<?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>2010 (5) TMI 935 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277603</link>
    <description>In an NDPS prosecution, the Court found the recovery and possession of opium were not proved beyond reasonable doubt because of major contradictions in the CFSL form, seal handling, and link evidence. The Court reaffirmed that strict proof of foundational facts and an unbroken chain of custody are essential in narcotics cases, and held that the defects created a serious possibility of tampering or interpolation. Delay in sending the sample was not fatal, and Section 42 did not apply because the recovery was from a public place, but these points did not cure the evidentiary infirmities. The conviction and sentence were therefore unsustainable, and the appellant was acquitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2018 09:55:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=546569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 935 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277603</link>
      <description>In an NDPS prosecution, the Court found the recovery and possession of opium were not proved beyond reasonable doubt because of major contradictions in the CFSL form, seal handling, and link evidence. The Court reaffirmed that strict proof of foundational facts and an unbroken chain of custody are essential in narcotics cases, and held that the defects created a serious possibility of tampering or interpolation. Delay in sending the sample was not fatal, and Section 42 did not apply because the recovery was from a public place, but these points did not cure the evidentiary infirmities. The conviction and sentence were therefore unsustainable, and the appellant was acquitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>