Criminal Law – Kidnapping for Ransom – Identification – Conviction set aside – Accused-appellants convicted under Sections 364A and 120B IPC for alleged abduction of victim Anwar Khan and demand of ransom – Trial court sentenced all appellants to life imprisonment – On appeal, High Court found that prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Identification of accused solely in court without prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) inadmissible – All accused allegedly unknown were seen at police station before identification – No material corroboration of in-court identification [Paras 34, 31.1, 31.2]

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility under Section 65B – Call Detail Records (CDRs) and mobile evidence – CDRs and CAFs relied upon by prosecution were unaccompanied by Section 65B certificate – Investigating Officer’s oral assertions on electronic data inadmissible – Held: Mandatory non-compliance with Section 65B renders CDRs and related electronic evidence legally inadmissible [Paras 30.6, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Violation of Section 313 CrPC – Accused not confronted with incriminating material during examination under Section 313 – High Court found this to be fatal – Serious prejudice caused to accused – Conviction based on evidence not properly put to accused is unsustainable in law [Paras 32.2, 32.3]

Circumstantial Evidence – Flaws in Investigation – No recovery of cot or rope – FIR not exhibited – Witness testimonies inconsistent and mostly hearsay – No independent public witness examined – Doctor (PW-8) found no visible injuries – Witnesses admitted to seeing accused at police station prior to trial – Allegations of ransom based on uncorroborated statements – Held: Prosecution failed to prove ingredients of Section 364A IPC or conspiracy under Section 120B IPC beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 30.1–30.9, 33–36]

Judgment – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 364A and 120B IPC set aside – Appellants in custody ordered to be released – Others already on bail – Held: Trial Court’s conviction unsustainable in law and facts – Failure of prosecution to establish guilt – Appreciation of evidence flawed [Paras 36–40]

Decision: Conviction and sentence set aside – All appeals allowed – Accused in custody to be released unless wanted in any other case – Bail bonds of appellants on bail discharged – Acknowledgement of pro bono service by Amicus Curiae Ms. Vaishnavi Singh [Paras 38–42]

Criminal Law – Revision – Interlocutory vs Intermediate Orders – Petitioner sought direction for registration of FIR alleging conspiracy and murder of son – Magistrate rejected application under Section 156(3) CrPC holding that court itself could inquire into complaint – Revisional Court dismissed revision on ground that order was interlocutory – Held: Order rejecting application under Section 156(3) CrPC is not purely interlocutory as it affects valuable rights of complainant – Revision maintainable under Section 397 CrPC – Matter remanded for fresh decision [Paras 1-4, 13-23]

Police Investigation – Role of Magistrate – Complaint disclosed cognizable offence and warranted police investigation – Mens rea, conspiracy, and alleged tampering of evidence required custodial interrogation and collection of evidence by police – Magistrate erred in refusing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC – Observed: In serious matters involving murder, procedural powers must be exercised to advance justice [Paras 7-10]

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Sessions Court committed jurisdictional error in dismissing revision mechanically without examining nature of impugned order – High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside the order and restore revision – Clarified that no opinion on merits of complaint was expressed [Paras 21-23]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order of Sessions Judge dated 09.08.2021 set aside – Criminal revision restored for decision on merits – No opinion expressed on merits of complaint [Paras 23-24]

Evidence Law – Secondary Evidence – Photocopy of Alleged Original Document – Admissibility Denied – Petitioners sought to lead secondary evidence of a family consent letter allegedly lost or in possession of defendants – Trial Court rejected application under Section 65 Evidence Act for want of foundational facts – Held: Mere assertion of loss and submission of photocopy without showing when, how and by whom it was made from the original does not satisfy requirements under Section 63(2) or (3) – Application rightly rejected [Paras 4–10]

Evidence Law – Secondary Evidence – Foundational Requirements – Not Optional – No pleading regarding how photocopy was obtained, date or process of copying, or comparison with original – Burden lies on party seeking secondary evidence to establish chain of custody, authenticity, and mechanical accuracy – Petitioners failed to discharge this burden [Paras 5, 9, 10]

Precedents – Secondary Evidence – Photocopies Admissible Only Under Strict Conditions – High Court relied on consistent precedents (Makhanlal v. Balaram, Ramrao Karuji Baghale v. Natthu, Anandram v. Gaura Bai, Aneeta Rajpoot v. Saraswati Gupta) holding that photocopies cannot be admitted without fulfilling statutory criteria – Secondary evidence is exception, not rule [Paras 11–12]

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing – Equitable Relief Denied – Petition filed 8 months after rejection of application, and only when matter was fixed for final arguments – Delay undermined bona fides of petitioners – No interference warranted under Article 227 [Para 3]

Constitutional Law – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court reiterates settled law that interference under Article 227 is justified only when there is grave miscarriage of justice – No error found in Trial Court’s view rejecting inadmissible secondary evidence – Petition dismissed [Para 13]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No case made out for interference under Article 227 – Trial Court rightly rejected secondary evidence application due to absence of factual foundation – Petitioners to bear costs.

