<?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 (12) TMI 618 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352349</link>
    <description>Conviction for possession and recovery of heroin under the NDPS Act was upheld because the police witnesses gave a consistent account of the interception and seizure, and minor discrepancies in the site plan and timing were treated as insignificant. The absence of independent witnesses did not weaken the prosecution where public persons had refused to join the recovery. The seizure was properly sealed at the spot, the forensic report confirmed the seal remained intact, and delay in forwarding the sample did not by itself suggest tampering. Filing the charge-sheet before receipt of the FSL report did not make the investigation incomplete, and belated compliance with the reporting requirement was accepted on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:27:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 618 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352349</link>
      <description>Conviction for possession and recovery of heroin under the NDPS Act was upheld because the police witnesses gave a consistent account of the interception and seizure, and minor discrepancies in the site plan and timing were treated as insignificant. The absence of independent witnesses did not weaken the prosecution where public persons had refused to join the recovery. The seizure was properly sealed at the spot, the forensic report confirmed the seal remained intact, and delay in forwarding the sample did not by itself suggest tampering. Filing the charge-sheet before receipt of the FSL report did not make the investigation incomplete, and belated compliance with the reporting requirement was accepted on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>