<?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>2001 (4) TMI 915 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174181</link>
    <description>A prosecution under the NDPS Act failed where the identity of the seized material as Methaqualone was not proved beyond doubt, and the chemical evidence did not match the accepted composition of that substance. Mandatory safeguards on recording and forwarding information and on safe custody of samples were also not satisfactorily complied with, leaving the chain of custody doubtful. Statements recorded from the accused were not treated as reliable confession evidence in the absence of independent support. The failure on these core requirements meant the convictions could not stand, and the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 915 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174181</link>
      <description>A prosecution under the NDPS Act failed where the identity of the seized material as Methaqualone was not proved beyond doubt, and the chemical evidence did not match the accepted composition of that substance. Mandatory safeguards on recording and forwarding information and on safe custody of samples were also not satisfactorily complied with, leaving the chain of custody doubtful. Statements recorded from the accused were not treated as reliable confession evidence in the absence of independent support. The failure on these core requirements meant the convictions could not stand, and the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174181</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>