Criminal Law - Acquittal - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 8 and 21 - Mandatory Compliance - Respondent intercepted at a police naka and 680 grams of heroin allegedly recovered from his arm-pit - Trial Court acquitted the accused citing non-compliance with Section 50 and Section 42 of the NDPS Act alongside major evidentiary contradictions - High Court observed that the trial court erroneously mentioned Section 18 instead of Section 21 in the charge but held it as a clerical error - Prosecution witnesses provided conflicting accounts regarding whether the search was conducted by a Gazetted Officer or a Non-Gazetted Officer - Investigating Officer confirmed search was by a Non-Gazetted Officer without informing the accused of his legal right under Section 50 - Held - Mandatory provisions of Section 50 were not followed vitiating the recovery - Trial Court judgment upheld - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-24].

Evidence Law - Personal Search - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 50 - Mandatory Procedure - Search of the person conducted by a Non-Gazetted Officer - Prosecution failed to prove that the accused was apprised of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate - Constitution Bench in VijaySinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat held Section 50 requirements are mandatory and must be strictly complied with - Held - Failure to inform the suspect of the existence of such right is fatal to the prosecution case rendering the recovery inadmissible - [Paras 16-19].

Criminal Law - Material Contradictions - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 21 - Reliability of Evidence - Glaring discrepancies noted regarding the body part from which contraband was recovered - Contradictions between PW-2 and PW-8 regarding the type of weighing scale used where one claimed weighing stones were used and the other claimed an electronic scale - Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surat Singh held such inconsistencies render the prosecution version doubtful - Held - Cumulative effect of procedural non-compliance and evidentiary contradictions justifies the acquittal - [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court affirmed.

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Recovery of Professional Fees - Appellant engaged Respondent as Advocate in labor litigations - Employer paid Rs 80000 total compensation to Respondent on behalf of Appellant - Respondent retained Rs 60000 and returned only Rs 20000 - Appellant sued for recovery of balance - Respondent filed counterclaim for Rs 36000 as professional fees - Trial Court decreed main suit but dismissed counterclaim citing lack of evidence of fee bill - First Appellate Court upheld main decree but allowed counterclaim finding consensus between parties on fee amount and lack of proof of payment by Appellant - High Court observed that while Respondent conduct in retaining entire amount was unfair the oral evidence established the agreed fee and Appellant failure to pay - Held - No substantial question of law arises as First Appellate Court rightly appreciated evidence regarding non-payment of fees - Second Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-50].

Civil Law - Counterclaim - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 3 and 101 - Proof of Debt - Respondent-Advocate failed to prove original fee bill Mark DW1/A in accordance with Law - Appellant however did not state in pleadings or evidence that he had paid the agreed fee amount - Oral evidence and party conduct established the professional fee was due and unpaid - Held - Decree of counterclaim is sustainable as non-production of a bill is not fatal when consensus on the debt exists and no proof of payment is rendered - [Paras 47-49].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 22.12.2023 passed by the First Appellate Court stands affirmed.

Writ Law - Unauthorized Construction - West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act 2006 - Section 2 - Definition of Building - Petitioner challenged order dated 18-05-2026 passed by Commissioner of Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation directing removal of tin shed structure at roof top of Plot No AD-70 Sector-I Salt Lake City - Petitioner contended structure was temporary detachable shed lacking enclosure and not qualifying as building under the Act - Reliance placed on Kishori Lal Poddar vs Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 4087 - Private respondent alleged petitioner constructed three rooms increasing occupancy without sanction - Court found Commissioner failed to consider petitioner reply in reaching conclusion - Held - Impugned order set aside with direction to revisit issue after hearing all parties and considering relevant judicial precedent - [Paras 1-15].

Writ Law - Remand for Fresh Consideration - West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act 2006 - Section 259 - Reasoned Order - Challenge against demolition order where Commissioner failed to address specific defense that structure was not a building within statutory definition - Court observed that physical verification and application of law to facts were necessary for logical conclusion - Held - Respondent No 2 directed to pass reasoned order within four weeks after providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner and private respondent - [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Order dated 18-05-2026 set aside – Matter remanded to Respondent No. 2 for fresh reasoned decision in light of judicial precedents.

Criminal Law - Transit Anticipatory Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 482 - Jurisdiction of High Court to grant protection for crimes registered outside territorial limits - Applicants being film actors from Madhya Pradesh residing in Kerala sought transit bail regarding Crime No. 112/2026 registered at Maheshwar Police Station MP - Allegations included kidnapping and child marriage under BNS and SC/ST Act - Applicants contended they were married voluntarily and feared honor killing by fundamentalists in MP - Applicant No. 2 produced Election ID and Bank passbook to prove majority while State alleged forgery of birth certificate - Court applied the ratio of Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka - Held - High Court is empowered to pass an order of transit bail to protect personal liberty when the applicant shows a well-founded apprehension of inter-state arrest and inability to immediately approach the jurisdictional court - Applicant No. 1 granted protection from arrest for one month to approach the competent court in Madhya Pradesh - [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Law - Personal Liberty - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Transit Bail - Balancing investigative powers with protection against honor killings - Inter-faith couple sought protection citing threat to life in their home state - Prosecution challenged the validity of marriage solemnized in a temple between a Muslim man and Hindu woman - Applicant No. 2 asserted voluntary residence as husband and wife - Held - Grounds raised for transit bail appear reasonable to avoid threat to life and personal liberty in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered - [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Bail application disposed of – Petitioner No. 1 granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional court in Madhya Pradesh within one month – Petitioner No. 1 shall not be arrested until the expiry of one month.

