<?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 (5) TMI 732 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342994</link>
    <description>Reliable official witnesses can sustain an NDPS conviction where recovery is a chance recovery and independent witnesses were not practically available. The court accepted the police evidence as consistent, found no material contradiction or motive for false implication, and inferred conscious possession from the accused&#039;s conduct, proximity to the bags, and failure to explain his presence. The conviction for possession of poppy straw was therefore upheld. On sentence, the court considered the appellant&#039;s custody already undergone, family responsibilities, and the overall facts to reduce the term while keeping the conviction intact. The sentence was accordingly reduced to ten years&#039; rigorous imprisonment with a lower fine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 May 2017 07:20:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 732 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342994</link>
      <description>Reliable official witnesses can sustain an NDPS conviction where recovery is a chance recovery and independent witnesses were not practically available. The court accepted the police evidence as consistent, found no material contradiction or motive for false implication, and inferred conscious possession from the accused&#039;s conduct, proximity to the bags, and failure to explain his presence. The conviction for possession of poppy straw was therefore upheld. On sentence, the court considered the appellant&#039;s custody already undergone, family responsibilities, and the overall facts to reduce the term while keeping the conviction intact. The sentence was accordingly reduced to ten years&#039; rigorous imprisonment with a lower fine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>