https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763298 An offence under Section 58 of the NDPS Act carrying a maximum sentence below three years had to be tried summarily by a competent Magistrate under the Cr.P.C.; proceedings before the Special Judge were therefore not the proper forum. The court also held that acts done by an in the course of official duty attracted the statutory good-faith protection where there was no cogent material of malice or dishonest motive, so the adverse finding could not stand. Further, adverse observations and the follow-up notice were vitiated because they were issued without prior notice or a fair opportunity of hearing, and the later steps did not cure the breach of natural justice. The impugned action was set aside. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Dec 2024 18:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763298 An offence under Section 58 of the NDPS Act carrying a maximum sentence below three years had to be tried summarily by a competent Magistrate under the Cr.P.C.; proceedings before the Special Judge were therefore not the proper forum. The court also held that acts done by an in the course of official duty attracted the statutory good-faith protection where there was no cogent material of malice or dishonest motive, so the adverse finding could not stand. Further, adverse observations and the follow-up notice were vitiated because they were issued without prior notice or a fair opportunity of hearing, and the later steps did not cure the breach of natural justice. The impugned action was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763298