Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Petitioners arrested with 112.270 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity, and in custody for 182 days – No application filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of detention under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act – Held: In absence of a report from the Public Prosecutor seeking extension beyond 180 days with reasons and progress of investigation, petitioners acquire an indefeasible right to bail – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 8–12]

Statutory Bail – Right under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Petitioners remained in judicial custody beyond the statutory 180-day period without the prosecution filing for extension – Held: Right to bail becomes enforceable in the absence of valid prosecutorial request – Custody beyond 180 days without extension is illegal – Bail cannot be denied on apprehensions alone if investigation is substantially complete and witnesses examined are official [Paras 9–11]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposed strict bail conditions including execution of bonds, weekly appearance at the police station, restriction on travel outside the state, and prohibition from influencing witnesses or committing any further offence – Held: Conditions necessary to balance liberty of accused with the interest of investigation and justice [Para 11]

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 granted bail subject to strict conditions including personal bonds, weekly reporting, restriction on travel, and cooperation with investigation.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Mens Rea – Adequacy of Sentence – Section 306 IPC – Section 377 Cr.P.C. – State sought enhancement of sentence imposed on accused-husband convicted under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for wife’s self-immolation following repeated quarrels and physical abuse under intoxication – Evidence showed deceased committed suicide after domestic discord, joblessness of husband, and estrangement from her family – No evidence that accused intended or consciously instigated wife to commit suicide – Dying declaration and complaint revealed quarrel but not proximate act of abetment – Held: Continuous harassment alone insufficient to constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC without proof of mens rea or proximate incitement – Husband’s intoxicated state and flight from scene not conclusive of instigation – Sentence of three years’ imprisonment proper and not inadequate – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21, 22, 23, 28, 31, 32].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Reliability – Complaint treated as First Dying Declaration – Recorded in presence of Medical Officer – Endorsed as patient conscious – No prompting or tutoring shown – Held reliable and admissible – Corroborated by subsequent dying declaration before Executive Magistrate [Paras 8–13].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Sentence under Section 377(3) Cr.P.C. – Scope – Court empowered to consider both enhancement and reduction of sentence or even acquittal on merits – No ground to interfere when sentence proportionate and supported by evidence [Paras 7, 32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC confirmed – No enhancement warranted – Record and proceedings to be returned to Trial Court [Para 33].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Section 10(1)(x) of Divorce Act – Standard of cruelty uniform under all personal laws – Ill-treatment of husband’s children and attempt to commit suicide by wife constitute mental cruelty – Divorce decree confirmed – Maintenance enhanced to ₹15,000/- per month considering husband’s income abroad [Paras 10–14].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Section 10(1)(x), Divorce Act, 1869 – Standard of cruelty uniform under all personal laws – Cruelty contemplated under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act must be understood in the same sense as under other personal laws – The law cannot recognise different degrees or types of cruelty based on religion – Right to live free from matrimonial cruelty is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution – Courts must interpret matrimonial cruelty under all personal laws in an identical manner to uphold constitutional equality [Para 11].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Ill-treatment of husband’s children – Conduct of wife towards husband’s children causing humiliation, agony and psychological trauma to the husband constitutes mental cruelty – Continuous harassment, neglect and abusive behaviour towards children justifies dissolution of marriage – Held, evidence of husband, children (PW2 & PW6) and corroborating witnesses (PW3–PW5) conclusively establish mental cruelty [Paras 10–12].

Attempt to Commit Suicide – Effect – Attempt by wife to commit suicide without reasonable cause, or threatening self-harm, amounts to cruelty – Such conduct causes emotional distress and apprehension of harm in the husband’s mind – Justifies decree of divorce [Para 13].

Cruelty – Interpretation – Constitutional Scheme – Courts must construe statutory provisions in harmony with Articles 14 and 21 – All citizens have equal right to live without matrimonial cruelty irrespective of religious denomination – Personal law cannot dilute this constitutional protection [Para 11].

