https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197210 Chance recovery during lawful patrol was treated as a case under Section 43 of the NDPS Act, so the safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 were not attracted in the absence of prior specific information. Objections based on non-production of the case property, alleged break in custody, and possible sample tampering failed because no proper factual foundation had been laid in the record. The seized substance was found to be a manufactured drug, so the conviction was corrected from Section 22 to Section 21 of the NDPS Act without prejudice, and the sentence was maintained. The conviction under Section 307 IPC was set aside because the evidence did not establish a clear attempt to murder. en-us Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197210 Chance recovery during lawful patrol was treated as a case under Section 43 of the NDPS Act, so the safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 were not attracted in the absence of prior specific information. Objections based on non-production of the case property, alleged break in custody, and possible sample tampering failed because no proper factual foundation had been laid in the record. The seized substance was found to be a manufactured drug, so the conviction was corrected from Section 22 to Section 21 of the NDPS Act without prejudice, and the sentence was maintained. The conviction under Section 307 IPC was set aside because the evidence did not establish a clear attempt to murder. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197210