https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195587 Admissions made before customs authorities were held relevant and not excluded by Sections 25 or 26 of the Evidence Act, and they had to be weighed with the statutory presumption arising from possession under the NDPS Act before rejecting the prosecution case. The High Court was faulted for not properly assessing the recovery from a concealed cavity in the vehicle, the accused's statements, and the evidence relating to compliance with NDPS safeguards, including Sections 42, 50 and 57. Its findings on non-guilt and procedural non-compliance were therefore not sustainable on the existing analysis, and the matter required fresh adjudication on the evidence and applicable statutory provisions. en-us Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Nov 2017 15:29:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195587 Admissions made before customs authorities were held relevant and not excluded by Sections 25 or 26 of the Evidence Act, and they had to be weighed with the statutory presumption arising from possession under the NDPS Act before rejecting the prosecution case. The High Court was faulted for not properly assessing the recovery from a concealed cavity in the vehicle, the accused's statements, and the evidence relating to compliance with NDPS safeguards, including Sections 42, 50 and 57. Its findings on non-guilt and procedural non-compliance were therefore not sustainable on the existing analysis, and the matter required fresh adjudication on the evidence and applicable statutory provisions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195587