<?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>2013 (1) TMI 306 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220200</link>
    <description>Section 50 of the NDPS Act requires the empowered officer to inform a suspect of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and strict compliance is mandatory. Informing the accused only that he could be searched before such an officer if he wished was insufficient because it did not communicate the existence of the right itself. Non-compliance invalidated the personal search and vitiated the proceedings, leading to the conviction and sentence being set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 306 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220200</link>
      <description>Section 50 of the NDPS Act requires the empowered officer to inform a suspect of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and strict compliance is mandatory. Informing the accused only that he could be searched before such an officer if he wished was insufficient because it did not communicate the existence of the right itself. Non-compliance invalidated the personal search and vitiated the proceedings, leading to the conviction and sentence being set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>