https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173445 A conviction under the NDPS Act could not be sustained where the recovery narrative was inherently improbable, the police version of discovery was unnatural, and material evidence was withheld. The Court treated the non-examination of the Sarpanch, a recovery witness, as an improper suppression of relevant evidence and held that the prosecution case was not fully and truly presented. On that basis, the accused was given the benefit of doubt and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The question of admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was noted but left undecided. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173445 A conviction under the NDPS Act could not be sustained where the recovery narrative was inherently improbable, the police version of discovery was unnatural, and material evidence was withheld. The Court treated the non-examination of the Sarpanch, a recovery witness, as an improper suppression of relevant evidence and held that the prosecution case was not fully and truly presented. On that basis, the accused was given the benefit of doubt and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The question of admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was noted but left undecided. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173445