Election Law - Election Petition - Representation of the People Act 1951 - Section 100 - Recounting of votes - Petitioner challenged 2016 election results of Radhapuram Assembly Constituency after losing by 49 votes to Respondent No 1 - Allegations of improper rejection of 203 postal ballots and manipulation in rounds 19 to 21 of counting - High Court ordered recount of postal ballots and EVM rounds on 01-10-2019 - Supreme Court permitted counting but stayed result declaration - Recounting report revealed 153 valid postal votes for Petitioner and only 1 for Respondent No 1 - Margin shift resulted in Petitioner winning by 103 votes - Supreme Court disposed of appeal in 2026 leaving legal question open but allowing consequential orders due to lapse of time - Held - Election of Respondent No 1 from No 228 Radhapuram Constituency is void - Petitioner declared duly elected Member of Legislative Assembly for the term 2016-2021 - [Paras 1-21].

Election Law - Postal Ballots - Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 - Rule 54-A - Attestation by Gazetted Officer - Rejection of 203 postal ballots on grounds that Middle School Headmasters who attested them were not Gazetted Officers - Court examined Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973 as amended in 2009 - Found that State Government classified such officers with power of attestation - Held - Middle School Headmasters are Gazetted Officers for the purpose of attesting Form 13-A - Rejection of ballots was improper and materially affected the result - [Paras 7-15].

Election Law - Expeditious Trial - Representation of the People Act 1951 - Section 86(7) - Trial Procedure - Mandatory requirement to conclude election petition trial within six months - Present case remained pending for nearly a decade spanning three general election cycles - Court criticized the delay and interim stays that allowed an unduly elected person to represent the constituency for a full term - Held - Non-adherence to the mandate of Section 86(7) undermines democracy and reduces the adjudicatory process to a mockery of justice - [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Election Petition allowed – Election of Respondent No. 1 declared void – Petitioner declared duly elected for 2016-2021 term – Secretary of Legislative Assembly directed to substitute Petitioner's name in official records – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide vs Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 300 - 302 and 304 Part II - Single blow - Appellants Sudarshan Gupta and Vijay Kumar were convicted by Trial Court for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment following an altercation over bursting crackers on Deepawali night - Prosecution case rested on testimonies of injured eyewitnesses PW1 and PW5 who stated Sudarshan Gupta struck the deceased on the head with a kapa and pushed him from the rooftop - Medical evidence through PW7 confirmed that the deceased sustained only one fatal lacerated wound on the head and no other external injuries - High Court found that the incident occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden fight without premeditation or prior enmity - No evidence of the appellants acting in a cruel manner or taking undue advantage was found on record - Held - Case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC - Sentence modified to seven years rigorous imprisonment - [Paras 1-53].

Criminal Law - Intention vs Knowledge - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 299 and 300 - Ratio Decidendi - In cases where only a single injury is inflicted and death results the court must distinguish between the intention to cause death and the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death - Knowledge that a blow to the head with a weapon like a kapa could be fatal does not conclusively establish an intention to murder when the act is done during a sudden quarrel without premeditation - If the circumstances indicate the injury was not intended to be as grave as it turned out the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC - Held - Inference of guilty knowledge is appropriate where act is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight - [Paras 38-46].

Evidence Law - Injured Witness - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Reliability - Testimonies of PW1 and PW5 who were sons of the deceased and sustained simple injuries during the incident were found consistent and corroborated by medical evidence - Presence of appellants at the place of occurrence was established - Hostility of recovery witness PW4 did not vitiate the entire prosecution case as the eyewitness account was reliable - Held - Conviction under Sections 452 and 323 IPC warrants no interference - [Paras 40-47].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of Sudarshan Gupta under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Conviction of Vijay Kumar under Section 302/34 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC – Sentence reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment – Convictions under Sections 452 and 323 IPC upheld.

Civil Law - Decree on Admissions - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Suit for possession and recovery of rent - Respondent landlord inducted Appellant No 1 as tenant via registered lease - During subsistence of tenancy Respondent entered into Agreement to Sell with Appellant No 2 father of Appellant No 1 - Agreement stipulated that the purchaser would continue as tenant and pay monthly rent until execution of Sale Deed - Appellants defaulted on rent and failed to execute Sale Deed - Respondent terminated tenancy via legal notice - Trial Court passed decree for possession based on admissions regarding landlord-tenant relationship and termination of tenancy - Appellants challenged decree contending possession was protected by the Agreement to Sell - High Court found that the Agreement was unregistered and the Sale Deed never materialized - Held - Trial Court rightly identified that ingredients for decree under Order XII Rule 6 being relationship of landlord-tenant and termination of tenancy were satisfied - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-46].

