https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234325 Section 42 was held inapplicable because the search was not of a building, conveyance, or enclosed place, so failure to record secret information or send it to a superior officer did not vitiate the recovery. The conviction was also sustained despite no independent witness, as the recovery of heroin was proved by official witnesses whose evidence remained credible and was supported by the appellant's own admission. The appellant's acquittal in the Arms Act case had no bearing because it rested on non-production of substantive evidence in that matter, not on a finding affecting the present prosecution. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was found proper, and the NDPS conviction and sentence were affirmed. en-us Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 May 2013 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234325 Section 42 was held inapplicable because the search was not of a building, conveyance, or enclosed place, so failure to record secret information or send it to a superior officer did not vitiate the recovery. The conviction was also sustained despite no independent witness, as the recovery of heroin was proved by official witnesses whose evidence remained credible and was supported by the appellant's own admission. The appellant's acquittal in the Arms Act case had no bearing because it rested on non-production of substantive evidence in that matter, not on a finding affecting the present prosecution. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was found proper, and the NDPS conviction and sentence were affirmed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234325