https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171813 Search and seizure of contraband were not vitiated merely because public witnesses were limited; the search memo and panchnama were signed by independent witnesses, departmental officers and the accused, and the circumstances of an early-morning recovery of a large banned quantity made planting unlikely. The NDPS Act reporting requirement under Section 42(2) was held inapplicable because the search was conducted by a gazetted officer acting on his own authority, a category treated differently from searches carried out without warrant or authorisation. The objections failed and the convictions were sustained. en-us Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jan 2018 16:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171813 Search and seizure of contraband were not vitiated merely because public witnesses were limited; the search memo and panchnama were signed by independent witnesses, departmental officers and the accused, and the circumstances of an early-morning recovery of a large banned quantity made planting unlikely. The NDPS Act reporting requirement under Section 42(2) was held inapplicable because the search was conducted by a gazetted officer acting on his own authority, a category treated differently from searches carried out without warrant or authorisation. The objections failed and the convictions were sustained. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171813