https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100364 Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act were treated as satisfied on the facts. Prompt action on received information meant there was no violation of Section 42 despite no prior written recording in the exact manner suggested. Oral communication of the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was accepted as sufficient compliance with Section 50 because the accused was informed and declined to exercise it. Non-forwarding of a formal arrest-and-seizure report did not vitiate the prosecution under Section 57, as the FIR and connected documents were promptly sent and substantial compliance caused no prejudice. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 18:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100364 Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act were treated as satisfied on the facts. Prompt action on received information meant there was no violation of Section 42 despite no prior written recording in the exact manner suggested. Oral communication of the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was accepted as sufficient compliance with Section 50 because the accused was informed and declined to exercise it. Non-forwarding of a formal arrest-and-seizure report did not vitiate the prosecution under Section 57, as the FIR and connected documents were promptly sent and substantial compliance caused no prejudice. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100364