<?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>2013 (1) TMI 1003 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287568</link>
    <description>Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 requires the officer to record prior information in writing and forward it to the immediate superior, unless justified delay is shown by urgent circumstances. On the facts, the information was received at the police station with enough time to comply, but there was no reliable proof of written recording, the diary entry was not produced, and no proof showed forwarding to a superior officer even after the search. The court treated this as total non-compliance, not substantial or delayed compliance, and held that the recovery and conviction could not stand. The conviction and sentence were set aside and acquittal followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:32:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=610718" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 1003 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287568</link>
      <description>Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 requires the officer to record prior information in writing and forward it to the immediate superior, unless justified delay is shown by urgent circumstances. On the facts, the information was received at the police station with enough time to comply, but there was no reliable proof of written recording, the diary entry was not produced, and no proof showed forwarding to a superior officer even after the search. The court treated this as total non-compliance, not substantial or delayed compliance, and held that the recovery and conviction could not stand. The conviction and sentence were set aside and acquittal followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>