https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458347 Strict compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act was treated as mandatory for evidentiary use of seized narcotic substance, and non-compliance deprived the prosecution of the statutory primary-evidence benefit. The seizure and recovery were also found doubtful because the contraband was not satisfactorily produced, no certified inventory was obtained, independent seizure witnesses turned hostile, key witnesses were not examined, and the testimony contained material inconsistencies. Taken together, these defects meant the prosecution failed to establish possession and recovery with the certainty required in NDPS cases, and an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act was warranted. The conviction could not be sustained and acquittal followed. en-us Wed, 12 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:29:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458347 Strict compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act was treated as mandatory for evidentiary use of seized narcotic substance, and non-compliance deprived the prosecution of the statutory primary-evidence benefit. The seizure and recovery were also found doubtful because the contraband was not satisfactorily produced, no certified inventory was obtained, independent seizure witnesses turned hostile, key witnesses were not examined, and the testimony contained material inconsistencies. Taken together, these defects meant the prosecution failed to establish possession and recovery with the certainty required in NDPS cases, and an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act was warranted. The conviction could not be sustained and acquittal followed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458347