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].

Service Law – Termination – Misconduct – Embezzlement by Bus Conductor – Enquiry Valid – Respondent conductor was terminated after being found guilty of collecting fare from 22 passengers without issuing tickets – Enquiry conducted and show cause notice issued – Personal hearing afforded – High Court held that mere non-examination of passengers is not fatal to enquiry – Relied on Supreme Court precedent that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to domestic enquiries – Held: Termination order validly passed after full opportunity and adherence to natural justice [Paras 7-12].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Sufficient Compliance – Respondent was issued chargesheet (Ex.D-2), participated in enquiry, cross-examined witnesses, and received personal hearing before final order – Court held that procedural fairness was satisfied – Argument of lack of opportunity rejected [Paras 9-12].

Evidence – Enquiry Report – Reliance on Official Testimony – Statement of inspectors Rohtash and Ramdia accepted as basis of findings – Conductor failed to rebut charges or produce passenger witnesses – Enquiry Officer’s report accepted as well-reasoned and supported by documentary material [Paras 5, 10-11].

Second Appeal – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Improper Interference – First Appellate Court reversed Trial Court's dismissal solely on the ground that passengers were not examined – Held: Such reasoning contrary to settled law – High Court sets aside judgment of Appellate Court and restores dismissal of suit [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 23.01.2006 passed by Additional District Judge-II, Jind set aside – Termination of respondent upheld – No costs [Paras 14-15].

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].

Matrimonial Law – Anti-Suit Injunction – Divorce Proceedings – Foreign Court Jurisdiction – Indian trial court granted ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the wife from prosecuting divorce and maintenance proceedings in UK Family Court – Held: Principle of forum non conveniens cannot be invoked by Indian court to restrain proceedings in a foreign court – Jurisdictional challenge must be addressed by the UK Court itself – Both spouses had deep-rooted residential and financial ties with the UK – Respondent-husband’s claims of inconvenience held to be untenable [Paras 35-44]

Private International Law – Competence of Foreign Court – UK Family Court – Wife residing in the UK since 2015 and instituted proceedings in UK under UK law – UK court's competence under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973 already under adjudication by the UK Court itself – Indian court must defer to such determination – Even under Hindu Marriage Act, territorial jurisdiction principles could prima facie support UK jurisdiction based on wife’s residence and last place of cohabitation [Paras 45-53]

Foreign Judgments – Section 13 CPC – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Whether ground recognized under Indian Law – Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita held that irretrievable breakdown may constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA – Ratio forms binding precedent under Article 141 – Distinguished from Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, which did not overrule Rakesh Raman – UK proceeding not necessarily founded on refusal to recognize Indian law [Paras 54-62]

Comity of Courts – Respect for Foreign Proceedings – Indian court’s interference with valid maintenance order passed by UK court violates principle of comity – UK court had already fixed the matter for jurisdictional adjudication and stayed its own proceedings – Premature for Indian court to restrain UK proceedings through anti-suit injunction [Paras 63-71]

Civil Procedure – Section 10 CPC – Non-Applicability to Foreign Suits – Mere earlier filing of divorce suit by husband in India not sufficient to justify anti-suit injunction – Section 10 CPC applies only where both suits are in Indian courts – No authority for Indian court to stay a foreign proceeding [Para 76]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned anti-suit injunction order dated 01/11/2025 set aside – Respondent's plea for stay of judgment rejected – Observations made are tentative and will not prejudice either party in Indian or UK proceedings [Paras 76-79]

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Review by Higher Authority – Power under Rule 21 of 1970 Rules – Appellant Forest Guard was exonerated by Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority – However, Conservator of Forest (Reviewing Authority) reopened the case, issued show cause notice, and imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect – Held: Under Rule 21, reviewing authority is empowered to differ with findings of Enquiry Officer, provided reasons are communicated and opportunity of hearing is granted – In present case, inquiry had already been conducted and due opportunity was afforded – Action held valid [Paras 5-6].

