https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332407 Recovery of contraband from an open or public place attracted Section 43 rather than Section 42, so prior recording requirements under Section 42 were inapplicable. Alleged defects in label, sealing, or sampling did not undermine the prosecution case where no objection was raised at production of the bag and the samples were shown to have remained sealed and duly tested. The conviction was also supported by surrounding recovery evidence and the appellant's pre-arrest Section 67 statement; the Court noted that voluntariness must be assessed on the facts of each case and that the statement was not the sole basis of guilt. The concurrent findings and conviction were therefore sustained. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332407 Recovery of contraband from an open or public place attracted Section 43 rather than Section 42, so prior recording requirements under Section 42 were inapplicable. Alleged defects in label, sealing, or sampling did not undermine the prosecution case where no objection was raised at production of the bag and the samples were shown to have remained sealed and duly tested. The conviction was also supported by surrounding recovery evidence and the appellant's pre-arrest Section 67 statement; the Court noted that voluntariness must be assessed on the facts of each case and that the statement was not the sole basis of guilt. The concurrent findings and conviction were therefore sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332407