Constitutional Law – Compensation for Violation of Article 21 – High Court's Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Claim for compensation for the death of the petitioner’s husband due to electrocution – Petitioner sought ₹50 lakhs from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (BSES) and the Government of NCT of Delhi under Article 226 for alleged violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 – BSES denied liability, attributing the cause to a defective meter installed by a shopkeeper and maintained that no negligence could be attributed to its network – Court held that compensation under public law for violation of Article 21 could be granted even where the State is not directly involved, but negligence must be clear – Given the disputed facts regarding the cause of the electrocution, the principle of res ipsa loquitur could not be invoked – Petitioner directed to pursue civil remedies in an appropriate court for a full determination of negligence, while ex-gratia compensation was granted [Paras 1-47].

Electricity Law – Liability in Cases of Electrocution – Regulations 13, 30, and 34 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulations 2010 and the Electricity Act, 2003 examined – BSES argued that the consumer/shopkeeper was responsible for maintaining the outgoing wire that caused the electrocution – Petitioner alleged breach of duty by BSES, relying on obligations imposed on electricity suppliers under the regulations – Court found that the responsibility for the defective wire rested with the consumer/shopkeeper, not BSES – In cases involving electricity accidents, the Court emphasized the need to establish clear negligence on the part of the electricity supplier before awarding public law compensation [Paras 6-47].

Public Law Remedy – Scope of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Petition for compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution – Court discussed the scope of its jurisdiction in cases involving disputed facts – Reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not appropriate for resolving disputed questions of fact unless negligence is manifest – Court found that whether the negligence lay with BSES or the shopkeeper could only be determined after examining the evidence, and thus civil proceedings were necessary – Court distinguished this case from instances where negligence was clear or undisputed, allowing for compensation under Article 226 [Paras 11-47].

Decision – Ex-gratia Relief and Further Legal Recourse – Held – Petition partially allowed with an ex-gratia compensation of ₹10 lakhs directed to be paid by BSES to the petitioner within three months – BSES not held liable for negligence, but compensation awarded to alleviate petitioner’s suffering due to the tragic loss of her husband – Petitioner permitted to pursue appropriate civil remedies to seek further compensation – Civil Court directed to adjudicate within one year of filing – Court clarified that the ex-gratia amount is independent of any compensation that may be awarded in civil proceedings – No order as to costs [Paras 47].

Indian Forest Act – Illegal Transportation of Guchhi – The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, who was apprehended while transporting 13.7 kg of Guchhi without a valid permit. The trial court acquitted the respondent on the grounds that the forest produce was being transported on behalf of a third party with a valid permit – The Court upheld the acquittal, observing that the trial court's view was reasonable and based on evidence​.

Expert Testimony – Forest Produce – The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the botanical classification of Guchhi as required under the applicable rules – The forest guard’s testimony lacked the necessary scientific data, making the prosecution's case weak​.

Non-Cognizable Offence – Lack of Police Jurisdiction – It was further held that the police could not have investigated the case without a magistrate’s permission since the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act are non-cognizable​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld​.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985 – Application for Extension of Investigation Time and Denial of Default Bail – High Court dismisses petitions challenging the extension of time for investigation under Section 36A of the NDPS Act and the denial of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. – Accused involved in the conspiracy to transport Methamphetamine, arrested following intelligence-led operations. Initial investigation not completed within 180 days, leading to an application for time extension, which was granted by the Special Court. Subsequent default bail application denied, with the court holding the extension of investigation time as valid and the right to default bail as not infallible [Paras 2-16].

