Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.47 seconds)

Dileep Pashwan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 September, 2023

recovery, there was no need to comply with the provisions of Sec.50 of the NDPS Act. But by relying on the aforementioned decision in Dileep and another v. State of M.P. reported in 2007 (1) SCC 452, the Apex Court in Shah Alam's case (supra), held that since the provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act were not complied with, the High Court therein was right in acquitting the accused on that ground.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Shah Alam & Anr on 11 June, 2009

recovery, there was no need to comply with the provisions of Sec.50 of the NDPS Act. But by relying on the aforementioned decision in Dileep and another v. State of M.P. reported in 2007 (1) SCC 452, the Apex Court in Shah Alam's case (supra), held that since the provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act were not complied with, the High Court therein was right in acquitting the accused on that ground.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 76 - A Alam - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh on 1 March, 1994

In the case Dilip and another v. State of M.P. reported in 2007(1) SCC 450 = AIR 2007 SC 369 = 2007 KHC 3022, held in para 14 thereof, after relying on the Apex Court decision in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh reported in 1994 (3) SCC 299, that if during such search or arrest, there is a chance recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, then from that stage Crl.A.1183/12 - : 46 :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 1785 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next