Public Interest Litigation – Bona Fides of Petitioner – Conflict of Interest – Petitioner filed PIL seeking removal of allegedly illegal weighbridges and royalty nakas on National Highways across Rajasthan – Respondents alleged that petition was a motivated exercise to settle personal and commercial scores – Petitioner's father admitted to be a quarry licence holder engaged in mining business – Family alleged to be associated with weighbridge operations – Petitioner failed to disclose these facts as mandated by Rule 385-F of the High Court Rules – Held: Petitioner prima facie has a discernible personal stake in the matter and is not entitled to prosecute proceedings as a public interest litigant – Petitioner transposed as Respondent No. 17 – Cause converted to suo motu proceedings – Followed: Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. [Paras 8-18, 21].

PIL – Mandatory Disclosure – Rule 385-F – Non-Disclosure – Consequences – Rule 385-F of the Rajasthan High Court Rules mandates that a PIL petitioner must disclose social standing, personal interest in the cause, and history of past or pending litigation – Non-disclosure of petitioner's family's involvement in mining and weighbridge operations constitutes suppression of material facts – Held: Petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, clean heart and clean objective – Petitioner disentitled from instituting any Public Interest Litigation in future – Notice issued to petitioner to show cause why exemplary costs of Rs. 25 lakhs be not imposed [Paras 16-19, 22].

PIL – Conversion to Suo Motu Proceedings – Larger Public Interest – Despite disentitlement of petitioner, issues of road safety and removal of hazardous installations on highways held to be of significant public importance – Proceedings directed to continue as suo motu proceedings – Cause title amended to "In the matter of Safety on the Highways vs. State of Rajasthan and Others" – Amicus curiae appointed to assist the Court – Intervenors/whistle-blowers permitted to participate through amicus curiae [Paras 20-23, 29-30].

Weighbridge – Relocation – Permission to Operate – Respondent No. 12 (M/s Riddhi Siddhi Housing Private Limited), concessionaire of the State, had been directed to relocate weighbridge beyond 75 metres from National Highway – Relocation stated on oath to have been carried out – Position not disputed by NHAI or State authorities – Sanction order dated 07.04.2025 issued by Mining Department in favour of Respondent No. 12 – Held: Respondent No. 12 permitted to continue business operations subject to physical/spot verification of relocation by Mining Department and NHAI – In event relocation found non-compliant, authorities at liberty to seek modification of order [Paras 24-28].

Mining – Royalty Collection – Weighbridges – Regulatory Framework – Mining Department legally empowered to permit and regulate check posts and monitor mineral transportation including E-Ravana and transit/royalty pass mechanism – Legal Metrology Department has jurisdiction over installation and operation of weighbridges – Both functions intrinsically interconnected as royalty collection based on weight of minerals necessarily requires weighbridges – Denial of weighbridge operations would result in illegal mining and loss to State exchequer [Para 26].

Decision: Petitioner transposed as Respondent No. 17 – PIL converted to suo motu proceedings – Petitioner barred from filing any PIL in future – Notice issued for show cause on exemplary costs of Rs. 25 lakhs – Respondent No. 12 permitted to operate weighbridge subject to spot verification – Matter adjourned to 06.04.2026.

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Plaint – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Trial Court allowed amendment without assigning reasons – Impugned order cryptic and non-speaking – Held: Judicial orders must disclose reasons – Order liable to be set aside [Para 7]

Amendment of Pleadings – Time-Barred Claim – Amendment sought to declare sale deeds (dated 24.01.2007 and 23.03.2016) as null and void – Relief relating to 2007 sale deed beyond limitation of 3 years – Held: Amendment introducing time-barred claim which divests accrued rights cannot be allowed [Paras 9, 8]

Limitation – Deemed Knowledge – Registered documents – Plaintiff claimed lack of knowledge of sale deeds – Held: Registration constitutes deemed notice – Party cannot extend limitation by pleading ignorance of registered documents [Paras 10-12]

Amendment – Change in Nature of Suit – Original plea based on sale transaction – Amendment sought to convert transaction into mortgage/security – Held: Amendment fundamentally altering nature of suit and cause of action impermissible [Para 13]

Amendment Principles – Supreme Court Guidelines – Court relied on LIC v. Sanjeev Builders – Amendment to be refused if it introduces time-barred claim or changes nature of suit – Liberal approach subject to absence of prejudice and limitation bar [Para 8]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Articles 226/227 – Interference with discretionary order – Where Trial Court exercises discretion arbitrarily without reasons and contrary to settled principles, High Court justified in interfering [Paras 7, 14]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 03.04.2018 set aside – I.A. No. III for amendment rejected – No order as to costs.

NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 21 and 25 – Quantity Below Commercial Threshold – Section 37 Not Applicable – Applicant arrested on 28.03.2025 for alleged recovery of 6.08 grams of heroin from speedometer of his motorcycle – Challan filed – 11 out of 19 witnesses examined – Trial not likely to conclude in near future – Multiple prior NDPS cases registered against applicant but no conviction in any – Bail applications earlier dismissed by this Court as withdrawn and by Special Court – Held: Quantity recovered does not fall within commercial quantity and therefore rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted – Registration of multiple prior cases without conviction cannot justify indefinite pre-trial custody – Bail cannot be refused as a matter of punishment – Pre-trial punishment prohibited under law – No useful purpose served by continued custody – Apprehensions regarding tampering and reoffending can be addressed through conditions – Bail granted [Paras 11-17].

Pre-Trial Detention – Prolonged Custody – Pendency of Trial – Applicant in custody since 28.03.2025 – Trial not likely to conclude in near future given pace of recording of evidence – Prior registration of cases without conviction cannot be a ground to keep accused in judicial custody for indefinite period – State made no effort to seek cancellation of bail in any of the other registered cases – Bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount – Subject to conditions of regular attendance, non-tampering with evidence, no inducement or threat to witnesses, and no travel outside India without prior permission of Court – State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions [Paras 17-21].

Intellectual Property – Passing Off – Prior User – Goodwill – Charitable Trust – Plaintiffs' trust "Kovai Heart Foundation" conducting charitable cardiac care activities since 1992, formally registered in 1996 – Defendants commenced use of name "Kovai Heart Foundation Private Limited" only around 2009 – Trial Court decreed suit restraining defendants by permanent injunction – Held: Plaintiffs established prior user of the name and goodwill attached thereto – Defendants' adoption of the same composite name in the same city and same field of cardiac care is likely to mislead the public into believing defendants are connected with the plaintiffs – Addition of corporate suffix "Private Limited" does not materially distinguish the name – Same constitutes passing off – Appeal dismissed [Paras 19-31].

Passing Off – Incorporation Under Companies Act – No Bar to Suit – Absence of Trade Mark Registration – Irrelevant – Defendants contended that plaintiffs' remedy lay only before the authority concerned with company names and that absence of trade mark registration defeated the suit – Held: The suit is a common law action in passing off and not for rectification of register of companies – Goodwill generated by prior user is protectable even in the absence of registration – Incorporation under the Companies Act does not confer immunity against an action in passing off if the corporate name adopted is likely to invade the goodwill of a prior user – Civil court is not sitting in appeal over the act of incorporation but is examining whether use of the corporate name constitutes actionable misrepresentation [Paras 10-13].

Maintainability – Suit by Charitable Trust – Trust Represented by Trustees – Defendants contended that a trust cannot claim any right in the name – Held: The claim is not that the trust enjoys any statutory monopoly over the name – Goodwill attached to a name used in charitable and related activities can certainly be enforced by those competent to represent the trust, namely its trustees – Suit maintainable [Paras 14-17].

Passing Off – Test of Confusion – Composite Name – Geographical Component – "Kovai" is geographical but the relevant expression is the composite name "Kovai Heart Foundation" – Distinctiveness in passing off law may reside in the totality of the expression and the goodwill it has come to denote – Test of confusion is not meticulous comparison but the impression on a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection – Dominant and essential part of defendants' name identical to that of plaintiffs – Likelihood of confusion accentuated by both parties operating in the same field and the same city – Personal professional reputation of first defendant does not answer the legal objection arising from adoption of a name already associated with the plaintiffs' prior activities – Real and probable likelihood of confusion sufficient in law [Paras 23-30].

