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 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained when the prosecution failed to establish reliable recovery, safe custody and sealing of the contraband, proper chain of custody, and compliance with the reporting requirement under Section 57 of the Act.
Analysis: The recovery was treated as a chance recovery, so Section 50 of the Act was held inapplicable. However, the prosecution did not prove with acceptable certainty that the seized material was properly weighed, sealed, stored in safe custody, and later forwarded to the forensic laboratory with an intact and matching seal. The evidence also did not show that the arrest and seizure report mandated by Section 57 was sent to the superior officer within time or with any explanation for delay. In these circumstances, the link evidence connecting the alleged recovery, the sample, and the laboratory report remained unproved. As the foundational fact of recovery itself was not established beyond reasonable doubt, the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 could not be invoked against the accused, and the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act did not arise.
Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and the accused was entitled to acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the prosecution must first establish the recovery and the unimpeachable chain of custody of the seized contraband beyond reasonable doubt before statutory presumptions against the accused can operate.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
