Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985–Sec. 21/8(c), 29 & 67–Appellant was not apprehended on the spot at the time of seizure–He was not named in Panchnama–No effort was made by the raiding party to make the inquiry from the accused A about the identity of his companion who allegedly fled away from the spot–Name of appellant cropped up for the first time in the statement of accused A u/s. 67–Sequence in which the statement u/s. 67 came to be recorded completely discredits the reliability thereof–Further, the confessional statements are not admissible in evidence–Identification of appellant by PW 3 is neither reliable nor corroborated by any other independent evidence–Held, he is entitled to get the benefit of the doubt.
