https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278374 Corroborative testimony of the seizing officer, panch witness and investigating officer, supported by the seizure memo and chemical analysis report, established recovery of heroin beyond reasonable doubt; minor timing discrepancies and the objection that the panch witness was professional did not undermine the prosecution case. The defence of possession for personal consumption was rejected because no such plea or proof was advanced, and the presence of four packets was treated as consistent with prohibited possession rather than personal use. Search and seizure in a public place were upheld because the officer was empowered under the NDPS framework. Conviction and sentence were affirmed, with the offence treated as one under section 21 read with section 8(c). en-us Thu, 24 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jan 2019 12:29:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278374 Corroborative testimony of the seizing officer, panch witness and investigating officer, supported by the seizure memo and chemical analysis report, established recovery of heroin beyond reasonable doubt; minor timing discrepancies and the objection that the panch witness was professional did not undermine the prosecution case. The defence of possession for personal consumption was rejected because no such plea or proof was advanced, and the presence of four packets was treated as consistent with prohibited possession rather than personal use. Search and seizure in a public place were upheld because the officer was empowered under the NDPS framework. Conviction and sentence were affirmed, with the offence treated as one under section 21 read with section 8(c). Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278374