<?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>2012 (12) TMI 1084 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169451</link>
    <description>Strict prior recording and communication of secret information under Section 42 of the NDPS Act is mandatory; where there is total non-compliance, the doctrine of substantial compliance does not save the prosecution, and prejudice need not be separately examined. The Court also found the alleged recovery unreliable because the presence of the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate was doubtful, no independent witness was joined, and the investigating officer did not record such association. On these facts, the recovery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was acquitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 1084 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169451</link>
      <description>Strict prior recording and communication of secret information under Section 42 of the NDPS Act is mandatory; where there is total non-compliance, the doctrine of substantial compliance does not save the prosecution, and prejudice need not be separately examined. The Court also found the alleged recovery unreliable because the presence of the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate was doubtful, no independent witness was joined, and the investigating officer did not record such association. On these facts, the recovery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was acquitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>