https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182871 An NDPS conviction was challenged on alleged non-compliance with Section 50 and defects in recovery, sealing, and defence evidence. The prosecution showed that the accused was informed of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or Magistrate, and the search was carried out before a gazetted officer after the accused chose that option. The Court found no basis to infer that the notice was fabricated after the search. The FIR number on the recovery memo did not vitiate the seizure, the non-joining of independent witnesses was explained by villagers' refusal, and the custody of seized articles was accepted. The defence of false implication was rejected, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. en-us Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 May 2016 15:39:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182871 An NDPS conviction was challenged on alleged non-compliance with Section 50 and defects in recovery, sealing, and defence evidence. The prosecution showed that the accused was informed of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or Magistrate, and the search was carried out before a gazetted officer after the accused chose that option. The Court found no basis to infer that the notice was fabricated after the search. The FIR number on the recovery memo did not vitiate the seizure, the non-joining of independent witnesses was explained by villagers' refusal, and the custody of seized articles was accepted. The defence of false implication was rejected, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182871