https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277991 Authorised search and seizure under the NDPS Act was not vitiated merely because no warrant was shown or because strict compliance with every procedural safeguard was questioned; irregularity alone did not invalidate the recovery. The absence of independent witnesses did not render the recovery doubtful where official witnesses were credible and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Statements recorded under Section 67 were admissible, as the NDPS officer was not treated as a police officer for Section 25 and no reliable proof of coercion was shown. However, for quantity determination, the actual narcotic content in the sample, not the gross weight of the mixture, was relevant, so the case fell within intermediate quantity and the sentence was reduced accordingly. en-us Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jan 2019 14:42:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277991 Authorised search and seizure under the NDPS Act was not vitiated merely because no warrant was shown or because strict compliance with every procedural safeguard was questioned; irregularity alone did not invalidate the recovery. The absence of independent witnesses did not render the recovery doubtful where official witnesses were credible and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. Statements recorded under Section 67 were admissible, as the NDPS officer was not treated as a police officer for Section 25 and no reliable proof of coercion was shown. However, for quantity determination, the actual narcotic content in the sample, not the gross weight of the mixture, was relevant, so the case fell within intermediate quantity and the sentence was reduced accordingly. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277991