Delay and Acquiescence – Mere delay in approaching Court does not defeat a claim for injunction where the complained-of use is continuing and likelihood of deception persists – Acquiescence requires conduct amounting to encouragement or assent, not mere delay – No such case established [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal Suit dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court confirmed – Permanent injunction against defendants upheld – Appellants to pay costs of appeal to respondents [Para 35].

Property Law – Title vs Adverse Possession – Competing claims – Plaintiff established title through registered sale deed and release deed – Defendants claimed title through agreement of sale and long possession – Held: Agreement of sale does not confer title – Registered title prevails [Paras 20, 24]

Adverse Possession – Essential Requirements – Possession originating under agreement to sell – Held: Such possession is permissive/derivative and not hostile – Cannot ripen into adverse possession without clear repudiation of true owner’s title – No evidence of hostile animus [Paras 22-23, 32-33]

Limitation – Article 65 – Suit for possession based on title – Limitation begins when possession becomes adverse – Held: In absence of proof of adverse possession, limitation under Article 65 not attracted [Paras 25, 34]

Limitation – Articles 58 & 59 – Declaration and cancellation of instruments – Right to sue accrues when cause of action first arises – In case of fraud, limitation begins from date of knowledge – Suit filed upon discovery of fraudulent gift deeds held within limitation [Paras 28, 34]

Registered Documents – Effect – Registration constitutes notice and confers legal sanctity – Title flowing through registered instruments upheld over unregistered agreement-based claims [Paras 24, 30]

Adverse Possession – Burden of Proof – Mere long possession insufficient – Must establish nec vi, nec clam, nec precario and hostile assertion to knowledge of true owner – Earlier litigations only sought protection of possession and negated hostility [Paras 31-32]

Cause of Action – Accrual – Execution of impugned gift deeds and attempted construction in 2010 constituted clear threat to plaintiff’s rights – Suit held within limitation [Paras 26-29, 34]

Concurrent Findings – Trial Court – Declaration of title and cancellation of gift deeds upheld – Suit for adverse possession rightly dismissed [Paras 10, 34-35]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court upheld – Plaintiff entitled to declaration, possession and cancellation of gift deeds – Defendants’ claim of adverse possession rejected.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 69 BNS – Promise of Marriage – Sexual Exploitation – Pregnancy – Accused, the maternal aunt's son of the complainant, allegedly developed a physical relationship with her under repeated assurances of marriage, took her to an OYO room on 04.06.2025, and had physical relations with her – Complainant became seven months pregnant at the time of filing the complaint and subsequently gave birth to a baby boy on 18.02.2026 – Accused refused to marry her and denied paternity – DNA samples awaited as child had not yet attained the minimum age of two months required for collection – Petitioner in custody since 13.01.2026 – Held: Considering the period of incarceration and the facts and circumstances, bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2, 6].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Bail granted on execution of personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount – Petitioner to appear before the concerned SHO every Wednesday between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM for eight weeks or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier – Petitioner to abide by conditions under Section 483(2) BNSS.

POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Section 6 – Conviction Upheld – Accused, the cousin brother and blood relative of the minor victim aged 14 years, subjected her to repeated forcible sexual intercourse from the time she was in 9th standard, taking advantage of the prohibited familial relationship and the victim's vulnerability as her parents were staying away in Coimbatore – Victim became pregnant; accused refused responsibility and directed her to give a false version of kidnap and rape – Held: Prosecution established the foundational facts; testimony of the victim is reliable, trustworthy and of sterling quality; conviction affirmed [Paras 18-40].

POCSO Act – Sole Testimony of Victim – Sterling Witness – Corroboration Not Required – Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of sexual assault if the evidence is found trustworthy and of sterling quality – Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies do not constitute grounds to discard an otherwise reliable prosecution case – In the instant case, the victim was consistent in her complaint (Ex.P1), Section 164 statement (Ex.P2) and court deposition; withstood rigorous cross-examination; PW4 (independent witness) corroborated her version – Held: Corroboration not required; sole testimony sufficient [Paras 31-34].

