7. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties to the lis, we are
of the opinion that in the present case, the
question that whether the statement requires to be
signed by two witnesses or not does not need any
discussion. What requires our consideration in this
case is whether the reliance placed by the learned
Sessions Judge on the statement, Exhibit P-19,
justified or not. For that purpose the evidence of
the Investigating Officer, who had categorically
stated that the entire proceeding was recorded in
the house of the appellant, needs to be evaluated.
In the said evidence, he further states that when
the proceedings were conducted, two witnesses were
present and the statement of the appellant was
recorded in their presence and they had counter
signed the same.
8. In order to verify the correctness or
otherwise of the said document, we have looked into
the Original Records. The said document does not
bear the signatures of the two witnesses. This generates a doubt in the mind of this Court that the
document so produced and marked in the evidence may
not be the original statement of the appellant,
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
9. In view of the above, in our opinion, some
doubt would arise with regard to the complicity of
the appellant for the offence under Section 8 read
with Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the benefit of doubt
requires to be given to the appellant. Accordingly,
we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and
sentence awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by
the High Court, by giving the benefit of doubt to
the appellant.
10. We further direct that the appellant be
released forthwith, if not required in any other
case and any fine amount deposited by the appellant-
accused shall be returned forthwith to the
appellant. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail
bonds are discharged.
Ordered accordingly.JUDGMENT
(H.L. DATTU)