<?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>2002 (3) TMI 48 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46169</link>
    <description>Search and seizure under the NDPS Act must comply with statutory safeguards, criminal procedure requirements and investigation instructions intended to ensure fairness. A seizure mahazar should ordinarily be prepared at the place of recovery, but a later preparation is not automatically fatal where there is a justifiable explanation and no prejudice to the accused. The settled rule is that an irregular or even illegal search does not by itself render the evidence inadmissible; the court must assess whether the lapse caused serious prejudice or a real risk of tampering or substitution. On the stated facts, the recovery was from the accused during transport, the accused was present, and no material showed meddling with the seized contraband, so the conviction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 48 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46169</link>
      <description>Search and seizure under the NDPS Act must comply with statutory safeguards, criminal procedure requirements and investigation instructions intended to ensure fairness. A seizure mahazar should ordinarily be prepared at the place of recovery, but a later preparation is not automatically fatal where there is a justifiable explanation and no prejudice to the accused. The settled rule is that an irregular or even illegal search does not by itself render the evidence inadmissible; the court must assess whether the lapse caused serious prejudice or a real risk of tampering or substitution. On the stated facts, the recovery was from the accused during transport, the accused was present, and no material showed meddling with the seized contraband, so the conviction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>