<?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 (9) TMI 342 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263674</link>
    <description>Strict compliance with the NDPS Act&#039;s mandatory safeguards was emphasised, especially the requirement under Section 42 to record secret information in writing and forward it to a superior officer, subject only to limited urgent situations. The record showed no written recording or proved communication of the information, and that non-compliance was treated as fatal to the prosecution. Delay in sending samples to the forensic laboratory did not by itself show tampering because the seals were found intact and matching, and the objection about non-forwarding of the FSL form was rejected as factually incorrect. Failure to join public witnesses, though not an absolute defect, materially weakened the prosecution when viewed with the other investigative lapses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:29:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396168" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 342 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263674</link>
      <description>Strict compliance with the NDPS Act&#039;s mandatory safeguards was emphasised, especially the requirement under Section 42 to record secret information in writing and forward it to a superior officer, subject only to limited urgent situations. The record showed no written recording or proved communication of the information, and that non-compliance was treated as fatal to the prosecution. Delay in sending samples to the forensic laboratory did not by itself show tampering because the seals were found intact and matching, and the objection about non-forwarding of the FSL form was rejected as factually incorrect. Failure to join public witnesses, though not an absolute defect, materially weakened the prosecution when viewed with the other investigative lapses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>