Maintenance – Quantum – Criteria – While fixing maintenance, income, status and living standard of husband must be considered – Husband working at U.S. military base in Afghanistan earning more than ₹2,00,000 per month – Maintenance of ₹6,000 per month inadequate – Enhanced to ₹15,000 per month from date of petition [Para 14; Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, AIR 2025 SC 3268].

Family Law – Evidence – Appellate Interference – Where Family Court’s findings on cruelty are based on credible and corroborated oral and documentary evidence, appellate interference is unwarranted [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Divorce decree confirmed – Maintenance enhanced from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000 per month – Mat. Appeal No.596/2019 and RP(FC) No.149/2023 dismissed – RP(FC) No.384/2019 partly allowed [Para 14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Limitation – Cause of Action – Notice Returned ‘Refused’ – Applicability of 15-day Period – Held: Even when statutory notice is returned unclaimed or refused, service is deemed effected under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act – Cause of action arises only after expiry of 15 days contemplated under proviso (c) to Section 138 N.I. Act – Contrary view in Jayakrishnan v. Unnikrishnan, 2015 (5) KHC 683, held per incuriam for not noticing Supreme Court’s binding precedents in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555 and K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Law – Section 138 N.I. Act – Refusal to Accept Notice – Effect – Refusal deemed valid service – However, drawer entitled to statutory period of 15 days for payment from date of deemed service – Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days premature, but one filed after expiry within limitation valid [Paras 7–8].

Precedent – Doctrine of Per Incuriam – High Court’s earlier decision in Jayakrishnan v. Unnikrishnan per incuriam as it ignored binding decisions of the Supreme Court – Law declared by Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji governs – High Court bound to apply ratio [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. – When based solely on erroneous interpretation of limitation under Section 142 N.I. Act – Proper course is to set aside and remand for fresh trial on merits [Para 9].

Decision: Held, Jayakrishnan (2015) incorrectly interpreted Section 138 – Supreme Court decisions in Alavi Haji and Bhaskaran apply – Complaints not time-barred – Judgments of acquittal set aside – Matters remanded for fresh consideration – All other issues left open – Parties directed to appear before Trial Court on 13.10.2025 at 11:00 a.m. [Paras 8–9].

Civil Law – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the suit for injunction upheld – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or contrary to law – No substantial question of law arises [Paras 5.16–6].

Transfer of Property – Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Effect – Plaintiff sought injunction restraining defendant from transferring property on basis of unregistered Banachitthi dated 18.09.2008 – Original document not produced – Defendant denied execution and thumb impression – Held: As per Section 17 of the Registration Act, such document requires compulsory registration; unregistered document cannot confer any right, title, or interest in immovable property [Paras 5.3–5.4].

Specific Relief – Suit for Injunction on Unregistered Agreement – Maintainability – Plaintiff filed only for injunction without claiming specific performance – Following Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi, MANU/SC/1241/2022, and Devesh Metcast Pvt. Ltd. v. Girish Nagjibhai Savaliya (Guj HC, 03.07.2025), held that a party cannot indirectly secure injunction on basis of unregistered sale agreement when substantive relief of specific performance is not sought – Suit not maintainable under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Registration Act – Section 49 – Collateral Purpose – Unregistered agreement can be used only in a suit for specific performance or for collateral purpose not requiring registration – As plaintiff’s suit was solely for injunction, such use was impermissible – Unregistered Banachitthi could not be relied upon to protect possession or claim rights under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 5.8–5.12].

Judicial Precedent – Limited Scope of Interference – Reiterated principles from Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty (1996) 6 SCC 177 and Jaichand (Dead) through LRs v. Sahnulal (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864): High Court cannot interfere with concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law [Paras 5.16–5.17].

Decision:

Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage – No substantial question of law arises – Both Courts below rightly held that the suit based on an unregistered and unproved Banachitthi was not maintainable – Connected Civil Application for Stay disposed of accordingly [Para 6].

