<?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>2018 (1) TMI 653 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353917</link>
    <description>Mandatory procedural safeguards governing search, body screening, and custodial statements under the NDPS Act and Customs Act require strict compliance. A suspect must be clearly informed of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and mere notice of an option is insufficient. Where body search and recovery involve hospital examination and extraction of concealed articles, the required judicial authorisation must be obtained; permission for medical examination alone does not satisfy the statutory procedure. Statements recorded in custody under Section 67 are not voluntary if the person was not informed of the right to silence and the statements were obtained after the recovery process. Evidence obtained in breach of these safeguards cannot be treated as reliable proof of guilt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:43:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 653 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353917</link>
      <description>Mandatory procedural safeguards governing search, body screening, and custodial statements under the NDPS Act and Customs Act require strict compliance. A suspect must be clearly informed of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and mere notice of an option is insufficient. Where body search and recovery involve hospital examination and extraction of concealed articles, the required judicial authorisation must be obtained; permission for medical examination alone does not satisfy the statutory procedure. Statements recorded in custody under Section 67 are not voluntary if the person was not informed of the right to silence and the statements were obtained after the recovery process. Evidence obtained in breach of these safeguards cannot be treated as reliable proof of guilt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>