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 collection and safe custody of the suspected contraband by Income Tax during a search under another enactment amounted to a seizure so as to vitiate the NDPS prosecution and justify discharge.
Analysis: Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act confine search and seizure powers to empowered or authorised officers acting on warrant, authorisation, or the statutory conditions prescribed therein. However, where officers conducting a different lawful search unexpectedly come across suspected narcotic substance, the matter is one of chance recovery rather than a deliberate NDPS search. The act of temporarily taking custody of the substance in the course of the income tax search, before it was verified and formally seized by the empowered NDPS , was not treated as a seizure in the juristic sense. The contention based on delayed communication and the alleged irregularity was held to be a matter affecting evidentiary weight at trial, not a ground for discharge at that stage.
Conclusion: The application for discharge was rightly rejected and the revisional challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: An accidental or chance recovery of suspected narcotic material during a lawful search for another purpose does not amount to an illegal NDPS seizure merely because the first set of officers were not empowered under the NDPS Act; the question of credibility or delay is ordinarily for trial.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
