singh [supra] was rendered by a Coram of Two Honourable Judges whereas the one in Sajan Abraham [supra] was by a Three Judge Bench." 25. Incidentally, the decision rendered in Balbir Singh [supra] was rendered by a Coram of Two Honourable Judges whereas the one in Sajan Abraham [supra] was by a Three Judge Bench." 25. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that compliance of section 57 of the Act is not mandatory in nature and non compliance of the same would not vitiate the case of the prosecution when there is a substantial compliance thereof in other aspects. This Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case as regards the compliance of section 57 of the Act and the Intelligence Officials had filed their individual Reports within the time specified under the said Section. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 does not hold good and the same deserves to be rejected. 26. Nextly, the learned counsel for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 contended that no independent witnesses were examined to prove the case of the prosecution as regards seizure of the contraband. 27. It is seen from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 to 7, that on receipt of the Intelligence Report under Ex.P.1 from P.W.1-Karthikeyan, on 21.03.2004, the team went to the Royal Inn Guest House on 21.03.2004 around 11.15 hours and 11.30 hours and in the presence of two independent witnesses, viz., Jaffar Sadique and John, searched Room No.110 where A-1 and A-2, the appellants herein, along with A-3 [Yesudoss] and another person were present and after explaining the procedure contemplated under section 50 of the Act, the officials seized 1 Kg of Heroin from A-1, a Srilankan National, and A-1 had admitted the possession of the contraband which was stated to have been given to him by A-2, a North Indian and A-2 had also admitted that the said contraband was given to him by a person from Shamgarh in Madhya Pradesh, at the Central Railway Station on 21.03.2004 morning. A Mahazar under Ex.P.6 was also prepared on the spot to that effect and the said independent witnesses also affixed their signatures in Ex.P.6. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.8, the Intelligence Officer, that he issued summons to Jaffer Saddique and John under Exs.P.29 and 31, pursuant to which, they appeared before the Investigating Officer and gave their statements which were recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act. 28. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.8, the Intelligence Officer, that he issued summons to Jaffer Saddique and John under Exs.P.29 and 31, pursuant to which, they appeared before the Investigating Officer and gave their statements which were recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act. 28. John, in his statement under Ex.P.30 had stated that he had been working as Manager in Royal Inn Guest House for the past five years prior to the date of occurrence and that his family is residing at Tiruparkadal, Thiruvaroor District and doing agricultural work. He had further stated that upon receipt of summons u/s.67 of NDPS Act, on 06.07.2004, he had appeared before the Intelligence Officer concerned, viz., P.W.8, on 07.07.2004 and that he very well knew that his statement would be used as a witness before the Court. He had also vividly narrated the sequence of events that had happened on 21.03.2004 from 11.30 a.m. onwards and that he had also sworn in stating that the said statement was given by him without any undue influence or coercion or threat from the officials concerned and that he had given the said statement in a fit state of mind. Likewise, Jaffer Sadique had also given a statement u/s.67 of the Act, before P.W.8. 29. A perusal of the above statements of the independent witnesses, given u/s.67 of the Act coupled with the testimonies of P.Ws.8 and 9, Intelligence Officers, this Court is of the view that though the said persons were not examined before the Court, the prosecution has adduced sufficient reasons for non examination of the independent witnesses by means of oral and documentary evidences. In the instant case, there is no dispute that search and seizure was done in the presence of Jaffer Sadique and John, who are respectively the In-charge and Manager of the Guest House. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 that non-examination of the independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. But, this is not the correct legal position. When the independent witnesses is not examined during the course of trial, the evidence of the official witnesses may be approached with some suspicion and the same requires corroboration. But, this is not the correct legal position. When the independent witnesses is not examined during the course of trial, the evidence of the official witnesses may be approached with some suspicion and the same requires corroboration. In the instant case, apart from the evidence of the Intelligence Officers, though there is no independent evidence in Court that the search was conducted as claimed by P.W.1, the statements recorded from the independent witnesses under section 67 of the Act have been marked as Exs.P.30 and 32 through P.W.8 and the prosecution has elicited the reasons, under which Jaffer Sadique and John [independent witnesses] were unable to be examined in Court, through the Verification Report [Ex.P.34] marked through P.W.9, thereby clearing the suspicion. 