Property Law - Part Performance - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 53A - Registration Act 1908 - Section 17(1)(A) - Protection of possession under unregistered agreement - Appellants claimed right to protect possession based on Agreement to Sell dated 03.08.2011 - Documents containing contracts to transfer immovable property for consideration must be registered to claim benefit of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act as per 2001 amendment to Registration Act - Unregistered Agreement to Sell has no legal effect for the purposes of Section 53A - Prospective buyer has no right to seek protection of possession particularly when inducted as a tenant - Held - Appellants cannot use unregistered agreement as a shield to resist eviction - [Paras 38-42].

Property Law - Contract for Sale - Transfer of Property Act 1882 - Section 54 - Right in personam vs Right in estate - A contract for sale does not of itself create any interest in or charge on property - It merely creates a right to obtain another document in the form of a registered sale deed - It is a right created in personam and not in estate - No privity in estate arises from a contract for sale to bind the estate unlike a mortgage or lease - Till a decree for specific performance is obtained and sale deed executed the vendor remains entitled to full enjoyment of the property - Held - The status of the Appellants as tenants continues until the execution of a Sale Deed - [Paras 35-37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment and decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC affirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 21, 25, 27-A and 29 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Arms Act - Section 25 - Petitioner arrested following a tip-off regarding a drone-based smuggling network - Recovery of 1 kg heroin from a car occupied by co-accused Jaskaran and Amritpal while petitioner was later intercepted with 6 pistols and cash - State opposed bail citing the recovery of commercial quantity of heroin and the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Petitioner argued parity with co-accused already released and highlighted 8.5 months of incarceration with the investigation complete - Court observed that the contraband heroin was not recovered from the direct possession of the petitioner and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future - Held - Prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such situations the constitutional principles must override the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Petition allowed - [Paras 1-25].

Criminal Law - Statutory Embargo vs Fundamental Rights - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 37 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Conflict between the twin conditions for bail in commercial quantity cases and the right to liberty - Court followed the principles laid down in Mohd. Muslim and Rabi Prakash - Grant of bail on account of undue delay in trial is not fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Right to a speedy trial is a part of reasonable fair and just procedure - Prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in trial conclusion justify the grant of bail even in commercial quantity cases - Held - Constitutional principles of liberty and speedy trial override statutory restrictions when incarceration is prolonged and trial progress is slow - [Paras 10-15, 21-22].

Criminal Law - Parity and Judicial Discretion - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Entitlement to bail based on release of co-accused and lack of direct possession - Petitioner sought parity with co-accused Amandeep and Harkirat who were previously granted bail - Court noted that the only allegation against the petitioner involved the recovery of pistols and not the commercial quantity of narcotics - Observed that the detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up was not serving any further purpose as the investigation was complete - Held - Principles of parity and the fundamental postulate of presumption of innocence necessitate the grant of bail where no evidence exists of potential evidence tampering or flight risk - [Paras 7, 18-20].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – Subject to conditions of non-interference with witnesses, notification of address changes, and restrictions on leaving India without prior permission.

Criminal Law - Premature Release - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 435 - Requirement of Central Government concurrence for remission of sentence - Convict sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment under Explosives Substances Act 1908 - State Government rejected plea for premature release under G.O. (Ms). No. 64 dated 01.02.2018 citing the bar under Section 435 CrPC as the convict was tried under a Central Act - Petitioner contended that since the one-year sentence under the Central Act was served long ago the State remains the appropriate government for the remaining life sentence - High Court analyzed Section 435 CrPC and precedent from the Supreme Court - Held - The assessment of a plea for remission is dependent on the sentence relating to the specific offence current at the time of consideration - Once a sentence under a Central Act stands undergone there is no requirement to seek concurrence from the Central Government for remission of sentences under the IPC - Rejection order set aside and matter remitted for fresh consideration - [Paras 1-36].

Writ Law - Prison Reforms - Implementation of Technology - E-Prisons Early Release Processing Module - Court noted Supreme Court directions in Surendra alias Sunda v State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the launch of automated software to handle premature release applications - Software designed to identify eligible prisoners in advance and automate alerts via SMS and WhatsApp to eliminate procedural delays - High Court initiated implementation of the module in the State of Tamil Nadu - Held - Registrar IT directed to convene a meeting with stakeholders to implement the module as a pilot project in Puzhal prisons - Status report to be filed - [Paras 37-48].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed - Impugned order dated 05.06.2025 set aside - Matter remitted to respondents for reconsideration within four weeks - Directions issued for pilot implementation of E-Prisons software in Tamil Nadu.