https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399262 Seizure in an airport departure area and customs area was treated as seizure in a public place, so Section 43 of the NDPS Act applied and Section 42 compliance was unnecessary. However, the prosecution failed to show that the samples were drawn from a homogeneous and representative mix, and the record did not establish a reliable, tamper-free chain of custody from seizure to laboratory testing. The appellant's panchnama signature and retracted Section 67 statement did not replace independent proof of recovery. The conviction could not be sustained because the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the recovered substance was charas and that the seized material remained properly linked to the tested sample. en-us Mon, 05 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Oct 2020 11:25:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399262 Seizure in an airport departure area and customs area was treated as seizure in a public place, so Section 43 of the NDPS Act applied and Section 42 compliance was unnecessary. However, the prosecution failed to show that the samples were drawn from a homogeneous and representative mix, and the record did not establish a reliable, tamper-free chain of custody from seizure to laboratory testing. The appellant's panchnama signature and retracted Section 67 statement did not replace independent proof of recovery. The conviction could not be sustained because the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the recovered substance was charas and that the seized material remained properly linked to the tested sample. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 05 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399262