Civil Writ - Natural Resources – Tender-cum-Auction – Quarry Lease for Dunite – Cancellation of Tender – Successful bidders challenged cancellation of tender-cum-auction after being declared highest bidders and payment of EMD – Authorities cancelled tender on finding serious discrepancies in fixation of upset price leading to substantial loss to State revenue – Held: Allocation of natural resources is not a mere commercial transaction but a matter of public trust requiring maximisation of public revenue – State entitled to cancel tender where fixation of upset price was fundamentally flawed and against public interest – No vested right accrues merely by being declared successful bidder [Paras 15–18].

Tender Process – Upset Price – Fixation – Judicial Review – Enquiry revealed that only seigniorage fee was taken as upset price without considering actual market value and net profit of Dunite mineral – Resulted in potential loss of hundreds of crores to State exchequer – Held: When tender conditions or calculations are misapplied resulting in depletion of public revenue, courts must uphold corrective action by the State – Cancellation justified to protect public interest and revenue [Paras 8–10, 15–18].

Public Trust Doctrine – Natural Resources – Revenue Maximisation – State as trustee of mineral wealth obligated to secure best value for public resources – Reliance placed on Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012 and Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. CEO – Tender cancellation upheld in furtherance of constitutional obligation to protect public wealth [Paras 16–18].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court Guidance – Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha – Principle reiterated that misinterpretation of tender conditions diminishing State revenue warrants judicial interference – Applied to uphold cancellation of tender involving mineral resources [Paras 17–18].

Refund – Earnest Money Deposit – Though writ petitions dismissed, petitioners entitled to refund of EMD with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of deposit till repayment – No direction for grant of lease [Para 19].

Environmental Protection – Mining Near Reserved Forest – Court directed that any future tender must strictly comply with Supreme Court directions prohibiting mining within one kilometre from reserved forest boundary as laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [Para 19].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Cancellation of tender-cum-auction upheld – Respondents directed to refund EMD with interest – Liberty granted to State to issue fresh tender in accordance with law – Petitioners permitted to participate in fresh tender – No costs.

Public Procurement – Bid Submission Failure – Display of Incomplete Bids – Rule 19 KTPP Rules – Re-submission Attempt After Corrigendum – Petitioner submitted bids on 25.09.2024 and re-submitted revised bids on 27.09.2024 – Cancelled bids again on 30.09.2024 intending to upload final corrections, but failed to re-submit before deadline (17:30 hrs, 30.09.2024) – Alleged non-compliance with Rule 19 in not showing bids as “DRAFT” – Held: Petitioner’s cancelled bids were correctly shown as “DRAFTS” on the portal – No procedural impropriety found – Incomplete bids rightly excluded from evaluation [Paras 11.1–11.5]

Judicial Review – Procedural Irregularity – Locus After Dismissal of Earlier Petition – Abuse of Process – Petitioner previously challenged corrigendum and failed – Present petitions relate to alleged exclusion of bids due to portal failure – Held: Issue of bid status as DRAFT not considered earlier – Petitioner has locus – However, failure to upload revised bids before deadline is attributable to petitioner’s own conduct – No relief warranted [Paras 10.1–10.4, 11.6]

Tender Law – Onus on Bidder – Last Date and Time Compliance – Rule 15(4)(b) – Statutory obligation lies on tenderers to ensure bid submission within time – System required bid cancellation before corrections, which petitioner failed to re-submit – Held: Bid remained incomplete – Incomplete bid cannot be considered for evaluation [Para 11.6]

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – No violation of Rule 19 of KTPP Rules found – Petitioner failed to re-submit corrected bids before cut-off – Bids remained incomplete (DRAFT) and were validly excluded – No costs.

Criminal Law -  NDPS Act – Illegal Possession – Acquittal – Accused convicted under Section 15 NDPS Act for alleged possession of 160 kg poppy husk – Conviction based solely on official witness testimonies – Independent witness not examined – No written compliance or communication to superior officer under Section 42(2) – No production of case property before Magistrate proven – Held: Prosecution failed to establish compliance with mandatory statutory provisions – Testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4 found inconsistent and unreliable – Acquittal ordered [Paras 18–35].

NDPS Act – Section 42 Violation – Secret information received by police was not reduced to writing nor communicated to superior officer within 72 hours – No explanation offered for non-compliance – Such procedural lapse held fatal to prosecution case – Supreme Court decisions in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj followed – Recovery held suspicious [Paras 19–24].