Negligence – Duty of Forest Guard – Liability for Unauthorized Tree Felling – Contractor auctioned 10 shisham trees but felled 12 additional trees – Appellant failed to report or prevent illegal felling despite being in charge of the beat – Two trees were removed and 10 recovered – Compensation was paid but no action against contractor – Held: Appellant failed in duty to monitor forest area – Inference of connivance drawn – Penalty justified [Paras 8-9].

Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Both trial and first appellate courts found against appellant after considering oral and documentary evidence – No perversity found – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – No costs – Decree to be drawn [Paras 10-11].

Motor Accident Compensation – Maintainability of Appeal – Modified Award – Tribunal passed modified award deleting recovery rights of insurer against vehicle owner during pendency of appeal – Insurance company participated in modification proceedings and raised no objections – Held: Appeal maintainable – No bar against appeal on ground of subsequent modification – Tribunal rightly considered only recovery issue; no legal infirmity [Paras 5-10].

Motor Accident – Income Assessment – Claimant, a 36-year-old working abroad, failed to prove employment details or income – Tribunal fixed notional income at ₹4,000 – High Court, applying Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram, re-fixed monthly income at ₹5,500 considering accident year (2006) – Enhanced compensation granted accordingly [Paras 11-12].

Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Disability – Tribunal assessed 16% disability due to lack of whole-body assessment in medical certificate – PW2 (doctor) admitted whole-body disability was not assessed – High Court held tribunal erred in underestimating – Functional disability re-fixed at 25% – Compensation recalculated as ₹2,47,500 – Additional ₹1,32,300 awarded [Paras 12].

· Compensation – Other Heads – Enhanced amounts granted under:

· Loss of Earnings (increased period from 5 to 6 months): Additional ₹13,000

· Bystander Expenses: Additional ₹3,000

· Extra Nourishment: ₹6,000 granted for first time

· Pain and Suffering: Increased from ₹25,000 to ₹35,000 – Additional ₹10,000

· Loss of Amenities: Increased from ₹15,000 to ₹30,000 – Additional ₹15,000

Held: Tribunal failed to grant or undervalued these heads despite clear injuries and treatment – Enhancements justified [Paras 11-13].

Motor Accident Claims – Interest – Appeal delayed by 105 days – High Court held enhanced compensation will not carry interest for delay period – Otherwise, interest @7% p.a. awarded from date of petition till realisation – Directions given for disbursal upon furnishing of claimants' documents [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced by ₹1,79,300 with interest @7% p.a. (excluding 105 days of delay) – Insurance company directed to deposit amount within two months – Legal heirs entitled to full disbursal in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder – Chain of Circumstances Incomplete – Acquittal – Appellants convicted for abduction and murder of diamond delivery boy for stealing diamonds – Case based entirely on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution relied on “last seen together”, CCTV footage, mobile call data, and recovery of diamonds – High Court held that identification of accused by witnesses was vitiated due to prior exposure to their photographs – TIP unreliable – Last seen theory failed due to lack of close time proximity to recovery of body – Medical evidence did not confirm time of death – Chain of circumstances held broken – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 32-52, 68-69].

Evidence Act – Section 65-B – CCTV Footage – Admissibility – Non-functional Playback and Witness Denial – Though original DVR and hard-disk produced, CCTV pen-drive was corrupted and could not be played in Court – Witness (PW34) failed to identify accused from unclear footage – Held: Circumstance of CCTV presence not proved beyond doubt – Could not be relied upon [Paras 53-57].

Identification Parade – Test Identification – Vitiated by Prior Exposure – TIP rendered unreliable where photographs of accused were shown to key witnesses (PWs 15–19) before TIP – Last seen evidence collapsed due to tainted identification – Reliance on Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180 [Paras 44-47].

Recovery – Failure to Produce Stolen Articles in Court – Diamonds Not Produced – Recovery of stolen diamonds from accused’s home not proved as diamonds were never produced before court – Violated rule laid in Niranjan Panja v. State of West Bengal – Motive of robbery also held unproven [Paras 58-60].

