https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282293 Recovery from a sack carried by the accused, rather than from his person in the strict sense, was treated as outside the scope of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The seizure and sampling evidence was accepted because the witnesses consistently supported the recovery, refusal of search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was proved, and the sealed sample was shown to have reached the forensic laboratory without tampering; absence of an independent public witness was not treated as fatal on these facts. Prior NDPS convictions also justified enhanced punishment under Section 31, so a third-offence sentence of 15 years' rigorous imprisonment was held lawful. en-us Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2019 05:52:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282293 Recovery from a sack carried by the accused, rather than from his person in the strict sense, was treated as outside the scope of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The seizure and sampling evidence was accepted because the witnesses consistently supported the recovery, refusal of search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was proved, and the sealed sample was shown to have reached the forensic laboratory without tampering; absence of an independent public witness was not treated as fatal on these facts. Prior NDPS convictions also justified enhanced punishment under Section 31, so a third-offence sentence of 15 years' rigorous imprisonment was held lawful. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282293