Family Law – Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Section 22 of Special Marriage Act – Valid Cause for Withdrawal – Appellant-husband filed suit for restitution alleging desertion – Trial court found concealment of prior subsisting marriage by appellant and held that respondent-wife had valid apprehension for her safety – Held: Respondent’s withdrawal from society was based on reasonable cause – No decree of restitution can be granted [Paras 1, 22–25, 49–54].

Special Marriage Act – Applicability Over Personal Laws – Prior Marriage and Muslim Personal Law – Appellant, a Muslim, argued that under Mohammadan Law multiple marriages are permitted – Marriage with respondent solemnized under Special Marriage Act – Held: Marriage under Special Marriage Act governed solely by statutory conditions – Section 4(a) prohibits marriage if either party has a living spouse – Appellant's defence under personal law held untenable [Paras 38–48].

Appellate Review – Perversity in Findings – Appreciation of Evidence – Appellant challenged impugned judgment as perverse – High Court found Family Court had considered all relevant evidence, including testimonies of both parties and prior litigation under Section 125 CrPC – Held: Judgment based on correct legal standards and appreciation of facts – No perversity found in findings or conclusions [Paras 54–58].

Judicial Interpretation – Scope of Conjugal Rights – Rights Inherent in Marriage – Court discussed scope and meaning of conjugal rights under Indian matrimonial jurisprudence – Held: Conjugal rights imply cohabitation and marital companionship – Withdrawal from society without just cause disentitles spouse to restitution, but valid cause precludes grant of decree [Paras 30–34].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Family Court upheld – Respondent had valid cause to live separately – Suit for restitution of conjugal rights rightly dismissed – No perversity in trial court’s findings [Paras 58–60].

Patent Law – Process Patent – Rejection under Section 3(d) – Controller and Single Judge held process to be a mere use of known processes not involving any new reactant or yielding a new product – Appellate Court held that Section 3(d) was wrongly invoked – Process yielded additional products like magnesium sulphate and activated carbon, which were not disclosed in prior art – Also held that process was not “known” in its entirety to attract bar under Section 3(d) [Paras 22.1–22.8].

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 25(1)(e) – Controller held process lacked inventive step in view of prior art D1 (US Patent 2018/0257945) and D2 (BIS Guide IS:8032-1976) – Single Judge adopted Hoffmann-La Roche test but incorrectly began analysis at Step 4 – Appellate Court held: Proper analysis requires identifying person skilled in art and inventive concept before assessing obviousness – Found substantial procedural lapses and inadequate reasoning – Held: Findings on obviousness unsustainable and matter remanded [Paras 17.1–21.6].

Patent Law – Prior Art Comparison – Court found significant distinctions between claimed process and prior art documents – Subject process involved unique steps for zero liquid discharge and recovery of multiple products – D1 and D2 lacked corresponding sequence or outputs – Held: Subject invention could not be treated as obvious without reasoned analysis – Rejected summary conclusions by Controller and Single Judge [Paras 21.1.1–21.3].

Patent Office Procedure – Need for Speaking Order – Appellate Court criticized laconic and mechanical reasoning of Assistant Controller – Held that conclusion of obviousness was unsupported by analysis of how prior art would lead a skilled person to the invention – Stressed need for reasoned orders following settled principles like Hoffmann test [Paras 20.1–20.11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Assistant Controller and Single Judge set aside – Objection under Section 3(d) rejected – Matter remanded to CGPDTM for fresh decision confined to Section 25(1)(e) objection – No new material to be introduced – De novo decision to be passed within six months [Paras 23–25].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Assessment Order – Principles of Natural Justice – Writ Petition challenging assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B for A.Y. 2023–24 – Addition of ₹2.15 crores towards bogus purchases made without considering supplier’s detailed reply to notice under Section 133(6) confirming transaction and submitting supporting documents – Held: Clear breach of natural justice, assessment order unsustainable [Paras 4, 5(a), 8] –

