<?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>2011 (1) TMI 1401 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180413</link>
    <description>The prosecution was found to have established recovery and link evidence in an NDPS prosecution through consistent recovery witnesses, malkhana records, and a CFSL report showing intact seals matching specimen impressions. Delay in sending the sample and the absence of a forwarded FSL form were held not fatal without proof of tampering or prejudice. The Court also held that non-joining of public witnesses and alleged non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52, 55 and 57 did not vitiate the conviction on these facts. Objections based on the FIR number on the seizure memo and the proof of the CFSL report were rejected, and the conviction was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:08:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421141" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1401 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180413</link>
      <description>The prosecution was found to have established recovery and link evidence in an NDPS prosecution through consistent recovery witnesses, malkhana records, and a CFSL report showing intact seals matching specimen impressions. Delay in sending the sample and the absence of a forwarded FSL form were held not fatal without proof of tampering or prejudice. The Court also held that non-joining of public witnesses and alleged non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52, 55 and 57 did not vitiate the conviction on these facts. Objections based on the FIR number on the seizure memo and the proof of the CFSL report were rejected, and the conviction was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>