<?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>2012 (8) TMI 1182 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291103</link>
    <description>Credible official testimony in an NDPS prosecution can sustain conviction where the search, seizure, sealing, sampling, forwarding of case property, and chemical analysis are duly proved. Hostility of one independent witness and non-examination of another did not, by themselves, discredit the prosecution when the police evidence remained consistent and the chain of custody was intact. The court also treated the trial court&#039;s insistence on independent corroboration as unduly rigid, noted that the seized substance was confirmed as charas, and held that the acquittal could not stand. The acquittal was reversed and the accused were convicted under the NDPS Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2020 12:32:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 1182 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291103</link>
      <description>Credible official testimony in an NDPS prosecution can sustain conviction where the search, seizure, sealing, sampling, forwarding of case property, and chemical analysis are duly proved. Hostility of one independent witness and non-examination of another did not, by themselves, discredit the prosecution when the police evidence remained consistent and the chain of custody was intact. The court also treated the trial court&#039;s insistence on independent corroboration as unduly rigid, noted that the seized substance was confirmed as charas, and held that the acquittal could not stand. The acquittal was reversed and the accused were convicted under the NDPS Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>