<?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>2020 (7) TMI 354 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396685</link>
    <description>In an NDPS seizure involving multiple packets, the Court held that samples must be drawn in accordance with the statutory procedure and applicable Standing Orders. Mixing the entire contents of all packets before sampling was treated as a defective process because it destroyed the separate identity of each packet and produced non-representative samples. The Court also noted the absence of examination of independent witnesses, which added to the evidentiary infirmity. On these facts, the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction could not be sustained, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2020 08:14:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 354 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396685</link>
      <description>In an NDPS seizure involving multiple packets, the Court held that samples must be drawn in accordance with the statutory procedure and applicable Standing Orders. Mixing the entire contents of all packets before sampling was treated as a defective process because it destroyed the separate identity of each packet and produced non-representative samples. The Court also noted the absence of examination of independent witnesses, which added to the evidentiary infirmity. On these facts, the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction could not be sustained, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>