<?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>1996 (2) TMI 530 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162132</link>
    <description>Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applies to a personal search, not to baggage or articles not in the accused&#039;s actual possession at the time of search. The Supreme Court noted that the safeguard in Section 50, including the special rule for searching a female, is directed to the person being searched; however, a handbag or similar article carried on the person may still attract the provision. On the facts, the incriminating article was found in a checked-in bag taken from the aircraft luggage compartment, so the search was not a search of the person. Section 50 was therefore not attracted, and non-compliance did not vitiate the prosecution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 530 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162132</link>
      <description>Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applies to a personal search, not to baggage or articles not in the accused&#039;s actual possession at the time of search. The Supreme Court noted that the safeguard in Section 50, including the special rule for searching a female, is directed to the person being searched; however, a handbag or similar article carried on the person may still attract the provision. On the facts, the incriminating article was found in a checked-in bag taken from the aircraft luggage compartment, so the search was not a search of the person. Section 50 was therefore not attracted, and non-compliance did not vitiate the prosecution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>