https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46224 Chemical analysis reports concerning intercepted consignments were properly proved through customs officers who identified the experts' signatures and explained the regular handling of samples; formal exhibition was not decisive where proof was otherwise established, and the reports were admissible under Section 293 CrPC. The appellant's own statement further supported the prosecution case that the consignments contained heroin. Section 50 of the NDPS Act was held inapplicable because it governs searches of a person for contraband, not a search made to recover incriminating documents linking an accused to consignments already seized elsewhere. On that basis, non-compliance with Section 50 did not vitiate the prosecution and the conviction was sustained. en-us Tue, 10 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:36:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46224 Chemical analysis reports concerning intercepted consignments were properly proved through customs officers who identified the experts' signatures and explained the regular handling of samples; formal exhibition was not decisive where proof was otherwise established, and the reports were admissible under Section 293 CrPC. The appellant's own statement further supported the prosecution case that the consignments contained heroin. Section 50 of the NDPS Act was held inapplicable because it governs searches of a person for contraband, not a search made to recover incriminating documents linking an accused to consignments already seized elsewhere. On that basis, non-compliance with Section 50 did not vitiate the prosecution and the conviction was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 10 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46224