Criminal Law – Police Harassment – Herbal Hookah in Restaurant – Petitioner alleged police interference with lawful restaurant operation citing alleged sale of tobacco-laced hookah – Petitioner claimed use of only herbal substances without nicotine – Held: Police not to interfere with restaurant business unless illegal activity is found – Direction issued to petitioner to approach FSSAI for certification [Paras 1-3, 7-8]

Tobacco Control – COTPA Act – Section 4A – Hookah Bars – State amendment prohibits hookah bars – Whether petitioner’s hookah product contains tobacco or nicotine is a factual issue to be verified by competent authorities – Held: Court cannot act on mere oral claims – Matter to be decided by FSSAI and not by the Court [Paras 5-6]

Food Safety – Jurisdiction of FSSAI – Products inhaled via hookah without tobacco/nicotine fall within the definition of “food” under Section 2(za) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – FSSAI to test samples and verify composition – If product is free of tobacco/nicotine, petitioner can continue operating hookah bar [Paras 6-9]

Police Powers – Surveillance vs Harassment – Though restaurant is located near educational institutions, police can only act if illegal activities are found – General interference in routine lawful business not permitted – Police liberty preserved to act if any illegality is detected [Paras 4, 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of – Petitioner directed to approach FSSAI with product ingredients – Police restrained from interference in lawful business unless illegality is found – Petitioner at liberty to continue business if products are certified tobacco/nicotine-free [Para 8]

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Proof of Execution – Plaintiff relied on agreement dated 26.09.2006 for sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- – Defendants contended agreement was concocted and created as security for hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- – Property situated within Bengaluru city limits with guideline value exceeding Rs.23 lakhs in 2005 – Held: On preponderance of probabilities, execution of agreement of sale for meagre consideration doubtful – Trial Court erred in holding execution proved merely on basis of agreement and reply notice [Paras 14–17].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act – Burden on plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness – Mere issuance of legal notice insufficient – No evidence of financial capacity or availability of funds to pay balance consideration – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge mandatory statutory requirement – Suit for specific performance not maintainable [Paras 18, 24].

Specific Performance – Discretion of Court – Section 20 of Specific Relief Act (Pre-amendment) – Even if agreement assumed to be proved, grant of decree not automatic – Court required to consider unfair advantage, hardship, surrounding circumstances and conduct of parties – Agreement giving unfair advantage to plaintiff in light of gross undervaluation – Held: Discretion wrongly exercised by Trial Court [Paras 25–34].

Evidence – Additional Evidence in Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Certified copy of Sub-Registrar guideline value and Gazette Notification produced – Public documents relevant for just decision – Held: Additional evidence rightly admitted and considered [Para 15].

Relief – Alternative Relief – Refund of Advance – Where specific performance refused, plaintiff entitled to refund of earnest money – Defendants directed to refund Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of agreement – Equitable relief granted [Para 35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018 in O.S. No. 974/2008 set aside – Suit for specific performance dismissed – Decreed for alternative relief of refund of Rs.2,50,000/- with 6% interest per annum from 26.09.2006 – Amount to be refunded within five months.

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – No Building Permission – Applicant alleged that Respondents No. 1 and 2 raised illegal commercial construction without sanction on House No. 233/42, Nai Sadak, Gwalior – Municipal Corporation confirmed construction was carried out between 2016–2017 without prior approval – Notices issued by Corporation in 2016 and 2017 to stop construction went unheeded – Trial Court rejected application under Section 307(5) of MP Municipal Corporation Act – Held: Order of Trial Court set aside as new construction without permission was established [Paras 1–4, 14, 19–22].

Building Inspection – Report by Municipal Commissioner – Commissioner personally inspected property on Court's direction – Found a three-storey structure used for commercial purposes – Assessed age of building as 7–8 years, constructed without prior municipal approval – Respondents objected but refused scientific testing to determine building age – Held: Refusal to allow testing supports inference of unauthorized construction – Inspection report accepted [Paras 9–12, 14–15].

