Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Solid Containers Ltd.

.....is accepted for the sake of argument that the bulk quantity was destroyed, the samples were essential to be produced and proved as primary evidence for the purpose of establishing the fact of recovery of heroin as envisaged under section 52a of the act. section 52-a; disposal of seized articles - a certificate issued under section 110(ib) of the customs 1962 act can be recorded as a certificate of authentication and no more; authority for disposal would require a clear direction of the court in terms of section 52-a of the act. physical evidence being the property of the court and being central to the trial must be treated and disposed of in strict compliance of the law. guidelines; [s.b.sinha & v.s.sirpurkar, jj] guidelines issued should not only be substantially complied, but also in a case involving penal proceedings, vis--vis a departmental proceeding, rigours of such guidelines may be insisted upon when directions are issued by an authority having the legal sanction granted therefore, it becomes obligatory on the part of the subordinate authorities to comply therewith. statement made at the bar; evidentiary value - a statement made at the bar in regard to existence of a general practice cannot be a substitute of evidence whereupon only the court could rely upon. -- constitution of india. article 21: fair trial held, a fair trial is a human right. marshalling and appreciation of evidence must be done strictly in accordance with the well known legal principles governing the same; wherefor the provisions of the code of criminal procedure and evidence act must be followed. appreciation of evidence must be done on the basis of materials on record and not on the basis of some reports which have nothing to do with the occurrence in question. customs act, 1962 -- section 108; [s.b.sinha & v.s.sirpurkar, jj] confession made by accused before custom officer - held, section 25 of evidence act applicable to such confession. by virtue of section 53 (2) of ndps act,.....order1. having heard learned senior counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the respondent we clarify our order of march 30, 2000 by observing that once the orders of the learned single judge and the division bench of the high court were set aside the reasoning given in the said judgments also would not survive. we keep the question of law open. 2. i.a. is allowed accordingly.