<?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>1999 (9) TMI 972 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197186</link>
    <description>Section 50 applies only to a search of the person of the accused, not to recovery from a bag carried by the accused. On that basis, opium recovered from the bag did not trigger the personal-search safeguard, and the courts below were justified in holding that the conviction was not vitiated by non-compliance with Section 50.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 972 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197186</link>
      <description>Section 50 applies only to a search of the person of the accused, not to recovery from a bag carried by the accused. On that basis, opium recovered from the bag did not trigger the personal-search safeguard, and the courts below were justified in holding that the conviction was not vitiated by non-compliance with Section 50.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>