<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (3) TMI 214 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80611</link>
    <description>A warrantless search of a hotel room was treated as lawful where an empowered officer acted before sunset on written information and had reasonable grounds to believe that delay for a warrant could enable concealment of evidence. Non-production of the secret information and an unreceived Delhi laboratory report did not prejudice the prosecution because the Bombay laboratory report established the substance as heroin. Recovery of a concealed cardboard box containing heroin from the room occupied by the accused, together with travel documents and other incriminating articles, was held sufficient to support conviction despite objections to the hotel bill, alleged planting, and the authority of the officer recording statements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:43:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 214 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80611</link>
      <description>A warrantless search of a hotel room was treated as lawful where an empowered officer acted before sunset on written information and had reasonable grounds to believe that delay for a warrant could enable concealment of evidence. Non-production of the secret information and an unreceived Delhi laboratory report did not prejudice the prosecution because the Bombay laboratory report established the substance as heroin. Recovery of a concealed cardboard box containing heroin from the room occupied by the accused, together with travel documents and other incriminating articles, was held sufficient to support conviction despite objections to the hotel bill, alleged planting, and the authority of the officer recording statements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>