<?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>2017 (4) TMI 69 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341099</link>
    <description>Non-production of the original information and the doubtful translated copy created a serious defect in the alleged compliance with Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, while the absence of diary entries further weakened the prosecution chronology. The alleged conspiracy was not supported by reliable independent evidence, as the necessary link, participation, and recovery of phones or SIM cards were not established. Electronic call records were not proved in compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and the accused&#039;s retracted statements were not safely relied upon. These evidentiary deficiencies justified the trial court&#039;s view that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Apr 2017 15:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463873" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 69 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341099</link>
      <description>Non-production of the original information and the doubtful translated copy created a serious defect in the alleged compliance with Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, while the absence of diary entries further weakened the prosecution chronology. The alleged conspiracy was not supported by reliable independent evidence, as the necessary link, participation, and recovery of phones or SIM cards were not established. Electronic call records were not proved in compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and the accused&#039;s retracted statements were not safely relied upon. These evidentiary deficiencies justified the trial court&#039;s view that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>