Two appellants were convicted and sentenced to ten years' R.I. and a fine under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S. Act) for illegal possession of 2.01 kgs. of brown sugar-heroin. Dismissing their appeals, the Court held: First, the notification of 14-11-1985 empowering Excise officers under Section 53(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act remained valid in Goa post-statehood, relying on Section 69 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987. Second, while Section 50 mandates informing an accused of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, the Supreme Court in *State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar* clarified this applies to personal search; here, as the search was of a bag held by a pillion rider, Section 50 was not strictly attracted, but the offer was validly made before the final search at the Customs House. Third, the delay in recording form D.R.1 was attributable to the mode of receiving intelligence (telephonically) and subsequent verification, not prima facie evidence of subsequent fabrication of information. Fourth, minor discrepancies in weight between seizure and laboratory analysis, where the seized quantity was found to weigh slightly more after weighing with wrappers or on a more sensitive scale, did not erode the credibility of the case, as confirmed by the integrity of seals and the nature of the increase in weight. Fifth, the statements recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act by a Gazetted Officer (not a police officer under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act) constituted extra-judicial confessions. Though retracted later, coupled with corroboration from independent witnesses and subsequent conduct (failure to explain on Section 313), the retractions were viewed as afterthoughts on legal advice, rendering the statements admissible and sufficient for conviction when read with other evidence.
