https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160931 Search and seizure at an airport, being a public place, fell within Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, so Section 42 compliance was not required. The challenge under Section 50 also failed because no personal search of the accused was conducted. The record showed that the arrest was reported to the immediate superior officer in line with Section 57, and the arrest memo recorded the offence under the Act while a copy was received by the accused, satisfying communication of the grounds of arrest. On these facts, the alleged procedural lapses did not vitiate the search, seizure or arrest, and the conviction was upheld. en-us Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 May 2020 15:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160931 Search and seizure at an airport, being a public place, fell within Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, so Section 42 compliance was not required. The challenge under Section 50 also failed because no personal search of the accused was conducted. The record showed that the arrest was reported to the immediate superior officer in line with Section 57, and the arrest memo recorded the offence under the Act while a copy was received by the accused, satisfying communication of the grounds of arrest. On these facts, the alleged procedural lapses did not vitiate the search, seizure or arrest, and the conviction was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160931