Evidentiary Value – Photographic Evidence – Photographs filed by applicant of under-construction building matched existing structure – Supported Municipal Commissioner’s findings – Held: Photos establish prima facie case of new unauthorized construction [Para 14].

Binding Nature of Civil Judgments – Earlier Civil Suit Filed by Respondents – Judgment in Civil Suit No. 244A/2017 and R.C.A. No. 205/2019 held that no new construction was raised – Held: Applicant was not a party to those suits – Findings not binding as they were not judgments in rem – Respondents failed to involve applicant despite being aware of his complaints – Findings in those civil proceedings not applicable to applicant [Paras 15–18].

Administrative Law – Duty of Municipal Corporation – Corporation admitted multiple notices issued to stop construction – Failed to enforce stoppage or demolish building despite illegality – Court directed sealing and demolition of entire structure – Compliance mandated within fixed timeline [Paras 19–23].

Procedural Law – Civil Revision – Trial Court failed to consider evidence of unauthorized construction and Commissioner’s findings – Refusal to allow scientific testing weighed against respondents – Held: Trial Court committed material illegality – Civil revision allowed with costs [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Order of Trial Court dated 22/07/2024 rejecting application under Section 307(5) of MP Municipal Corporation Act set aside – Application allowed – Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, directed to seal building immediately and demolish it within one month – Costs of ₹25,000 imposed on Respondents No. 1 and 2 to be deposited within one month – Failure to comply will invite contempt proceedings [Paras 22–24].

NDPS Act – Bail – Section 27A – Illicit Traffic – Misuse of Provision – Bail Allowed – Petitioners, one seeking anticipatory bail and the other regular bail, were arraigned under Section 27A NDPS Act based solely on recovery of heroin (5g and 21g) and INR 1000 in cash – Court found that the investigating agencies invoked Section 27A without prima facie evidence of financing illicit traffic or harboring offenders – Held: Mere possession of small amount of cash, even if seized alongside contraband, does not meet threshold under Section 27A – Drug money must be directly linked to financing of organised illicit traffic – Mechanical invocation of Section 27A to trigger rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act deprecated – Interim bail orders made absolute [Paras 2, 3, 7, 12–15, 21–22, 35, 39–41, 44–45, 50–53]

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Twin Conditions – Non-Applicability Without Evidence Under Section 27A – Court reaffirmed that before applying the twin conditions of Section 37, prosecution must first establish a prima facie case under Section 27A – Held: Absence of foundational evidence linking the recovered cash to financing illicit trafficking disentitles the prosecution from relying on Section 37 to oppose bail [Paras 11, 37–39, 52]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Legal Tender – Presumption of Lawful Possession – Burden on Prosecution – Recovered cash of INR 1000 treated as lawful possession – Held: Currency is legal tender and presumed lawful unless prosecution proves illicit derivation or nexus with drug crime – Strong suspicion cannot substitute evidence – Bail cannot be denied merely because currency was recovered along with narcotics [Paras 20, 26–30, 44–46]

Investigative Abuse – Capricious Use of Section 27A – Judicial Scrutiny Required – Court cautioned against capricious use of Section 27A by police to trigger bail embargo under Section 37 – Held: Courts must lift the veil and demand concrete evidence before endorsing such allegations – Penal provisions must be interpreted strictly and proportionately [Paras 14, 39, 51]

Decision: Bail petitions allowed – Interim orders made absolute – Invocation of Section 27A NDPS Act found unwarranted – Rigours of Section 37 held inapplicable – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder – Extra-judicial confessions unreliable – CDR/tower-location unproved – No last-seen – Motive absent – Investigation defective – Chain incomplete – Acquittal – Prosecution failed to establish circumstances forming a complete chain consistent only with guilt; conviction unsustainable; benefit of doubt granted [Paras 8–45].

Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Panchsheel Principles – Court reiterates the five rules in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Hanumant; prosecution failed to prove each circumstance fully and conclusively; chain not unbroken [Paras 9–13].

