https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353386 Possession of alprazolam under the NDPS Act was sustained because the accused was informed of the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and consented to police search, satisfying Section 50. The missing signature of the recovery witness on the written consent memo caused no prejudice, as the accused's signature and oral proof of communication were accepted. The small difference between the seized and laboratory weight was treated as negligible and not suggestive of tampering. The Section 313 CrPC objection also failed because the essential incriminating recovery was put to the accused. The forensic report and chain of custody were found reliable, and the conviction was upheld. en-us Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 07:55:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353386 Possession of alprazolam under the NDPS Act was sustained because the accused was informed of the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and consented to police search, satisfying Section 50. The missing signature of the recovery witness on the written consent memo caused no prejudice, as the accused's signature and oral proof of communication were accepted. The small difference between the seized and laboratory weight was treated as negligible and not suggestive of tampering. The Section 313 CrPC objection also failed because the essential incriminating recovery was put to the accused. The forensic report and chain of custody were found reliable, and the conviction was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353386