https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163143 The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the recovered substance was a manufactured drug under the NDPS Act because it fell within neither the statutory definition nor any relevant notification. It also found that the substance was treated as a psychotropic substance, but possession was within the limit permitted for personal medical use under Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules. On those findings, the conviction and sentence could not stand, and acquittal followed because the alleged possession was not shown to be unlawful. en-us Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163143 The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the recovered substance was a manufactured drug under the NDPS Act because it fell within neither the statutory definition nor any relevant notification. It also found that the substance was treated as a psychotropic substance, but possession was within the limit permitted for personal medical use under Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules. On those findings, the conviction and sentence could not stand, and acquittal followed because the alleged possession was not shown to be unlawful. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163143