<?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>2004 (2) TMI 663 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162138</link>
    <description>Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to a personal search and not to recovery from an article carried by the accused; accordingly, seizure from a tin box in the accused&#039;s hand did not attract Section 50 safeguards, and the absence of independent witnesses did not vitiate recovery. The statutory scheme under Section 52A concerns disposal of seized narcotic substances and the evidentiary value of inventories, photographs and samples, not the manner of search. Standing orders and sampling instructions were treated as directory guidance rather than mandatory rules, so their breach did not invalidate the prosecution. The conviction and sentence were restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 663 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162138</link>
      <description>Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to a personal search and not to recovery from an article carried by the accused; accordingly, seizure from a tin box in the accused&#039;s hand did not attract Section 50 safeguards, and the absence of independent witnesses did not vitiate recovery. The statutory scheme under Section 52A concerns disposal of seized narcotic substances and the evidentiary value of inventories, photographs and samples, not the manner of search. Standing orders and sampling instructions were treated as directory guidance rather than mandatory rules, so their breach did not invalidate the prosecution. The conviction and sentence were restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>