<?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>2006 (11) TMI 545 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158394</link>
    <description>Reliable official evidence and a voluntary confession under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can sustain a conviction even where panch witnesses are unavailable, provided the testimony is consistent and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Possession was treated as established from recovery of the contraband, passport and diary from the bag, and the accused&#039;s failure to give a credible explanation triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54. Objections based on Section 50, marginal sample-weight variation, and Section 42(2) were rejected because the search of the bag did not attract Section 50, the discrepancy was minor, and the search was carried out by a gazetted customs officer on authorisation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 545 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158394</link>
      <description>Reliable official evidence and a voluntary confession under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can sustain a conviction even where panch witnesses are unavailable, provided the testimony is consistent and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Possession was treated as established from recovery of the contraband, passport and diary from the bag, and the accused&#039;s failure to give a credible explanation triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54. Objections based on Section 50, marginal sample-weight variation, and Section 42(2) were rejected because the search of the bag did not attract Section 50, the discrepancy was minor, and the search was carried out by a gazetted customs officer on authorisation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>