<?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>2015 (6) TMI 701 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260776</link>
    <description>Checked-in baggage linked to the accused through baggage tags, counterfoil and corroborative witness evidence established conscious possession, so the NDPS statutory presumption applied and the burden shifted to explain possession. Recovery from checked-in luggage did not require strict Section 50 compliance because the search was not from the person, and any language-related defect in the notice was not fatal. The court also rejected objections on sample dispatch and sampling, holding that the forwarding record and laboratory receipt showed due transmission, a date mismatch was only clerical, and no tampering or prejudice was proved. The acquittal was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=388265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 701 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260776</link>
      <description>Checked-in baggage linked to the accused through baggage tags, counterfoil and corroborative witness evidence established conscious possession, so the NDPS statutory presumption applied and the burden shifted to explain possession. Recovery from checked-in luggage did not require strict Section 50 compliance because the search was not from the person, and any language-related defect in the notice was not fatal. The court also rejected objections on sample dispatch and sampling, holding that the forwarding record and laboratory receipt showed due transmission, a date mismatch was only clerical, and no tampering or prejudice was proved. The acquittal was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>