Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985–Sec. 8/21(c) r/w. 29–Conviction–Sustainability–Allegation that the appellants supplied the substance Heroin to foreign nationals–Case of the prosecution is based on the identification and information u/s. 27–PW 4 could not identify the accused I in the identification parade–Identification by him for the first time in the Court during the examination-in-chief has no evidentiary value–As per the recovery memo, only one person stepped down from the Bolero to deliver the substance then how it was possible for PW 4 to see the other persons–Witness went to police station for 4-5 times before the identification parade–Identification parade was conducted after a considerable time–Call details do not establish the guilt of accused–Further, these are not proved in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 65(b)–Information u/s. 27 is also not admissible in evidence as no recovery was effected in pursuance of information–Held, trial Court committed error in convicting the appellants.
