<?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 1511 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353242</link>
    <description>Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act applies mandatorily to a personal search, but non-compliance did not vitiate the conviction where ganja was recovered from the car&#039;s dickey and the prosecution did not rely on the personal search for proof. The seizure was supported by consistent witness evidence, sampling procedure, and forensic corroboration, and the presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 remained unrebutted. By contrast, the conviction for using false number plates could not stand because the record did not prove that the plates were false or used by the accused. The NDPS conviction was maintained, while the Penal Code conviction was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Dec 2017 09:06:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1511 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353242</link>
      <description>Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act applies mandatorily to a personal search, but non-compliance did not vitiate the conviction where ganja was recovered from the car&#039;s dickey and the prosecution did not rely on the personal search for proof. The seizure was supported by consistent witness evidence, sampling procedure, and forensic corroboration, and the presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 remained unrebutted. By contrast, the conviction for using false number plates could not stand because the record did not prove that the plates were false or used by the accused. The NDPS conviction was maintained, while the Penal Code conviction was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>