POCSO Act – Statutory Presumption – Section 29 – Once foundational facts established that victim is a minor and has been subjected to sexual relationship, presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act arises – Accused offered no explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and adduced no evidence to rebut presumption – Held: Statutory presumption unrebutted; conviction justified [Para 35].

Evidence – Discrepancy – False Version of Kidnap Attributed to Accused's Instructions – Victim initially gave a version of kidnap and rape by one known and three unknown persons but retracted before the doctor stating she did so on the accused's instruction – Held: Discrepancy regarding kidnap and rape, explained by the victim's fear of shame and trauma of prohibited relationship, does not affect the core prosecution case of repeated sexual assault [Paras 34, 37].

POCSO Act – Delay in FIR – Sexual Assault by Blood Relative – Delay in lodging complaint in cases of sexual assault committed by a close blood relative in a prohibited relationship cannot be a ground to discredit the prosecution case, as the minor victim was under fear of shame and social stigma [Para 38].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of ten years RI under Section 6 POCSO Act affirmed – Trial Court directed to secure the accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining sentence.

Bail – Prostitution – PIT Act – Sections 3, 4 and 5 – Accused No. 2 arrested during a raid at a flat in KPHB Colony where prostitution was allegedly being organised by the main accused – Petitioner alleged to be a sub-organizer acting as mediator for customers – Petitioner claimed she visited the premises only to collect money due in connection with her chit fund business and had no connection with the illegal activities of A.1 – Held: No specific material at this stage to show petitioner owned or managed the premises; presence alone without independent material showing active role requires examination during trial; investigation substantially completed and petitioner is a woman; bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties; to appear before the concerned SHO every Wednesday between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM for eight weeks or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Under Section 302 RPC – Acquittal – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for causing homicidal death of the deceased by assaulting him on the head with a gainti on 30.05.2002, allegedly on suspicion of illicit relations with the appellant's wife – Conviction based primarily on the testimony of PW-2 Shah Begum, the minor daughter of the deceased, as the sole eye-witness – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted [Paras 1, 19-21].

Evidence – Child Witness – Corroboration – Reliability – PW-2, the sole eye-witness, was a minor daughter of the deceased – Testimony of a child witness requires careful scrutiny and courts must be satisfied that it is free from tutoring – In the present case, PW-2's testimony found no adequate corroboration from material witnesses – PW-1 Bagh Hussain, who first took the injured to the hospital, turned hostile and denied witnessing any assault – Held: Uncorroborated testimony of a child witness, suffering from material discrepancies, cannot safely sustain a conviction [Paras 7, 11].

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Recovery of Weapon – Doubtful – Independent witnesses to the alleged disclosure statement and recovery of the gainti, namely PW-4 Sudesh Kumar and PW-5 Rattan Singh, did not support the prosecution – PW-5 specifically deposed that the alleged weapon was lying in the police station and documents of its seizure were prepared there – Held: Recovery of weapon of offence highly doubtful; prosecution case seriously undermined [Paras 8, 9, 12, 13].

Evidence – Material Contradictions – Child Witness – PW-2 stated in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that she along with her father had gone to the appellant for settlement of accounts and that the assault took place then – Before the Court she stated that the deceased was washing clothes outside the room when the appellant came from behind and assaulted him – Held: This is not a minor inconsistency but a material variation going to the root of the prosecution story regarding the manner of occurrence; such contradictions cannot be lightly ignored [Paras 15, 16].

Evidence – Motive – Unproved – Prosecution attributed motive of suspicion of illicit relations between the deceased and the appellant's wife – Not a single prosecution witness substantiated this allegation – Held: In a case resting on the testimony of a single witness, absence of cogent material establishing motive further weakens the prosecution case [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Reasonable Doubt – Where evidence on record gives rise to two possible views, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted – Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof – Cumulative effect of material inconsistencies in the sole eye-witness testimony, hostile witnesses, doubtful recovery and unproved motive gives rise to reasonable doubt – Held: Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 18, 19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 RPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Discharged from bail bonds – Confirmation Reference No. 7/2010 declined.