<?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>2023 (4) TMI 1188 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437162</link>
    <description>Statements recorded by officers empowered under section 53 of the NDPS Act are treated as police statements for section 25 of the Evidence Act, so section 67 confessions are inadmissible in trial. Independent-witness statements were also excluded because the prosecution failed to show any statutory ground for non-production of those witnesses. Sampling at seizure without the Magistrate-supervised procedure under section 52A was held not to satisfy the statutory scheme and seriously undermined the seized material. On the facts, possession of the contraband was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, as the appellants were not shown to have custody or control. The conviction could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2023 09:06:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=712159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 1188 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437162</link>
      <description>Statements recorded by officers empowered under section 53 of the NDPS Act are treated as police statements for section 25 of the Evidence Act, so section 67 confessions are inadmissible in trial. Independent-witness statements were also excluded because the prosecution failed to show any statutory ground for non-production of those witnesses. Sampling at seizure without the Magistrate-supervised procedure under section 52A was held not to satisfy the statutory scheme and seriously undermined the seized material. On the facts, possession of the contraband was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, as the appellants were not shown to have custody or control. The conviction could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>