Narcotic Drugs – Conviction – Appeal: Appellant convicted for possession and trafficking of charas (9 kg and 800 grams) – Trial Court sentenced appellant to 20 years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 – Appellant’s challenge based on procedural lapses in sampling and certification as per NDPS Act and Standing Orders – High Court finds procedural irregularities in drawing samples and failure to follow mandatory provisions under Section 52A of the NDPS Act – Appellant’s conviction set aside [Paras 1-33].

Procedure under Section 52A of NDPS Act – Statutory obligation for drawing samples in presence of Magistrate – Failure to comply with Standing Orders No. 1/88 and 1/89 regarding the sampling and storage of seized narcotic drugs – High Court emphasizes necessity for compliance with statutory procedures to maintain integrity of evidence [Paras 20-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – High Court underscores importance of adherence to prescribed procedures for seizure and sampling to ensure fair trial and uphold justice [Para 32-33].

Examination Process – OMR Sheet Filling Errors – Petitioners excluded from selection process due to improper filling/darkening of bubbles on OMR sheets – The court underscored the importance of strict adherence to instructions to maintain the sanctity and efficiency of the selection process – Emphasis on the mandatory nature of instructions and the lack of provision for rectification post-submission [Paras 1-12].

Sanctity of Selection Process – Upholding Instructions – Court referred to the Supreme Court’s precedent on strict compliance with examination guidelines – Allowing corrections post-submission would undermine the selection process and open possibilities for misuse – Highlighted that the process is automated, and errors cannot be manually corrected without disrupting the fairness and transparency [Paras 6-10].

Mandatory Nature of Instructions – Supreme Court’s Dictum – Reinforced the principle that instructions issued during examinations are mandatory and must be strictly followed – Cited Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemalathaa, stating that deviations from mandatory instructions cannot be condoned, and the High Court cannot relax such instructions under Article 226 [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The petition is dismissed. The court affirmed that the mandatory instructions for filling OMR sheets must be adhered to strictly. Any lapses by the candidates cannot be rectified post-submission, and such candidates must be excluded from the selection process.
 

Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Procedural Irregularities – Petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, involving recovery of commercial quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride – Contention that recovery was a chance discovery made by a police party in a private vehicle, not recorded in the police zimni – Court noted procedural irregularities and prolonged incarceration – Bail granted [Paras 1-10].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Emphasized the right to a speedy trial as part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 – Highlighted the principle that “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception” – Reference to precedents asserting the importance of minimizing pre-conviction detention periods [Paras 6-8].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Petitioner granted regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – Court clarified that observations made should not be construed as opinions on the merits of the case [Paras 9-10].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in relation to accusations of caste-based atrocities and violence – Court analyzed the applicability of Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which typically bar anticipatory bail – Court found no prima facie case of caste atrocity against the petitioner based on the allegations and evidence presented – Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C., considering petitioner’s age, political status, and lack of flight risk [Paras 1-17].

Evidence Assessment – Prima Facie Case – Court noted the need to examine whether allegations prima facie indicate involvement in an atrocity under the SC and ST Act – Found no direct evidence against the petitioner for inciting or participating in violence – Emphasized the necessity of judicial application of mind to determine applicability of statutory bars to anticipatory bail [Paras 7-14].

Application of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Despite Charge Sheet – Cited precedents affirming that filing of charge sheet does not preclude consideration of anticipatory bail – Analyzed facts and circumstances to determine the merit of bail petition, concluding custodial interrogation unnecessary due to completed investigation [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Petition for anticipatory bail allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest with conditions for personal bond and sureties – Emphasized non-influence of this order on trial proceedings [Paras 16-17].

Wills – Validity and Proof – Dispute over the execution of multiple wills by Pohlo Ram – The trial court ruled in favor of the will dated 17.10.1997 – The appellate court allowed the appeal for the will dated 4.2.2000, finding it suspicious – High Court emphasized the need for clear proof and dismissed the appeal, reinstating the trial court’s decision [Paras 70-90].

Burden of Proof – Suspicious Circumstances – The burden lies on the propounder of the will to prove its genuineness and dispel any suspicious circumstances – Appellant failed to prove that the will dated 4.2.2000 was executed in sound mind and free of undue influence – Evidence highlighted inconsistencies and potential forgery [Paras 84-90].