NDPS Act – Link Evidence and Tampering – Failure to prove production of sealed case property before Magistrate – Seal retained by officer conducting seizure – Crucial link witness (ASI Ranjit Singh) not examined and no alternative proof provided – Absence of DDR entries and unexplained gaps raise possibility of tampering – Held: Break in chain of custody rendered recovery doubtful [Paras 27–30].

Witness Testimony – Official Witness Credibility – Contradictions in deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding duration of presence, location, and process – Non-joining of independent witnesses despite availability – Failure to examine sole claimed eyewitness – Held: Prosecution version suffers from fatal contradictions and lack of corroboration – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 26, 32–34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 15 of NDPS Act set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Para 35].

Civil Law – Decree on Admissions – Partition Suit – Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by appellant seeking summary decree of partition and rental income – Defendants had abandoned defence of oral family settlement and filed relinquishment deeds – High Court held that such documents did not amount to unequivocal admissions – No clear pleading regarding title in plaint – Significant factual disputes existed as to title, area of property, shares, heirs, and income – Held: Summary decree rightly denied – Full trial warranted [Paras 2, 15–22].

Partition – Requirement of Proof of Title – Plaintiff failed to plead title documents of parents from whom rights claimed – Prior judicial finding that plaintiff had not established that suit properties were part of intestate estate had attained finality – Relinquishment deeds of some defendants did not establish complete or uncontested ownership by parents – Held: In absence of foundational title pleadings, decree on admission cannot be granted [Paras 10, 15–18].

Admissions – Legal Standard – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Admissions must be unequivocal, unambiguous, and unconditional – Partition suits require detailed evidence on title, possession, and shares – Where disputes exist as to size of property, status of heirs, and rental income, matter not suitable for summary adjudication – Held: Appellant failed to demonstrate requisite admissions for decree [Paras 18–21].

Procedural Relief – Liberty to File Fresh Application – While dismissing appeal, Court granted liberty to file fresh and specific application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC if clear and unqualified admissions are identified – Any such application to be considered by learned Single Judge independently [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC declined – Appellant granted liberty to file a more detailed application identifying specific and unequivocal admissions – All pending applications also disposed of [Paras 24–26].

Service Law – Pay Protection – Ex-Servicemen – Discrimination among Constables appointed from same recruitment list – Violation of Article 14 – All respondents were ex-servicemen selected under the same 2018 recruitment list – Due to COVID-19 related constraints, training was conducted in four separate batches and appointments staggered – Only the first batch received pay protection while others were denied – Held: All candidates formed a homogeneous group as per the same advertisement and selection process – No intelligible differentia existed to justify differential treatment – Administrative exigencies like pandemic or infrastructure constraints cannot be grounds for hostile discrimination – Judgment of learned single-judge granting parity upheld [Paras 3, 5, 15-25].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Permissible Classification – Select list cannot be fragmented for pay or service benefits based on training schedule imposed by the State – Training is not part of the selection process but follows appointment under Rule 18 – Discrimination based on batch-wise training lacks rational nexus with the object of selection and violates equality before law [Paras 13, 16-20].

Recruitment – Service Benefits – Uniform Entitlements – No statutory rule authorizes different treatment in pay protection within the same select list – Court reiterates principles from Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra and State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar – Entire class entitled to uniform benefits including pay protection [Paras 21-24].

Decision: Special Appeals dismissed – Judgment of single-judge affirmed – State directed to grant pay protection and consequential benefits to all affected candidates within twelve weeks [Para 26].

Limitation Law - Review – Delay in Filing – Condonation of Delay – Review Petition filed with delay of 5743 days from judgment date and 489 days from dismissal of SLP – Explanation based on routine administrative process, file movement, legal opinion, and internal approvals – Held: Reasons offered by the State reflect gross negligence, red-tapism, and callous approach – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Law of limitation binds all parties, including the State – Petition dismissed [Paras 6–23].

Limitation – Delay by State – No Special Treatment – Supreme Court precedents reiterated that delay by government departments cannot be condoned merely due to inefficiency or file processing – State must act diligently – Law of limitation applies equally to government and private parties – Casual explanation based on administrative routine is insufficient to constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 8–13, 21].

Judicial Discipline – Finality of Litigation – Supreme Court had already dismissed SLP against the same judgment citing both delay and merits – Review Petition effectively attempts to reopen what has attained finality – Held: Review jurisdiction cannot override or dilute findings of Supreme Court – Attempt to revisit settled matter rejected [Paras 5, 24].

Decision: Delay condonation application rejected – Consequently, Civil Misc. Review Petition also dismissed – State failed to offer sufficient cause for inordinate delay – Judgment dated 13.11.2009 attains finality [Paras 25–26].