<?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 (6) TMI 364 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438790</link>
    <description>In NDPS bail matters involving commercial quantity, alleged defects in seizure sampling are assessed against the statutory bail bar under Section 37, not as a standalone basis to defeat the prosecution case. The post-seizure procedure under Sections 52 and 52A, together with standing instructions on making seized substances homogeneous and representative before sampling, guides the factual enquiry, but procedural non-compliance is not fatal unless prejudice is shown. Where the seized contents were mixed from multiple packets and samples were drawn before the Magistrate, the accused may contest representativeness at trial. On that basis, the alleged sampling defect was not treated as sufficient ground for bail at the interlocutory stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=715986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 364 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438790</link>
      <description>In NDPS bail matters involving commercial quantity, alleged defects in seizure sampling are assessed against the statutory bail bar under Section 37, not as a standalone basis to defeat the prosecution case. The post-seizure procedure under Sections 52 and 52A, together with standing instructions on making seized substances homogeneous and representative before sampling, guides the factual enquiry, but procedural non-compliance is not fatal unless prejudice is shown. Where the seized contents were mixed from multiple packets and samples were drawn before the Magistrate, the accused may contest representativeness at trial. On that basis, the alleged sampling defect was not treated as sufficient ground for bail at the interlocutory stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>