<?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>2024 (9) TMI 544 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758300</link>
    <description>The SC allowed appeals and acquitted appellants charged under NDPS Act sections 29, 20(b)(ii)(c), and 25 for drug trafficking. The Court held that search of accused&#039;s residence 40-45 minutes after auto-rickshaw raid was not part of res gestae due to time gap allowing fabrication, failing the spontaneity test from Gentela Vijyvardhan Rao case. Additionally, authorities failed to comply with Section 42 NDPS Act requirements for recording information and informing superior officers before search. The prosecution also failed to inform accused of their rights under statutory safeguards. Both HC and trial court judgments were set aside, with appellants receiving benefit of doubt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767609" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 544 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758300</link>
      <description>The SC allowed appeals and acquitted appellants charged under NDPS Act sections 29, 20(b)(ii)(c), and 25 for drug trafficking. The Court held that search of accused&#039;s residence 40-45 minutes after auto-rickshaw raid was not part of res gestae due to time gap allowing fabrication, failing the spontaneity test from Gentela Vijyvardhan Rao case. Additionally, authorities failed to comply with Section 42 NDPS Act requirements for recording information and informing superior officers before search. The prosecution also failed to inform accused of their rights under statutory safeguards. Both HC and trial court judgments were set aside, with appellants receiving benefit of doubt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758300</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>