NDPS Act – Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC / Section 430 BNSS – Commercial Quantity – Appellant convicted for possession of 25.086 kg ganja and sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of ₹1,00,000 – Application for suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Held: Recovery of commercial quantity attracts rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Gravity of offence and societal impact weigh against grant of suspension [Paras 13–15, 22–23].

Evidence – Police Witnesses – Non-Joining of Public Witnesses – Credibility – Non-association of independent witnesses at recovery not fatal – Police testimony consistent and corroborated by seizure memo and FSL report – Reliance placed on State v. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652; Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 2 SCR 785 – Police witnesses competent and reliable in absence of motive to falsely implicate [Paras 14–15].

Evidence – Non-production of CCTV Footage – Chance Recovery – Effect – Omission to produce CCTV or videography does not vitiate seizure – Recovery occurred at 3 AM; documentation corroborated recovery – Non-production not fatal to prosecution [Para 16].

Parity – Bail to Co-Accused – Not a Ground Post Conviction – Co-accused Mukesh granted bail at pre-conviction stage – Parity argument inapplicable after conviction, as presumption of innocence no longer available [Para 17].

Criminal Procedure – Suspension of Sentence – Tests and Considerations – Suspension not a matter of right – Court to consider gravity of offence, period undergone, and prima facie chance of acquittal – Appellant has undergone only 3 years out of 10-year sentence (<50%) – Not eligible for suspension as per Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3182 and Saudan Singh v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259 [Paras 19–20].

Judicial Principle – Post-Conviction Presumption – After conviction, presumption of innocence stands erased – Suspension of sentence justified only where conviction appears palpably unsustainable – No such case made out here; no fair chance of acquittal shown [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Sentence not suspended – Application dismissed – Appeal to be heard in due course [Paras 23–25].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Limitation – Reversal of Trial Court Order – Trial Court rejected plaint at the registration stage, holding suit barred by limitation based on registered sale deeds from 1996 to 2003 – Held: Limitation was a mixed question of law and fact – Plaint clearly pleaded date of knowledge and cause of action arising in 2022 – Registration of a document amounts to constructive notice, but whether plaintiffs had actual knowledge required trial – Rejection at threshold stage without considering entire plaint was improper [Paras 25-33] –

Cause of Action – Prior Litigation – Fresh Suit Not Barred – Trial Court held that fresh suit was barred due to dismissal of earlier suit (O.S. No. 372/2015) – Held: Dismissal of earlier suit does not automatically bar fresh suit – Questions relating to Order II Rule 2 CPC and res judicata are factual and legal issues that must be adjudicated during trial – Not grounds for rejection at registration stage [Paras 34-38] –

Court Fees – Refund of Court Fee on Allowed Appeal – In light of setting aside the rejection of plaint and directing trial court to register the suit, appellants held entitled to refund of court fee paid on the appeal – Refund to be processed as per Sections 63 and 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 [Paras 39-45] –

Interpretation – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope of Inquiry – Rejection of plaint must be based solely on plaint averments taken at face value – Factual disputes such as limitation, knowledge, or cause of action require evidence and trial – Trial Court erred in relying on extraneous materials and failing to consider plaint as a whole [Paras 20-33] –

Decision: Appeal allowed – Rejection of plaint set aside – Trial Court directed to receive and register the suit – Appellants entitled to full refund of court fee paid on appeal – No order as to costs [Paras 46-49].

Application for regular bail in a case involving grievous assaults stemming from prior enmity and extortion demands – alleged repeated attacks on complainant and his nephew, including within hospital premises – petitioner identified as principal assailant with multiple past criminal involvements.

Customs Law – Import Clearance – Out of Charge – DRI Officer’s Post-Clearance Action – Petitioner’s goods (dry dates) cleared under Section 47 of Customs Act after full verification by Customs, FSSAI, and Ministry of Agriculture – Despite clearance and gate pass, goods forcibly brought back to CFS by DRI Officer based on unverified intelligence alleging Pakistani origin – Held: Action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) in securing return of cleared goods was arbitrary, not supported by law or legal procedure – No lawful revocation or show cause notice preceded such retrieval – Violation of natural justice and rule of law [Paras 1–7, 12–23, 33–34, 45, 54].

Customs Act – Section 47 – Legal Finality of Clearance Order – Goods once cleared for home consumption upon satisfaction by proper officer cannot be interfered with without following due process – No proceedings under Section 124 initiated – Held: Sixth Respondent’s telephonic “requests” to reverse clearance orders circumvented legal remedies available under Customs Act – Clearance once made under Section 47 cannot be undone without lawful proceedings [Paras 4, 19–23, 30–32, 37, 54].

Administrative Law – Natural Justice and Rule of Law – Highhanded action by government officer divesting goods already cleared without issuing notice or recording reasons – Held: Any civil consequence must be preceded by due process – Mere reliance on intelligence not enough – Absence of any file notings, written orders, or ‘reason to believe’ vitiates the action – Colour of office cannot replace colour of law [Paras 17, 23, 26–29, 31–33, 39, 54].

