<?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>2003 (5) TMI 546 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458067</link>
    <description>Section 50 of the NDPS Act was clarified by distinguishing searches involving articles brought from another place from searches of a bag carried by the accused. The earlier decision that was said to create a conflict was treated as not having considered the bag-search question at all; its remarks on that point were regarded as passing observations and per incuriam. The governing law was affirmed to be the line of authority holding that Section 50 depends on the nature of the search and does not extend to the situation not actually considered in the earlier case. No conflict of authority was accepted, and the existing interpretation of Section 50 remained in force.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2024 14:31:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 546 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458067</link>
      <description>Section 50 of the NDPS Act was clarified by distinguishing searches involving articles brought from another place from searches of a bag carried by the accused. The earlier decision that was said to create a conflict was treated as not having considered the bag-search question at all; its remarks on that point were regarded as passing observations and per incuriam. The governing law was affirmed to be the line of authority holding that Section 50 depends on the nature of the search and does not extend to the situation not actually considered in the earlier case. No conflict of authority was accepted, and the existing interpretation of Section 50 remained in force.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>