Convictions based on coerced self-incriminating statements without substantial corroborative evidence are legally unsustainable, emphasizing the need for credible investigation.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The appellants in the present set of appeals impugn the judgment dated 29.07.2017 (hereafter the impugned judgment) passed by the Learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 23 read with Section 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The appellants also impugn an order dated 29.07.2017 (hereafter the impugned order), whereby they have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each for the offences punishable under Section 23 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. And, in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days.

2. The appellants challenge the impugned judgment, essentially, on four fronts. First, that the learned trial court has erred in convicting the appellants solely on the basis of self incriminating statements of the appellant Nitesh Patel, which were not made voluntarily. Secondly, the case set up by the prosecution is not supported by evidence on record. Third, that the sample tested by the Central Revenue Laboratory is not the sample of the seized substance allegedly sent to the said laboratory. And fourth, that the case has not been properly investigated.

The Prosecution's Case

3. The appellants were charged for committing an offence punishable under Section 23 read with Section 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. By an order dated 11.10.012 passed by the learned trial court, the appellants were charged that on or before 21.03.2011, they had conspired to export illegal psychotropic substances from India to Malaysia under a fake identity and without taking any authorization or license from the Narcotic Commissioner in accordance with the NDPS Act and the Rules made under the said Act. They were charged that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy to illegally export psychotropic substances, they had "procured, stored and attempted to export 2.4 kgs of amphetamine in a parcel vide Airway Bill No. 466420580086 which was seized on 21.03.2011 at 1604 Hrs at Fedex Express Services India Pvt. Ltd., C-152, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi".

4. In addition, Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh (appellant in CRL.A. 931/2017 and hereafter referred to as `Rafiq' or `Rafiq Shaikh') was also separately charged for attempting to export 1kg of Ketamine in a parcel vide Airway Bill No. AWB947312, which was seized from the premises of Dart Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Express House, A-50/4, Mayapuri, Phase-I, New Delhi at 17:15 hours on 08.06.2011. He was acquitted of the aforesaid charge of attempting to export 1 kg of ketamine and the allegations and evidence led in that regard are not relevant as far as the present appeals are concerned. These appeals are limited to the appellants' challenge to their conviction (and consequent sentence) for procuring, storing and attempting to export 2.4 kg of amphetamine in a parcel that was seized from the premises of Fedex Express Services India Pvt. Ltd (hereafter also referred to as `Fedex').

5. It is the prosecution's case, as is evident from a plain reading of the complaint filed by the NCB, that Ms Mehak Jain, IO, NCB, DZU had received secret information on 31.03.2011 that some narcotic drugs were concealed in a parcel bearing Airway Bill No. 466420580086 (hereafter referred to as `the Airway Bill in question') and the said parcel was lying with Fedex at the premises located at C152, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. The said info