Judicial Review – Validity of Extension of Investigation Time – High Court finds no infraction in procedure; application for extension filed 10 days before the expiry of the 180-day period, ensuring compliance with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act. The court’s decision supported by specific reasons for the investigation extension, including ongoing efforts to trace other associates and suppliers involved in the drug trafficking operation [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Procedure – Denial of Default Bail – The court confirms that the timing and grounds of the extension application preclude the grant of default bail. The petitioner's subsequent application for default bail was properly dismissed based on the extended time for filing the final report, aligning with statutory and judicial requirements [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Dismissal of Petitions – The petitions challenging the extension of investigation time and the denial of default bail are dismissed, endorsing the procedural correctness and judicial discretion exercised by the trial court. The detailed reasoning illustrates adherence to legal standards and consideration of investigatory complexities in drug trafficking cases [Para 16].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Powers of the ED – Communication to Third Parties – Judicial Review – The Court examined the scope of ED’s authority under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. The petitioner contended that ED overstepped its statutory powers by coercing the petitioner’s customers to file criminal complaints through a questionnaire. However, the Court held that the ED was within its rights to gather information in furtherance of its investigation into proceeds of crime, and such actions were not violative of statutory or constitutional provisions. The communication merely sought to gather material relevant to the investigation [Paras 1.2, 3.13-3.18].

No Quashing of ECIR or Communication – Lawful Investigation Powers – The petitioner's plea for quashing the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and the communication was dismissed. The Court observed that ongoing investigations were justified, given that one of the original FIRs remained pending, and the ECIR could include subsequent related complaints. Moreover, ED’s actions to solicit information and share it with other enforcement agencies, such as the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), were permissible under the PMLA [Paras 3.9, 3.8-3.13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The communication by ED was found to be lawful, and no grounds were established to quash the ECIR or restrict ED’s investigation methods under the PMLA. The Court upheld the ED’s powers to investigate and gather information regarding money laundering [Paras 3.17-3.18].

Dowry Harassment – Quashing of FIR – The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that the allegations were vague and lacked specific details – The Court observed that the allegations made against the petitioners, who are the informant's parents-in-law, were general and did not meet the threshold for constituting cruelty under Section 498-A IPC – Held that vague statements without specific allegations or details do not constitute a valid case for prosecution under the said sections​.

Abuse of Process – Section 482 CrPC – The Court emphasized that continuing proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as there were no specific accusations of cruelty or harassment directed against them – Quashing of the FIR ordered​.

Decision: Petition allowed – FIR No. 8 of 2022 and consequent proceedings quashed​.

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, 148, and 147 IPC – Acquittal - Appeal against judgment by Additional Sessions Judge – Appellants convicted for murder and unlawful assembly, sentenced to life imprisonment – Appellants challenged conviction, claiming false implication and reliance on weak prosecution evidence – Dying declaration only mentioned one accused (Gorelal) with no enmity, while others were added by the first informant due to personal animosity – Post-mortem report indicated injuries from a single firearm, contradicting the prosecution’s case that multiple accused fired shots – Court found prosecution witnesses unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroborating evidence – Appeal allowed for three appellants, acquittal granted [Paras 1-18].

Dying Declaration – Sole accused mentioned in dying declaration – Prosecution did not rely on the dying declaration during the trial, but defense brought it in as evidence – The Court found no mention of co-accused in the declaration, weakening the prosecution's case – Prosecution failed to prove the involvement of other accused beyond reasonable doubt – Dying declaration recorded by a doctor before the death of the injured showed no enmity between the deceased and the accused [Paras 7-9, 17].

Evidence Evaluation – Post-mortem showed injuries consistent with a single firearm – Prosecution failed to prove that multiple accused fired – Witness testimonies conflicted with initial reports and each other, further weakening the prosecution's case – Witnesses introduced by the prosecution were deemed unreliable due to contradictions in their statements and non-production of key eyewitnesses at trial [Paras 11-14, 17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Acquittal of appellants No. 2, 6, and 7 due to lack of evidence corroborating the prosecution’s case – The appeal vis-à-vis appellants No. 1, 3, 4, and 5 had already abated – Bail bonds of appellants No. 2, 6, and 7 were discharged [Paras 18].

