Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.38 seconds)
Mohd. Inam vs State Of U.P. on 24 July, 2025 cites

Union Of India vs Rattan Mallik @ Habul on 23 January, 2009

In line with the decision of this Court in Rattan Mallik [Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831], we are of the view that a finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the respondent by the High Court in the impugned order does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 478 - D K Jain - Full Document

Union Of India vs Mohanlal & Anr on 28 January, 2016

35. None of the provisions in the Act prohibits sample to be taken on the spot at the time of seizure, much less Section 52A of the said Act. On the contrary, as per the procedure laid down in the Standing Orders and Notifications issued by the NCB and the Central Government before and after the insertion of Section 52A till the Rules of 2022 were framed, the concerned officer was required to take samples of the seized contraband substances on the spot of recovery in duplicate in presence of the Panch witnesses and the person in whose possession the drug or substance recovered, by drawing a Panchnama. It was only with regard to the remnant substance, the procedure for disposal of the said substance was required to be followed as prescribed in Section 52A."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 386 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next