Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC – Reversal – Prosecution case based on alleged assault by accused with sticks and hoe – Majority of eye-witnesses turned hostile and did not support prosecution – Medical evidence inconsistent and case papers indicated “accidental injuries” – FIR and subsequent statement doubtful due to absence of medical certification of fitness and inconsistencies in recording – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 19–28].

Evidence – Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Material Contradictions – Eye-witnesses (PW3, PW10, PW11, PW12) denied seeing assault and only found deceased lying in pit – Medical evidence showed simple injuries initially and later multiple injuries with complications including gangrene – Hospital records described injuries as accidental – Held: Serious inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence renders prosecution case unreliable [Paras 6, 7, 19, 27].

FIR and Dying Declaration – Reliability – FIR recorded in hospital without doctor certifying mental fitness – Only thumb impression taken despite alleged consciousness – No dying declaration recorded though deceased survived for several days – Subsequent statement introduced new weapons and injuries – Held: FIR and further statement lack credibility and cannot be safely relied upon [Paras 16, 24, 26].

Witnesses – Interested Witnesses – Lack of Independent Corroboration – Testimony of son, brother, and nephew of deceased not corroborated by independent witnesses – Independent witnesses present at scene turned hostile – Held: In absence of reliable corroboration, interested testimony cannot sustain conviction [Paras 14, 28].

Investigation – Lapses and Doubtful Conduct – Investigating Officer present at scene even before formal complaint – Failure to produce station diary/logbook – No proper recovery of weapons proved as panch witnesses turned hostile – Failure to seize soil or corroborative forensic evidence – Held: Investigation suffered from serious infirmities creating doubt in prosecution case [Paras 23–24].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Not Proved – Panch witnesses did not support recovery – Chemical analysis showing blood stains insufficient without proof of recovery and linkage to accused – Held: Discovery evidence alone cannot sustain conviction [Paras 13, 24].

Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Jurisprudence – Where contradictions, unreliable evidence, and investigative lapses exist, accused entitled to acquittal – Held: Trial Court failed to properly appreciate evidence and conviction unsustainable [Paras 7, 28].

Decision: Appeal No. 649 of 2003 allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted – Appeal No. 1484 of 2003 (State for enhancement) dismissed.

Property Law – Article 300-A – Forcible Dispossession by State – Mandatory Injunction – Right to Compensation – Respondent/plaintiff, title holder of suit land, found that State had constructed National Highway through his land without following due process of law or paying compensation – Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction decreed partly by Trial Court directing defendants to acquire portion of suit land and pay due compensation within two years – First Appellate Court affirmed – Held: No person can be forcibly dispossessed of his property without legal sanction and without following due process of law – State being a welfare State governed by rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution – State produced no document to show consent of respondent for construction of road through his land – Plea of oral consent held unsustainable – Concurrent findings affirmed – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-20].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – State's Plea Rejected – State contended that claim was stale and highly belated and that respondent had orally consented – Held: Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of continuing cause of action – Being the owner of the suit property, plaintiff was well within his right to file a suit for injunction and mandatory injunction at any stage until the right is defeated by perfection of title through adverse possession – State cannot shield itself behind delay and laches when it has utilised land of a citizen without adopting due process of law – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice [Paras 14-19].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second appeal unless the finding is based on inadmissible evidence, is in ignorance of relevant admissible evidence, is based on misreading of evidence, or is perverse – First Appellate Court is the final court of fact – No substantial question of law arises in the present case – No merit in the appeal [Paras 21-26].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit – Concurrent findings of Courts below upheld – State directed to acquire suit land and pay due compensation in accordance with law [Para 26].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 145 – Affidavit Evidence – Accused Cannot File Evidence-in-Chief by Way of Affidavit – Section 145(1) expressly enables only the complainant to give evidence-in-chief on affidavit in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act – The provision uses the word "complainant" and does not extend the same liberty to the accused – Legislature's deliberate omission of the word "accused" from Section 145(1) cannot be supplied by the Court – Section 145(2) is merely a procedural provision enabling the Court to summon and examine any person who has already given evidence on affidavit and does not confer upon the accused a right to adduce evidence-in-chief by affidavit – Held: The accused in a Section 138 proceeding cannot lead defence evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit – Impugned order of the SDJM discarding the affidavit evidence of the defence is consistent with law and calls for no interference [Paras 12, 13, 17, 18].

Precedent – Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore – Scope and Applicability – The Supreme Court in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. categorically held that Section 145(1) provides for the complainant to give evidence on affidavit and does not extend the same right to the accused – The accused's evidence is in the nature of rebuttal of presumptions and is not necessarily documentary, unlike the complainant's evidence which is largely documentary – Indian Bank Association v. Union of India did not overrule or dissent from Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. and the reference therein to the earlier decision was only by way of reiteration – Held: The ratio in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. remains good law and governs the field [Paras 14, 15, 16].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 18.07.2025 of the SDJM, Bhubaneswar in ICC Case No. 6557 of 2013 upheld – Interim order, if any, vacated.

Perjury — Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS — Maintenance Proceedings — False Affidavit — Prosecution for Perjury — Expediency Test — Appeal dismissed — Appellant-husband sought prosecution of his wife under Sections 211, 213, 222, 232 BNS alleging she made false statements about his income (Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- per month) in affidavit filed in Section 125 CrPC proceedings, whereas his actual income was Rs. 11,000/- per month — Family Court rejected the application — Held: Section 340 CrPC is conditioned by expediency in the interest of justice; prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned only where falsehood is deliberate and conscious and conviction is reasonably probable — Income of appellant is to be determined by the Family Court on the basis of evidence; it is common knowledge that wives generally exaggerate husband's income in maintenance proceedings, which does not by itself warrant action under Section 340 CrPC — No material illegality or perversity in the impugned order — Appeal dismissed [Paras 9, 12, 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed.

Criminal Law – Challenge to Remand Order - Production before Magistrate – Article 22(2) – Accused to be produced within 24 hours excluding travel time – Minor delay of 25 minutes beyond 24 hours explained by circumstances – Held: Not fatal and does not vitiate remand [Paras 8, 9, 10]

Arrest – Computation of 24 Hours – Time to be reckoned from official arrest and not mere apprehension – Arrest panchanama showed arrest at 5:00 p.m. – Production at 5:25 p.m. next day – Held: Delay marginal and justified [Paras 7-8]

Fundamental Rights – Violation of Article 22(2) – Allegation of illegal detention – Held: Exclusion of travel time and administrative circumstances permissible – No violation where delay is properly explained [Paras 9-10]

Remand – Validity – Non-production within exact 24 hours – Held: Slight deviation does not ipso facto invalidate remand if explanation is reasonable and no prejudice caused [Paras 10-11]

Bail vs Technical Grounds – Attempt to secure release on procedural irregularity after rejection of bail – Held: Petition under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used to indirectly secure bail when no substantive illegality shown [Paras 7, 11]

Criminal Law – Serious Offence (Murder for Supari) – Gravity of offence relevant – Technical plea of delay cannot override substantive prosecution case [Paras 3, 5]

Judicial Precedents – Travel time exclusion – Courts consistently hold that time necessary for journey must be excluded in computing 24 hours [Paras 9.3, 9.5, 9.6]

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Remand order upheld – No violation of Article 22(2) – Delay in production held justified – No ground for release of petitioner.

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].