JUDGMENT

R.P.SETHI, J.

(1) THESE two appeals are by second accused (P.K. Naushad) and third accused (A.K. Mehaboob) in a case wherein three persons were arraigned before the trial court to face a charge for the offence under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The trial court acquitted these appellants of the offences, but convicted only 1st accused (N.P. Divakaran) for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fine in accordance with law. The aforesaid convicted person preferred an appeal before the "High Court in challenge of the conviction and sentence. In the meanwhile, respondent also filed an appeal in challenge of the order of acquittal passed in favour of the present appellants. Both appeals were heard together by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. While dismissing the appeal preferred by 1st accused, learned Single Judge reversed the order of acquittal passed on the appellants and convicted them also under Sections 21 and 29 of the Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00.

(2) THE substance of the case against the three accused was this:On the strength of sleuth information the Intelligence Officers of Narcotics Control Bureau lead by Superintended of Narcotics Control Bureau, Cochin (PW-1 and PW-2) raided the house of the appellant Naushad on 6.3.1994 at about 10.00 a.m. They found Divakaran (A1) and appellant Mehaboob (A3) sitting in one room. On search, 251 grams of brown sugar and had been recovered from Divakaran - A1. It was followed by another search made in the house of said Divakaran at about 7.00 p.m. and then also a quantity of 251 grams of brown sugar had been recovered from a suit case kept in that house. All the three accused were arrested. Their statements were recorded under Section 67 of the Act.

(3) THE case against appellant - Naushad depends entirely on Exhibit P-8 statement made to the officer under Section 67. There is no dispute that if the said statement is found to be genuine and reliable - Naushad has no escape from conviction, for, it contained vivid description of thetransaction he entered into with Divakaran in the trafficking of narcotics drug "heroin" and "brown sugar".

(4) SMT. Malini Poduval, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that Exhibit P-8 cannot be relied on for more than one reason. One is that the said statement had been retracted by the accused himself. Second is that on 11.8.1994 appellant - Naushad informed the Magistrate in writing that the said statement had been coaxed out from him. The third is that the said retracted confession had no corroboration, and therefore, cannot be made the basis for conviction.

(5) THERE is nothing to indicate that Exhibit P-8 had been elicited from A2 by any coercion, threat or force, and therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had spurned down that contention. Regarding the complaint alleged to have been made by appellant - Naushad on 11.3.1994 we have perused it. His case therein was that he offered himself to be a witness in the case and some reward was offered for it. It was on the said offers that he agreed to sign the said statement. It must be remembered that appellant - Naushad has no case that when he was produced before the Magistrate, immediately after his arrest, he made any grievance of any maltreatment administered to him by the members of the Narcotics Control Bureau. Wisdom downed on him (when the complaint dated 11.3.1994 was filed) to put up an advance defence against the statement given by him under his own signature. Even then he did not think it necessary to make any allegation that any intimidatory tactic, muchless any third degree method had been applied on him. His case in the said complaint that a reward was offered to him and hence he agreed to sign