Powers of DRI – Section 106 Customs Act – Improper Invocation – DRI Officer relied on Section 106 to justify stopping and retrieval of goods – Held: Section 106 applies to smuggling suspicion before clearance – Goods in question already cleared after 6 days of examination – No lawful authority shown for recalling cleared goods post Out of Charge – Section 106 not attracted [Paras 24–26, 28, 32].

Disputed Origin – Pakistani Origin Allegation – Dry dates alleged to have originated in Karachi and routed through UAE – Clearance granted after specific examination instructions on Pakistani origin – Court refuses to adjudicate origin dispute under Article 226 – Directs Customs to issue show cause and follow due process [Paras 10–11, 38–42, 44–45, 54].

Remedy – Equitable Relief – Court refuses to order immediate release but imposes time-bound direction for issuance and adjudication of show cause notice – If not done, directs release of goods upon redemption fine/bank guarantee – Balances petitioner’s commercial interests with revenue’s concerns [Paras 47–50, 55].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Court holds action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of natural justice – However, in the interest of balancing equities, permits Customs Authorities to issue show cause notice within 4 weeks and dispose of it within 6 weeks of reply – If not complied, goods to be released upon furnishing bank guarantee for redemption fine – Rule made partly absolute – No costs [Paras 54–56].

Motor Accident Compensation – Quantum Awarded in Excess of Claim – Just Compensation – Tribunal awarded ₹1.3 Crores against claimed ₹82 Lakhs – Insurance Company objected to grant of compensation beyond claim – Held: Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, courts and tribunals are empowered to grant “just compensation” irrespective of claimed amount – Social welfare legislation permits award above claimed figure to meet ends of justice – No legal embargo on granting compensation more than what is claimed [Paras 42-52] –

Assessment of Income – Guesswork in Absence of Documentary Proof – Permissible – Claimant’s income assessed as ₹20,000/month though no tax returns or formal proof was filed – Tribunal relied on lease agreements, oral testimony, and surrounding circumstances – Held: In motor accident cases, adjudication of income can involve reasonable estimation or guesswork where evidence is credible – Income determined by tribunal based on broad-based judicial approach found justified [Paras 53-61] –

Permanent Disability – Evidence – Medical and Lay Witnesses – Compensation for Future Care – Claimant rendered 100% disabled due to spinal cord injury (C5-C6) – Evidence from 20 witnesses including treating doctors, physiotherapists, hospital administrators, and attendants established permanent incapacitation – Costs of long-term physiotherapy, personal assistants, and medical expenses proved – Tribunal’s award supported by extensive documentary and oral evidence [Paras 17-41] –

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court's Deference to Tribunal’s Factual Findings – Insurance Company challenged only two components: compensation exceeding claim and lack of income proof – Tribunal’s findings on all other heads of compensation remained unchallenged – Held: Where tribunal takes a possible view based on evidence, appellate court will not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported by record [Paras 62-63] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award of ₹1.3 Crores upheld – Insurance Company and other respondents directed to deposit awarded amount within 2 months – Claimant permitted to withdraw full compensation without security – No costs [Paras 63-64].

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Personal Search – Validity of Conviction – Accused alleged total non-compliance with Section 50 – Evidence of PW10 (main raiding officer) confirmed that accused was informed of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Corroborated by PW5 and PW9 – Casual wording in PW1's testimony not fatal – Held: Compliance with Section 50 duly established – Conviction not vitiated [Paras 11–19].

NDPS Act – Section 42(2) Compliance – Written Intimation – Mandatory Requirements Fulfilled – PW10 reduced information to writing and dispatched to SDPO through PW4 – Documentary evidence and witness testimonies confirmed delivery and acknowledgment – Held: Procedural compliance under Section 42(2) satisfied [Para 26].

Chain of Custody – Seal Discrepancy – Inventory and Seizure – No Tampering – Defence raised concern about use of different seals during seizure and inventory – Court found consistent explanation that separate seals used at different stages – Chain of custody intact – No evidence of tampering – Seal sent to SDPO for safe custody duly proven [Paras 20, 27].

Contraband Weight – LSD and Cocaine – Minor Variance – Commercial Quantity Established – Typographical error in inventory corrected by testimony of PW8 – CFSL weight difference (0.01g LSD and ~0.5g Cocaine) not significant – Contraband still within commercial quantity – Held: No prejudice caused – Recovery valid [Paras 21–22, 29].

Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies in Timing and Description – Credibility Not Affected – Minor contradictions between PW1 and PW2 regarding timing and origin description – Court held such inconsistencies natural due to lapse of time – Witnesses found to be credible – Overenthusiastic or vague statements not enough to discredit evidence [Paras 23–24].

Copy of Panchanama – Non-supply Allegation – No Prejudice Shown – PW10 testified that copy of panchanama was handed over and signed – Non-mention by PW1 and PW3 insufficient to rebut – Court found no material prejudice caused [Para 25].

