<?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 (8) TMI 1117 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263200</link>
    <description>Minor discrepancies in witness accounts and the absence of independent witnesses were treated as non-fatal where official testimony and a Tehsildar supported the recovery. Section 42 was held inapplicable because the contraband was recovered from the accused&#039;s person at a public place, so alleged non-compliance did not vitiate the search. Section 50, however, required clear intimation of the right to be searched before the nearest gazetted officer or Magistrate; the notice did not clearly convey that safeguard, and the presence of an Executive Magistrate did not cure the defect. The recovery was therefore held suspect and the conviction could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:53:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1117 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263200</link>
      <description>Minor discrepancies in witness accounts and the absence of independent witnesses were treated as non-fatal where official testimony and a Tehsildar supported the recovery. Section 42 was held inapplicable because the contraband was recovered from the accused&#039;s person at a public place, so alleged non-compliance did not vitiate the search. Section 50, however, required clear intimation of the right to be searched before the nearest gazetted officer or Magistrate; the notice did not clearly convey that safeguard, and the presence of an Executive Magistrate did not cure the defect. The recovery was therefore held suspect and the conviction could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>