JUDGMENT

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.

1. Appellant aggrieved by his conviction and sentence is before us with the leave of the Court.

2. According to the prosecution a secret information led to recovery of 2.1 Kgms. of opium by PW.7, Abdul Mazid, the District Opium Officer from a room adjoining the kitchen of a hotel situated at Sagrana on Neemuch-Chittor road. Appellant was working as servant in the said hotel. Jagdish Mawal (PW.6) the then Deputy Commissioner of Narcotics was one of the members of the search party, who had seized the opium, drawn the seizure memo and recorded the statement (Ex.P/12) of the Appellant on the same day. PW.8, Mahaveer Singh, at the relevant time was working as Inspector in the Central Bureau of Narcotics and on 19th July, 1997 itself at 23:45 hrs., he was appointed as the Investigating Officer of the case. He produced the Appellant before the Special Judge on 20th July, 1997 and at his request Appellant was remanded to his custody till 21st July, 1997. He recorded the statement (Ex.P/15) of the Appellant on 20th July, 1997. In the statement (Ex.P/12) Appellant confessed that the opium seized was brought by him in the hotel. In another confessional statement (Ex.P/15) recorded by the Investigating Officer Appellant confessed that he had been working in the hotel for the last two months and brought the opium to the hotel from the house of its owner on his direction. He further confessed that opium tablets used to be sold to the truck drivers at the rate of Rs. 30/- per tola.

3. Opium seized was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination which found presence of 4.31 per cent of morphine in it. After the confessional statement recorded by the Investigating Officer on 20th July, 1997 he produced the Appellant before the Special Judge on 21st July, 1997 along with the case diary and the copy of the same was furnished to him.

4. Both the confessional statements of the Appellant recorded by the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics were considered admissible in evidence and relying on the same the trial court held that the Appellant was in possession of opium and accordingly convicted him under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The order of conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the High Court in appeal.

5. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the two confessional statements made by the Appellant before the authorities of Central Bureau of Narcotics are not only inadmissible in evidence but also not voluntary and further not corroborated by any other evidence and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence is fit to be set aside. He further submits that if the confessional statements are taken in their entirety the Appellant cannot be held to be in possession of opium or selling the opium so as to attract the mischief of Section 8/18 of the Act.

6. Mr. Ashok Kumar Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, however, contends that confessional statements made by the Appellant are admissible and voluntary and that clearly establish the guilt of the Appellant and, therefore, he was rightly convicted and sentenced.

7. In view of the rival submissions questions which fall for determination in this appeal are as follows:

(i) Whether the confessions made before the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are admissible in evidence;

(ii) Whether the confessions made were voluntary in nature and if so without corroboration, can it form the basis for conviction; and

(iii) Whether the Appellant can be said to be in possession of the opium or selling the same.

8. In order to answer these questions it is expedient to examine the scheme of the Act. Section 42 of the Act confers on specifie