Last Seen Theory – Not Established – No witness saw accused and deceased together close to the time of death; they left separately on morning of incident; time gap wide; possibility of third-party involvement not ruled out [Paras 14–17].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Unreliable – CDR Contradictions – Delay – Improper Conduct of Witnesses – PW1’s claim disproved by call logs; PW1 withheld information despite continuous phone contact with accused; PW4’s confession disclosure after 10 days held unnatural; tower data falsifies his version; confessions rejected [Paras 18–22, 36–38].

Electronic Evidence – CDR and Tower Data – Not Scientifically Proved – IO sought no tower coordinates, distances, or technical certification; interpretations based on assumptions; CDRs do not establish movement or presence of accused near scene; unreliable [Paras 22, 31–34].

Recovery of Dead Body – Not Valid Section 27 Discovery – Alleged information by accused to PW1 not proved; even if assumed, recovery alone not incriminating without corroborating links such as last-seen or forensic support [Paras 23, 38].

Motive – Not Proved – Alleged suspicion of wife’s fidelity unsupported by proximate conduct; no quarrel or abnormal behaviour on previous night; absence of motive weighs in favour of accused in a circumstantial case [Paras 25–26].

Abscondence – Weak Circumstance – Supreme Court holds abscondence alone cannot justify adverse inference; relevant only when supported by strong incriminating circumstances, which are absent here [Paras 27–29].

Forensic Evidence – No Biological Link to Accused – No DNA, fingerprints, footprints or biological material of accused found on ligature, body or scene; medical evidence establishes homicide but not identity of assailant [Paras 31–32].

Investigation – Slipshod – Major Omissions – Phones registered in names of third parties; their statements not recorded; no subscriber forms verified; tower-distance information not collected; CDR evidence rendered ineffective; investigation lacked scientific method [Paras 34–35].

Conduct of PW1 – Suppression of Material Facts – PW1 remained in phone contact with absconding accused but concealed this; his account of call at 6:30 p.m. contradicted by CDR; credibility doubtful [Para 36].

Other Witnesses – Contradictions – Falsified by Tower Data – PW2 contradicted himself; PW7 and PW8’s motorcycle-dropping stories inconsistent with tower-location pattern; PW4’s delayed disclosure held suspect; testimonies insufficient to establish involvement [Paras 22, 37].

Chain of Circumstances – Missing Links – Alternative Hypotheses Possible – Absence of last-seen, motive, forensic connection, reliable electronic evidence, and trustworthy confessions results in incomplete chain; suspicion cannot replace proof; benefit of doubt must follow [Paras 39–44].

Decision – Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC quashed; accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled; sureties discharged; fine refunded within eight weeks [Para 45].

Hindu Law – Joint Family Property – Sale by Karta – Plaintiffs, sons of the first defendant, challenged sale of 0.70 cents of ancestral property made by their father (first defendant) in favour of his brother (second defendant) – Property was ancestral, and plaintiffs had birthright – Held: Sale deed not binding on plaintiffs’ 2/3 share – Valid only to the extent of first defendant’s 1/3 share – Alienation by karta not for legal necessity or benefit of estate – Such sale is voidable, not void – Trial court’s finding upheld [Paras 14–20, 23(a)–(b)].

Property Law – Validity of Sale – Ancestral Property – Settlement deed in favour of first defendant does not convert ancestral property into self-acquisition – Nomenclature of document irrelevant – Legal character of property remains unchanged – Coparceners cannot be divested of birthright through unilateral settlement by father [Paras 15–16].

Burden of Proof – Legal Necessity – Under Mitakshara law, burden lies on purchaser (second defendant) to prove sale by karta was for legal necessity – Mere indebtedness or personal hardship of the karta not sufficient – Held: Second defendant failed to discharge burden – Plaintiffs entitled to protection of their undivided share [Para 17].