30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the judgment reported in 2015 [0] Supreme [SC] 1042 [Baldev Singh V. State of Haryana], had held that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the official witnesses if it inspires the confidence of the Court. It is relevant to extract the following paragraphs for easy reference:- “8 On the midnight of 16/17.09.1990 when the police party was holding Nakabandhi on both sides of Kacha Path leading to village Knigre from G.T. Road, the tractor was intercepted and the driver of the tractor – appellant was apprehended under suspicion at odd hours of midnight, prosecution cannot be expected to examine independent witnesses. In his cross examination, PW1 stated that two persons had come at the place of Nakabandi in the midnight and they were asked to join, but they refused to join. In the circumstances of the case, when there is satisfactory explanation for non examination of independent witnesses, conviction can be based solely on the testimony of official witnesses if evidence of such official witnesses inspires confidence. .... 10. There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is unworthy of acceptance. Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. Mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their credit worthiness.” 31. Keeping in mind the above legal position, this Court had thoroughly scrutinized the evidence of the Intelligence Officials and is of the considered view that their evidence is not unworthy of acceptance in the absence of examination of any independent witnesses. In the case on hand, as stated above, they had examined two independent witnesses, Jaffar Sadique and John and recorded their statements u/s.67 of the Act, though they were not examined before the Court below during trial. This Court also holds that merely because they are officials, that does not by itself create any doubt about the creditworthiness in their evidences. The non examination of independent witnesses had not caused any prejudice to the appellants/A-1 and A-2 nor affected the credibility of the case of the prosecution. 32. The third and the last contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 is that the statements from the accused persons, viz., A-1 and A-2, under section 67 of the Act were obtained by way of threat and coercion when they were in the custody of the respondent officials. It is his further contention that the accused had retracted their statements at the earliest point of time and stated that the said statements are inadmissible in evidence. 33. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5-Intelligence Officers would show that after completion of search and seizure procedure, P.W.4 came to NCB Office and issued summons under Ex.P.8 to A-1 on 21.03.2004 at about 4.00 p.m., and subsequent to the explaining of the provisions u/s.67 of the Act, the statement of A-1 was recorded under Ex.P.9. Similarly, the testimony of P.W.5 would also reveal that after completion of the search and seizure formalities and drawing of Mahazar, he went to NCB office and had issued summons to A-2 under Ex.P.12, and upon explaining the provisions u/s.67 of the Act, the statement of A-2 was recorded in Hindi under Ex.P.13 and the translated version of A-2’s statement in English is marked as Ex.P.14. A perusal of Exs.P.12, 13 and 14 would reveal that the appellants/A-1 and A-2 had signed the said documents. It is also seen that the appellants/A-1 and A-2 were arrested on 21.03.2004 between 21.00 hours and 21.30 hours and that they were produced before the Remanding Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had made an observation stating that the accused were produced before him on 22.03.2004 at about 3.00 p.m. and that no complaint against the officials. Had really the appellants/A-1 and A-2 had retracted their respective statements recorded u/s.67 of the Act, nothing prevented them from complaining about the officials before the Remand Magistrate at the time of remand. Further, the appellants/A-1 and A-2 did not make any complaint regarding torture or harassment at the hands of the Intelligence Officials while obtaining their statements u/s.67 of the Act. It is also seen that they had retracted their statements only during the trial for the first time before the Court concerned and that too, after putting some suggestions to P.Ws.4 and 5 during their cross examination. In the Mahazar [Ex.P.6] also, the accused had never retracted their confession statements and this Court has no hesitation to hold that Exs.P.9, 13 and 14, viz., the confession statements of A-1 and A-2 recorded u/s.67 of the Act, are admissible and the statements of A-1 and A-2 are also corroborated by the oral testimonies and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. Even assuming for the sake of arguments, that the appellants/A-1 and A-2 had retracted their statements, even then, the said retracted statements does not reduce the evidentiary value and conviction could be based on the retracted confession which is corroborated by the other acceptable documents and oral testimonies. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has followed all the procedural formalities properly, viz., issuance of summons to the accused, recording their statements after explaining the provisions under the said section etc., and thereafter only, had recorded their statements during enquiry, not under threat or duress or custody as claimed by the appellants/A-1 and A-2. Only pursuant thereto, based on their statements they were arrested and produced before the Remand Magistrate. Hence, Exs.P.9, 13 and 14 recorded by P.Ws.4 and 5, are true, valid and admissible in evidence. 34. Only pursuant thereto, based on their statements they were arrested and produced before the Remand Magistrate. Hence, Exs.P.9, 13 and 14 recorded by P.Ws.4 and 5, are true, valid and admissible in evidence. 34. In the decision reported in 2008 [1] Crimes 154 [SC] [Kanhaiyalal V. Union of India], relied on by the learned Special Public Prosecutor [NCB Cases], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:- “36 A parallel may be drawn between the provisions of section 67 of the NDPS Act and sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act and to a large extent, section34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities [Prevention] Act, 1987. These are all special Acts meant to deal with special situations and circumstances. While the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, and TADA Act, 1987, are much more stringent and excludes from its purview the provisions of section 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act with regard to confession made before a police officer, the provisions relating to statements made during inquiry under the Customs Act and under the NDPS Act are less stringent and continues to attract the provisions of the Evidence Act. In the case of both the latter enactments, initially an inquiry is contemplated during which a person may be called upon to provide any information relevant to the inquiry as to whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of the Act or any Rule or Order made thereunder. At that stage, the person concerned is not an accused although he may be said to be in custody. But, on the basis of the statements made by him, he could be made an accused subsequently. What is important is whether the statement made by the person concerned is made during inquiry prior to his arrest or after he had been formally charged with the offence and made an accused in respect thereof. As long as such statement was made by the accused at the time when he was not under arrest, the bar under sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act would not operate nor would the provisions of Article 20[3] of the Constitution be attracted. It is only after a person is placed in the position of an accused that the bar imposed under the aforesaid provision will come into play. It is only after a person is placed in the position of an accused that the bar imposed under the aforesaid provision will come into play. Of course, this Court has also held in Pon Adithans case [supra] that even if a person is placed under arrest and thereafter makes a statement which seeks to incriminate him, the bar under Article 20[3] of the Constitution would not operate against him if such statement was given voluntarily and without any threat or compulsion and if supported by corroborating evidence.” 35. In view of the above settled legal position, this Court, on an analysis of the testimonies of the Intelligence Officials, viz., P.Ws.4 and 5 and on perusal of Exs.P.9, 13 and 14, this Court comes to the irresistible conclusion that the said statements made by the appellants/A-1 and A-2 are prior to their arrest and during the enquiry and based on their statements, the Intelligence Official were satisfied that the offences have been made out against them and only thereafter, they had effected the arrest of the appellants/A-1 and A-2 and hence, the bar under section 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act does not come into operation nor Article 20[3] of the Constitution of India. 36. In the light of the foregoing discussions and reasonings, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court had given an elaborate findings and reasonings warranting no interference and the Trial Court is right in convicting and sentencing the appellants/A-1 and A-2 for the aforesaid offences. 37. In the result, the criminal appeal stands DISMISSED and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A-1 & A-2 by the learned Special Judge, Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai 600 104, in CC.No.151/2004 dated 04.10.2010 is hereby confirmed. 38. It is reported that the appellants/A-1 and A-2 are absconding. The respondent is directed to take effective steps to secure the presence of the appellants/A-1 and A-2 in the Prison so as to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence undergone by them is given set off. 39. Before parting with the matter, this Court place it on record the commendable service rendered by M/s.A.Veeramarthini, learned counsel as Legal Aid Counsel for the appellants/A-1 and A-2. She is entitled to remuneration from the Tamilnadu State Legal Services Authority as per the norms.