<?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>1987 (10) TMI 381 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278375</link>
    <description>Section 42 of the NDPS Act was applied strictly: only the specified officers, or officers specially authorised by government notification, could lawfully enter, search, seize and arrest without warrant. The record showed that the head constable who first searched the bag, and the Station House Officer, were not duly authorised on the relevant date, so the search and recovery lacked lawful competence. The Court also noted that the alleged recovery was not satisfactorily corroborated by the hostile motbirs and that the prosecution rested on an investigation initiated without authority. The conviction was therefore set aside and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:17:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=555499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (10) TMI 381 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278375</link>
      <description>Section 42 of the NDPS Act was applied strictly: only the specified officers, or officers specially authorised by government notification, could lawfully enter, search, seize and arrest without warrant. The record showed that the head constable who first searched the bag, and the Station House Officer, were not duly authorised on the relevant date, so the search and recovery lacked lawful competence. The Court also noted that the alleged recovery was not satisfactorily corroborated by the hostile motbirs and that the prosecution rested on an investigation initiated without authority. The conviction was therefore set aside and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>