Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
NDPS - Power to seize and arrest of a person in a public place - Smuggling - Ganja - Samples being taken at the CGST Bhawan - The High Court found that the officers involved were duly authorized and acted within their powers under the NDPS Act. It was established that the search and seizure were conducted in compliance with Section 43 of the NDPS Act, which pertains to actions in public places. The Court held that the procedural requirements were met, including the immediate forwarding of seized items for chemical analysis and the safekeeping of the seized narcotics. - The appeals of appellants directly involved with the narcotics in the truck were dismissed, and their convictions were upheld based on the corroborative evidence of seizure and compliance with the NDPS procedural requirements. The appeals of two appellants, argued to be not present at the scene and implicated mainly through inadmissible confessional statements, were allowed, and their convictions were set aside.
NDPS - Power to seize and arrest of a person in a public place - Smuggling - Ganja - Samples being taken at the CGST Bhawan - The High Court found that the officers involved were duly authorized and acted within their powers under the NDPS Act. It was established that the search and seizure were conducted in compliance with Section 43 of the NDPS Act, which pertains to actions in public places. The Court held that the procedural requirements were met, including the immediate forwarding of seized items for chemical analysis and the safekeeping of the seized narcotics. - The appeals of appellants directly involved with the narcotics in the truck were dismissed, and their convictions were upheld based on the corroborative evidence of seizure and compliance with the NDPS procedural requirements. The appeals of two appellants, argued to be not present at the scene and implicated mainly through inadmissible confessional statements, were allowed, and their convictions were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.