https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429017 Conviction under the NDPS Act could not stand where the alleged recovery itself was rendered doubtful by hostile independent witnesses and gaps in the prosecution timeline. The informant-cum-investigating officer asserted compliance with the search and seizure procedure, but the named witnesses denied participation in the search, seizure, weighing and sampling, and explained their signatures on the papers. As the foundational fact of possession was not reliably proved, the statutory presumption under Section 54 could not be invoked against the accused. The appellant was therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt and the conviction was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 30 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2022 05:05:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429017 Conviction under the NDPS Act could not stand where the alleged recovery itself was rendered doubtful by hostile independent witnesses and gaps in the prosecution timeline. The informant-cum-investigating officer asserted compliance with the search and seizure procedure, but the named witnesses denied participation in the search, seizure, weighing and sampling, and explained their signatures on the papers. As the foundational fact of possession was not reliably proved, the statutory presumption under Section 54 could not be invoked against the accused. The appellant was therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt and the conviction was unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429017