Recovery of Weapons – From Open/Public Places – Not Reliable – Knife and belt allegedly used in crime recovered from accessible public places – Held: Recoveries from such locations cannot be treated as strong incriminating evidence – Relied on Jaikam Khan v. State of UP, (2021) 13 SCC 716 [Paras 61-62].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard in Circumstantial Cases – Held: Prosecution failed to exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt – Where multiple interpretations are possible, benefit must go to the accused – Conviction reversed [Paras 67-69].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – To be released forthwith unless wanted in another case – Directed to furnish PR bonds under Section 481 BNSS [Para 69].

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction - Infringement – Deceptive Similarity – Bata’s registered trademark ‘POWER’ found to be distinctive and associated with its footwear – Leayan’s mark ‘POWER FLEX’ held deceptively similar due to complete subsumption of Bata’s mark – Similarity of goods (both being footwear) supports likelihood of confusion or association – Injunction against Leayan upheld [Paras 33.1–33.8].

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – Principles – Delay and acquiescence not a bar to injunction where infringement is found – Midas Hygiene Industries followed – Plea of delay rejected as Bata had opposed Leayan’s trademark registration and evidence of Leayan’s use was found insufficient and unauthenticated [Paras 35.1–35.6].

Trademark Law – Descriptive vs Suggestive Marks – POWER held suggestive and not descriptive when used for footwear – Suggestive marks are registrable and protectable – Leayan’s argument that POWER is a laudatory or common word rejected – POWER FLEX not descriptive of footwear characteristics – Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act not attracted [Paras 34.4–34.7].

Trademark Law – Honest Concurrent Use – Not a defense to infringement – Leayan’s reliance on prior usage and advertisements not supported by adequate evidence – Invoices and ads did not link use to POWER FLEX as a brand – No evidence of honest concurrent use [Paras 35.3–35.4].

Pleading and Procedural Fairness – Party Impleadment – Impleadment of retailer CBH as Defendant No. 1 not irregular or improper – No procedural law prescribes defendant sequencing – Direction of Single Judge to Registry requiring contesting party to be arrayed as Defendant No. 1 set aside [Paras 31.1–31.15].

Relief – Existing Stock – No error in allowing Leayan to exhaust existing stock under Court supervision – Adequate safeguards imposed – Objections to over-sale reserved for appropriate remedy before Single Judge [Paras 38–40].

Tagline Use – No Confusion – Use of tagline ‘THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER’ permitted – No undue emphasis on POWER found – Tagline unlikely to create confusion with Bata’s registered mark – Injunction rightly denied for tagline [Para 38(i)].

Decision: Appeals dismissed except to the extent that deletion of Chawla Boot House from the suit is set aside – Single Judge’s interim order upheld – Liberty reserved to Bata to move Single Judge on excess sale of stock [Paras 41–42].

Criminal Law – Discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Framing of Charges – Petitioner challenged trial court order framing charges under IPC and Arms Act – Claimed alibi of being detained by police on the date of incident – Trial Court held that prima facie case existed based on statements of police witnesses identifying petitioner as part of mob – High Court upheld finding – Held: At charge stage, only prima facie evidence needed – No error in trial court's conclusion [Paras 18–23].

Criminal Law – National Security Act – Petitioner was detained under NSA and released shortly before arrest in present case – Alleged mala fide action by State – High Court held that NSA detention does not negate evidence pointing to petitioner’s involvement in mob violence – Detention history not sufficient to rebut eye-witness identification [Paras 4–6, 12, 20].

Evidentiary Threshold – Prima Facie Standard at Charge Stage – Presence of direct witness statements (under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) sufficient to frame charges – Petitioner’s claims require evaluation at trial, not discharge stage – Cited Soma Chakravarty v. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403 to reaffirm that detailed scrutiny of evidence is inappropriate at this stage [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order framing charges under IPC and Arms Act upheld – No ground made out for interference under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 23–24].