TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be interfered with on the grounds that the defence version of false implication was probable, the sample was sent for chemical examination after delay, Section 55 of the Act was not complied with, and the complainant also acted as the investigating officer.
Analysis: The defence theory of false implication was found unreliable because the alleged apology document was not proved as genuine and the alleged complaints and telegram were not established as having been duly sent or received. The recovery of opium from the appellant was supported by the testimony of the recovery officer and the senior police officer present at the spot, and the seals remained intact till examination, showing no tampering. The delay in forwarding the sample did not cause prejudice in view of the proved recovery and intact seal. Non-compliance with Section 55 did not vitiate the prosecution where the seized articles were handed over to the officer in charge of the police station with seals intact and no prejudice was shown. The mere fact that the complainant acted as investigating officer did not, by itself, establish bias in the absence of a credible defence case.
Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction failed. The appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
