https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305098 Strict compliance with the NDPS Act safeguards was required, and the prosecution failed to prove it. The record did not show that secret information was reduced to writing before search and seizure, so Section 42 was not complied with and the search was vitiated. The evidence also did not establish that the accused was informed of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, so Section 50 was not proved and the recovery was unsafe. Defects in custody, identification and chemical analysis further undermined the prosecution case. The conviction and sentence were therefore not sustainable, and acquittal followed. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2022 09:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305098 Strict compliance with the NDPS Act safeguards was required, and the prosecution failed to prove it. The record did not show that secret information was reduced to writing before search and seizure, so Section 42 was not complied with and the search was vitiated. The evidence also did not establish that the accused was informed of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, so Section 50 was not proved and the recovery was unsafe. Defects in custody, identification and chemical analysis further undermined the prosecution case. The conviction and sentence were therefore not sustainable, and acquittal followed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305098