Public Interest Litigation – Challenge against Police Transfer Orders – Bombay High Court – Petition challenging the validity of the transfer orders issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police (Administration), Mumbai, transferring certain police officers within the Mumbai Police Commissionerate contrary to the mandates of Section 22N of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, as amended. The petitioner contends these transfers violate statutory provisions stipulating normal tenure limits. The Court examines whether the impugned transfer orders contravene Section 22N, particularly in regard to normal tenures prescribed for police officers within different commissionerates [Paras 1-3, 4-6].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 22N of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – Discussion on the interpretation of Section 22N, which stipulates normal tenures for police officers to safeguard them from frequent transfers and ensure continuity in police work within specific jurisdictions. The Court considers the scope of 'normal tenure' and the exceptions for mid-term transfers due to administrative exigencies or public interest, finding that the provision aims to protect police personnel's tenure without necessarily mandating transfers out of commissionerates upon tenure completion [Paras 7-12].

Judicial Review – Dismissal of PIL – The Court holds that the impugned transfer orders do not contravene the Maharashtra Police Act's provisions. It emphasizes the discretionary power of competent authorities to effectuate transfers based on administrative needs, dismissing the PIL for lack of contravention against statutory provisions. The Court also clarifies the interpretation of 'General Transfer' and 'Mid-term Transfer' within the Act, affirming the broad discretion in administrative transfer decisions [Paras 13-16].

Decision – The PIL is dismissed, and the rule issued is discharged. The Court does not find the transfer orders in violation of the statutory provisions cited and emphasizes the discretionary administrative power in effecting police transfers [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Madras High Court quashes the criminal complaint against Sumathi, accused of selling drugs without a pharmacist's supervision – Allegations stem from an inspection on 30/09/2021 at M/s Pradhan Mandri Bharthiya Janaushadhi Kendra by the Drug Inspector, which resulted in a complaint against both the proprietor, Kalidass, and his wife, Sumathi (A-2) – Petitioner argued lack of involvement in the shop's daily operations, claiming she was only temporarily managing the shop in her husband's absence – High Court finds no substantial evidence against Sumathi, noting that mere presence during inspection is insufficient for prosecution under Section 18(c) r/w Rule 65(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Paras 2-11].

Evidence – Insufficiency of Evidence – High Court emphasizes lack of direct evidence linking Sumathi to the alleged drug sales – Inspector's presumption of Sumathi's involvement due to her presence during the inspection deemed inadequate without corroborating evidence of her direct involvement in the sales – Court highlights procedural lapse in not conducting a test purchase to verify the complaint, leading to the conclusion that the complaint against Sumathi lacks prima facie merit [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Quashing of Complaint – Held – The complaint against Sumathi (A-2) is quashed due to insufficient evidence demonstrating her active management or involvement in the contravention of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Case against her in C.C. No.599/2024 dismissed, and connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Parole – Premature Release – Constitutional Law – Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India – Request for Premature Release – Petitioner challenges the failure of the Life Convicts Premature Release Committee to act in compliance with notification Annex-A, seeking a mandamus for his premature release after serving over 17 years in jail for life imprisonment under IPC sections 347, 364(A), 120(B), 397 [Para 1].

Judicial Custody and Release – Eligibility and Procedure for Premature Release – Petitioner's case recommended by Advisory Committee, still pending before the Release Committee. Reference made to similar cases and Supreme Court directives in RASHIDUL JAFAR @ CHOTA vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH for implementing policies allowing premature release without the necessity of an application by the convict [Paras 3-5].

High Court Directions – Mandamus Issued for Timely Meeting of Release Committee – High Court orders Karnataka State Government to ensure the Life Convicts Release Committee meets bi-monthly, addressing backlogs and procedural delays in considering premature release applications. Petitioner granted general parole until committee review, with specific conditions for behavior and possible extension of parole [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Grant of Parole and Directive for Systematic Review – Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to release petitioner on a 90-day parole with strict conditions against unlawful activities, ensuring systematic review of premature release cases in compliance with apex court directions and state policies [Paras 8-9].