Partition – Sale During Minority – Plaintiffs, being minors at the time of sale, entitled to challenge the alienation – Since sale not shown to be for necessity or benefit of family, transaction is not binding on their share – However, second defendant entitled to seek equitable allotment in final decree from vendor’s (first defendant’s) share [Paras 19–21].

Equity – Final Decree Proceedings – Trial court’s direction to allot “0.70 share” to second defendant modified – Held: Precise metes and bounds to be fixed during final decree based on value and soil condition – Sale deed to be honoured only to the extent of first defendant’s share [Paras 21–22, 23(c)].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with modification – Sale deed dated 10.10.2005 held valid only to the extent of first defendant’s 1/3 share – Not binding on plaintiffs’ 2/3 share – Second defendant entitled to equitable allotment from first defendant’s share in final decree – No order as to costs [Para 23].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Appeal against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Financial Capacity and Rebuttal of Presumption – Complainant alleged advancing Rs. 10 Lakhs cash loan – Trial Court acquitted accused citing lack of evidence for transaction and probable defence – High Court upheld acquittal – Held: Complainant failed to prove financial capacity or purpose of loan – Defence successfully rebutted presumption by establishing the cheque was likely a security for husband’s transaction – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5, 9, 10, 11].

Evidence – Financial Capacity – Lack of Documentation – Complainant, a financier, claimed to have lent Rs. 10 Lakhs in cash but failed to produce Income Tax records or mention the purpose of the loan – High Court affirmed that advancing such a high amount without documentation renders the initial case of the complainant "wobbly" even before presumption is raised [Paras 5, 9].

Cheque – Material Alterations and Execution – Signature on the cheque was in different ink compared to other entries – Complainant failed to depose that the cheque was filled by the accused in his presence – Circumstances supported the defence version that a blank cheque was issued as security rather than for the alleged debt [Para 10].

Presumption and Rebuttal – Standard of Proof – Accused examined herself (D.W.2) and produced documents relating to connected insolvency proceedings and other transactions involving her husband – Court held that the accused rebutted the statutory presumption to the level of preponderance of probability – Benefit of doubt rightly granted by Trial Court [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 304A IPC – Death by Alleged Stone Pelting – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for causing death through rash and negligent act – On appeal, High Court finds that key witnesses including P.W.3 (complainant), P.W.4 and P.W.6 (injured) admitted inability to identify assailants due to darkness – No torchlight allegedly used by assailants was seized – Medical opinion consistent with accidental fall on hard surface – Held: Identity of accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 29–39, 45–49, 60–62]

Identification – Evidence in Nighttime Assault – Victim and witnesses admitted inability to identify assailants due to darkness – Torchlight said to have been used not recovered – Independent witnesses (P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11) did not implicate appellant – Absence of specific identification renders conviction unsafe [Paras 30–38, 45–58]

Medical Evidence – Contradiction with Ocular Evidence – Doctors (P.W.1 and P.W.2) opined injuries could result from fall on hard or stony surface – No external injuries consistent with targeted stone assault established – Injury reports vague and lacked detail – Held: Medical evidence does not support prosecution narrative of deliberate assault [Paras 41–44, 60–61]

Criminal Procedure – Benefit of Doubt – When key prosecution witnesses fail to identify accused, medical evidence is inconclusive, and investigation lacks corroborative seizure – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 62–64]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 27.04.1991 passed in Sessions Case No. 17/89 set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds to be discharged if not wanted in any other case – Appellant to furnish bonds under Section 437A CrPC for six months.

Criminal Procedure – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Right of Victim – Appellant sought leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal in complaint involving serious offences under IPC – Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran held that victims have an unconditional right to appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. – High Court followed the same in Dharampal v. State of Haryana – Held: Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal [Paras 3–4]

Limitation – Delay in Filing Appeal – Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 13-day delay in filing the appeal – Delay condoned for sufficient cause shown [Para 1]

Decision: Application under Section 378(4) treated as appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Registry directed to transfer records to Sessions Judge, Mansa – Delay condoned – Appeal to proceed before Sessions Court.