Income Tax – Unsecured Loans – Peak Credit Addition – Addition of ₹22.66 crores made towards director’s loans including opening balances – Held: No show-cause notice issued regarding peak credit addition – Reliance placed on non-existent judgments – Grievance of lack of basis and computation found justified – Quasi-judicial function requires proper verification and diligence before relying on AI-generated content or sources [Paras 5(b), 9] –

Remand – Alternate Remedy – Despite availability of appellate remedy, interference under Article 226 warranted due to procedural violations – Assessment Order, Demand Notice under Section 156, and Penalty SCN under Sections 274/271AAC quashed – Matter remanded with directions to issue proper show cause, provide personal hearing, and pass a reasoned, speaking order by 31st December 2025 [Paras 10–12] –

Decision: Assessment Order, Demand Notice and Penalty Show Cause Notice quashed – Matter remanded for fresh assessment – Writ Petition allowed [Paras 11–14].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Acquittal under Section 307 IPC – Conviction under Section 324 IPC – Appeal by the State against acquittal of accused No.1 (Jaison) under Section 307 IPC and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Biju and Mohanan) under Sections 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC – Trial Court convicted accused No.1 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment – Held: Trial court rightly appreciated the absence of premeditation and lack of sufficient evidence regarding intention or knowledge as required under Section 307 IPC – Evidence showed single stab during a scuffle following a verbal altercation – No second attempt by accused to inflict fatal injury – Hence, acquittal under Section 307 IPC justified [Paras 4, 23-25].

Witness Testimony – Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – PW1 and PW2, both injured, consistently deposed regarding the incident and attributed the stabbing to accused No.1 – Their testimony corroborated by medical evidence (PW7, PW8) and injury certificates (Exhibits P3 & P5) – Minor inconsistencies in testimonies regarding accused Nos. 2 and 3 but consistent and credible as against accused No.1 – Held: Injured witnesses’ evidence carries greater weight and no reason found to disbelieve them with respect to accused No.1 – Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld [Paras 9-11, 13, 15, 31, 33-34].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Delay in implicating A2 and A3 – No mention of A2 and A3 in initial FIR (Exhibit P10) or doctor’s report (Exhibit P4) – Names added only later via Exhibit P15 – PW3 (independent witness) turned hostile and made no mention of A2 and A3’s presence – Delay and contradictions in the statements of PWs 1 and 2 regarding involvement of A2 and A3 create reasonable doubt – Held: Acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 justified – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 12, 26-29].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Recovery of Weapon – Knife (MO1) allegedly recovered based on disclosure by accused No.1 – Recovery not reliable – Investigating Officer failed to depose exact words of the accused or prove the disclosure statement – No independent witnesses to recovery – Held: Recovery procedure did not satisfy requirements under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – Recovery evidence discarded [Paras 17-22].

Criminal Procedure – FIR and Investigation – Initial FIR (Exhibit P10) registered under Section 324 IPC based on hospital intimation (Exhibit P4) – No mention of accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Involvement of A2 and A3 added only six days later via Exhibit P15 – Delay in recording witness statements and no explanation for non-inclusion in initial documents – Held: Such delay and omissions fatal to prosecution case against A2 and A3 [Paras 16, 27-29].

Legal Principle – Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus – Not Applicable in Indian Law – Argument that PWs 1 and 2’s testimony should be discarded entirely because disbelieved in part (as to A2 and A3) rejected – Held: Indian courts do not apply this doctrine – Duty of court is to separate truth from falsehood and assess credibility on a case-by-case basis [Paras 32-33].

Decision – Appeal filed by State against acquittal of accused No.1 under Section 307 IPC and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC dismissed – Appeal filed by accused No.1 against conviction under Section 324 IPC also dismissed – Conviction and sentence of two years’ imprisonment under Section 324 IPC against accused No.1 confirmed – Appeals dismissed in entirety [Paras 34].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Acquittals of accused Nos. 2 and 3 confirmed – Conviction of accused No.1 under Section 324 IPC affirmed – Sentence of two years’ imprisonment upheld.