<?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>1925 (8) TMI 2 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284346</link>
    <description>A warrantless search conducted without recording the statutory grounds of immediate necessity and without strictly associating two respectable local witnesses was treated as irregular, but not fatal to the prosecution where the evidence of the Excise Inspector and search witnesses established possession of cocaine in the accused&#039;s house. The court held that defects in search procedure did not outweigh substantive proof of possession, and absence of full compliance with search formalities did not bar conviction when the offence was otherwise proved. The conviction was therefore upheld and the application was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1925 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 13:14:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1925 (8) TMI 2 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284346</link>
      <description>A warrantless search conducted without recording the statutory grounds of immediate necessity and without strictly associating two respectable local witnesses was treated as irregular, but not fatal to the prosecution where the evidence of the Excise Inspector and search witnesses established possession of cocaine in the accused&#039;s house. The court held that defects in search procedure did not outweigh substantive proof of possession, and absence of full compliance with search formalities did not bar conviction when the offence was otherwise proved. The conviction was therefore upheld and the application was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 1925 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>