As per case facts, a secret information led to a chase of an auto-rickshaw from which an accused escaped, and contraband was seized. Subsequently, a search was conducted at the ... accused's house, where more contraband was found, and the appellants were arrested. The High Court affirmed their conviction based on confessional statements and compliance with statutory provisions. The appeal challenged the admissibility of Section 67 statements and the legality of the house search due to alleged non-compliance with Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act. The question arose whether the statements under Section 67 were admissible, and if the search and seizure at the house, which lacked specific prior information and proper authorization, complied with mandatory NDPS Act provisions. Finally, the Supreme Court, relying on Tofan Singh, held that statements under Section 67 are inadmissible and that the house search was not in compliance with Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act, as there was no specific prior information recorded about contraband at the house. The Court granted the appellants the benefit of doubt and acquitted them.