https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375688 Intrusive recovery of contraband from inside a person's body required strict compliance with the statutory safeguards, including production before a Magistrate, judicially ordered screening or X-ray, proof of the radiologist's report, and further medical-supervised recovery. Mere consent to X-ray did not dispense with these steps. Because the radiologist was not examined, the report was not duly proved, further magisterial permission was not obtained, and recovery was not shown to have occurred under medical supervision, the recovery was held legally infirm. The prosecution also failed to prove that the alleged inculpatory statements were voluntary, properly recorded, or reliably translated and explained, so they could not sustain the conviction. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jul 2019 18:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375688 Intrusive recovery of contraband from inside a person's body required strict compliance with the statutory safeguards, including production before a Magistrate, judicially ordered screening or X-ray, proof of the radiologist's report, and further medical-supervised recovery. Mere consent to X-ray did not dispense with these steps. Because the radiologist was not examined, the report was not duly proved, further magisterial permission was not obtained, and recovery was not shown to have occurred under medical supervision, the recovery was held legally infirm. The prosecution also failed to prove that the alleged inculpatory statements were voluntary, properly recorded, or reliably translated and explained, so they could not sustain the conviction. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375688