Investigating Officer – Informant and Complainant Same – Investigation Not Vitiated – Accused objected to PW10 being both informant and investigator – Court noted that investigation was conducted by multiple officers including PI and PSI – Held: No illegality or bias established [Para 28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 21(b) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act upheld – Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt – All procedural safeguards complied with – No material irregularity or infirmity in findings of trial court [Paras 30–31].

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum – Concealment of Income – Revision Dismissed – Revisionist-husband, a company director, challenged Family Court order directing payment of ₹20,000/- p.m. each to wife and daughter – He alleged that maintenance was excessive considering his income of ₹2.4 lakh p.a. – Wife alleged concealment of true income and production of manipulated ITRs – Documentary evidence showed deposits exceeding ₹67 lakh in company accounts and assets worth over ₹1 crore – Court found deliberate suppression of income – Held: Revisionist had sufficient means and moral/legal duty to maintain wife and daughter [Paras 15–27].

Wife Living Separately – Justifiable Cause – Evidence showed wife was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment – Husband failed to cross-examine her on key allegations – Trial court rightly held that she was living separately for sufficient reasons [Paras 10–11].

Wife’s Qualification – Capability to Earn – Effect – Wife, though qualified (B.Com and Interior Design Diploma), left employment at husband’s insistence – Presently unemployed and caring for minor child – Mere capability to work not ground to deny maintenance [Paras 12–14].

Standard of Living – Principle of Parity – Wife entitled to live in similar standard as husband – Husband’s attempt to evade liability by showing reduced income rejected – Maintenance to ensure dignity and prevent destitution – Court reiterated that sustenance implies living consistent with family status [Paras 18–22].

Determination of Quantum – Guiding Principles – Reaffirmed Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, neither oppressive nor meagre – Financial capacity, lifestyle, inflation, and dependent obligations to be considered [Para 23].

Presumption – Able-Bodied Husband – Following Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani (AIR 1968 Del 174) – Able-bodied man presumed capable of earning sufficient to maintain wife and child; concealment of income invites adverse inference [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Family Court order upheld – ₹20,000/- per month each to wife and minor daughter affirmed – No interference warranted [Para 30].

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Joint Ownership – Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act – Eviction Order Upheld – Landlords filed eviction petition for personal requirement of shop premises to run a boutique – One co-owner purchased in 1996, other in 2007 – Tenant argued bar under Section 14(6) due to second sale deed being within 5 years – Held: in case of multiple co-owners, five-year bar under Section 14(6) to be counted from earliest acquisition – Eviction petition was maintainable and rightly allowed [Paras 1, 2, 16-18].

Tenant’s Defence – Section 14(6) DRC Act – Fresh Plea in Revision – Not Raised Before ARC – Not Permissible – Tenant never raised issue of Section 14(6) before Rent Controller, nor led evidence – Held: tenant estopped from raising new plea at revisional stage – Revision jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) cannot be used to cure defects not urged before the trial forum [Paras 13-14, 19].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Only in Exceptional Cases – No Error or Illegality Found – Court reiterated limited scope of revisional powers under Section 25B(8) DRC Act – No perversity, illegality or error apparent in the eviction order passed by ARC – Findings of fact regarding landlord-tenant relationship and bona fide requirement upheld [Paras 22-24].

Joint Ownership – Eviction Petition Maintainable – Single Co-owner’s Eligibility Satisfies Statutory Bar – Held: DRC Act does not bar joint owners from seeking eviction if one co-owner satisfies the five-year ownership requirement – Language of Section 14(6) refers to “a landlord” and does not restrict joint petitions by multiple owners [Paras 17-18].

Decision:

Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order dated 18.11.2019 affirmed – Tenant directed to hand over possession of shop to landlords forthwith – Court held tenant had already availed statutory six-month protection under Section 14(7) DRC Act – No costs [Paras 24-26].

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Evidentiary Value of Charge Sheet – Accident occurred when claimant’s motorcycle (KL-31E-1713) collided with another motorcycle (KL-04V-4339) insured with appellant – Tribunal fixed contributory negligence at 50:50 and awarded ₹1,12,110/- with 8% interest – Held: Ext.B1 charge sheet showed claimant as accused for rash and negligent driving – AMVI report confirmed rear-side impact to insured vehicle – No evidence led by claimant to prove negligence of other rider – Charge sheet is prima facie proof of negligence under New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KHC 595] – Tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence without valid reasoning [Paras 5–8].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Burden of Proof – Claimant must establish negligence of the offending vehicle – In absence of oral or documentary evidence supporting negligence of the insured rider, claim cannot be sustained against insurer – Tribunal’s reliance on conjecture that vehicle ahead lacked indication light insufficient to fix contributory negligence [Paras 7–8].

Appeal – Interference with Tribunal’s Finding – Appellate Court held that findings of contributory negligence unsupported by evidence are liable to be set aside – Insurer absolved of liability as entire negligence lay with claimant who was charge-sheeted as tortfeasor [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Tribunal’s finding of 50% contributory negligence on rider of insured vehicle set aside – Insurer not liable to pay compensation to claimant [Para 8].