Indian Succession Act – Sections 63 and 68 – Will must be attested by two or more witnesses – Evidence presented failed to confirm due attestation and mental state of the testator during execution – The appellate court’s reliance on procedural aspects without addressing core evidentiary issues resulted in the High Court overturning its decision [Paras 77-83].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment and decree reinstated – Will dated 17.10.1997 recognized as the last valid will of Pohlo Ram – Mortgage deed declared null and void [Para 74-75].
 

Bail – NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Petitioner (Accused No.2) involved in illegal possession and transportation of 48 kgs of Ganja – Arrested on 02.03.2024 and in judicial custody since then – Entire investigation completed except filing of charge sheet – Bail granted with conditions – Petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties – Required to appear before the Station House Officer once a week until charge sheet filing [Paras 2-9].

Investigation Status – Completion and Bail Considerations – Acknowledgment of completed investigation barring charge sheet submission – Court inclined to grant bail considering the petitioner’s prolonged detention without trial progression [Paras 4-8].

Bail Conditions – Personal Bond and Sureties – Requirement of Rs.10,000/- bond and sureties – Weekly appearance mandate before Station House Officer to ensure compliance and presence [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Criminal Petition allowed. Petitioner granted bail with specified conditions.

Service Law – Regularization of Service – Petitioner seeking regularization of service from 1992 to 2016 on notional basis without financial benefits and from 2016 onwards with financial benefits – Petitioner continuously worked since 1992 – Government had conferred ‘Temporary Status’ in 2013 and regularized service in 2016 – Citing precedents on regularization for long-term temporary employees – Held: Denial of retrospective regularization and financial benefits by authorities upheld, considering financial implications and lack of direct comparability with cited cases.
Normal rule mandates similar treatment for identically situated employees – Exception made for laches and acquiescence – Held: Petitioner, having served over decades, merited consideration for regularization, but financial constraints and policy consistency justified limiting benefits.
Discussed in context of judicial decisions and administrative orders – Once an order is passed and action is taken, revisiting the decision is limited to specific circumstances – Held: Court found no grounds to alter previous administrative decisions based on functus officio principle.
Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioner’s claim for notional regularization from 1992 to 2016 and monetary benefits from 2016 rejected. Authorities instructed to consider financial constraints and policy impacts. Liberty granted to petitioner to seek other remedies as per law.
 

Customs Law – Suspension of Broker License – Appeal against suspension of Customs Broker License – CESTAT upheld suspension citing proportional penalty for facilitating fraudulent exports – Supreme Court found suspension under Regulation 16 as an interim measure, not a penalty – CESTAT erred in construing suspension as penalty and perpetuating it indefinitely – Order set aside [Paras 1-9].

Customs Broker Obligations – Regulation 10(n) – Violation Alleged – Appellant accused of failing to verify client details per Regulation 10(n) – Evidence showed appellant relied on official documents (IEC, GSTIN) – Physical verification not required – CESTAT misinterpreted obligations under Regulation 10(n) – No violation established [Paras 10-12].

Evidence and Procedure – Statement of authorized representative recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act – Statement confirmed official documentation and business activities of the exporter – Tribunal's reliance on this evidence deemed insufficient to prove violation [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of CESTAT set aside – No violation of Regulation 10(n) established – Suspension of license lifted [Para 14].

Guardian Appointment – Vegetative State – Petitioners requested the court to appoint the petitioner no.1 as the guardian and manager of the properties of her husband, who is in a vegetative state since 2019. The court reviewed the medical condition and the affidavits filed by the family members, noting the absence of legislative provisions for appointing a guardian in such cases and invoking its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide the requested relief [Paras 1-18].

Parens Patriae Doctrine – Application in Absence of Legislation – The court referenced judgments emphasizing the role of parens patriae when no statutory remedy exists for appointing guardians for persons in comatose states. The court outlined specific guidelines and conditions for the guardianship to ensure the best interest of the patient and prevent misuse of power [Paras 10-13].

Decision: The petition was partly allowed. The petitioner no.1, Anjuben Karansinh Dodiya, was declared as the guardian and manager of the movable and immovable properties of the patient, Karansinh Rajusinh Dodiya, subject to periodic reporting and monitoring by the Registrar General of the High Court of Gujarat and a public official/Social Welfare Officer. The guardianship will remain effective until the patient recovers from the comatose state [Para 15-18].