<?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 (8) TMI 1255 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190141</link>
    <description>Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 requires clear communication of the accused&#039;s legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. A notice that merely offers such a search, without informing the person that the right can be insisted upon, is non-compliant with the mandatory safeguard. That defect vitiates the trial and supports the acquittal where the prosecution relies on the invalid notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2017 14:27:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1255 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190141</link>
      <description>Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 requires clear communication of the accused&#039;s legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. A notice that merely offers such a search, without informing the person that the right can be insisted upon, is non-compliant with the mandatory safeguard. That defect vitiates the trial and supports the acquittal where the prosecution relies on the invalid notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>