Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)

State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh on 1 March, 1994

4. Though a number of submissions were made by learned counsel for the appellant, we need not detain ourselves to deal with all those submissions as in our opinion there is force in the main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant viz. that on account of the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which provisions have been held to be mandatory by this Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 1785 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Pooran Mal Etc vs Director Of Inspection ... on 14 December, 1973

8. The last submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that even if the search and seizure of the contraband are held to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, it would still not affect the conviction because the seized articles could be used as 'evidence' of unlawful possession of a contraband. Reliance for this submission is placed on the judgment of this Court in Pooran Mal v. Director Of Inspection2. We are afraid the submission is misconceived and the reliance placed on the said judgment is misplaced. The judgment in Pooran Mal case2 only lays down that the evidence collected as a result of illegal search or seizure, could be used as evidence in proceedings against the party under the Income Tax Act. The judgment cannot be interpreted to lay down that a contraband seized as a result of illegal search or seizure, can be used to fasten that liability of unlawful possession of the contraband on the person from whom the contraband had allegedly been seized in an illegal manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 305 - D G Palekar - Full Document
1