NDPS Act – Section 21 – Conviction – Appeal – Appellant convicted for possession of commercial quantity of heroin (nearly 6 kg) recovered from bag on motorcycle – Search conducted after informing appellant of right under Section 50 NDPS Act – Recovery in presence of DSP and consent recorded – Samples drawn on spot and sealed – Produced before Magistrate next day – Seals found intact – Held: Recovery not from person but from bag – Hence, Section 50 not applicable – Compliance with Section 52A satisfied – Conviction upheld [Paras 6-12].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability – Heroin recovered from bag carried on motorcycle – Not personal search – Held: As per SC rulings (Pawan Kumar, Ranjan Chadha, Prabhu), Section 50 applies only to personal search – Voluntary consent given and recovery witnessed by DSP – No violation found [Paras 8-9].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Drawing of Samples – Appellant contended that samples not drawn before Magistrate – Held: Samples taken at spot in accordance with Standing Orders – Inventory, samples, and case property presented before Magistrate next day – Seals intact – No prejudice shown – Procedural compliance deemed sufficient – Recent SC judgment in NCB v. Kashif relied on [Paras 10-11].

Independent Witness – Non-joinder – Contention of no public witness during recovery – Held: Ruqa shows attempt was made to join public witnesses but none were available – Prosecution version corroborated by consistent testimony of officials – Not fatal to case [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 21 NDPS Act confirmed – No infirmity found in trial court’s findings [Para 14].

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Section 43D(5) – Bail – Prima Facie True Test - Appellant, alleged active member of terror syndicate led by Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu, charged under UAPA, IPC, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act for orchestrating the 18.12.2020 Tetariyakhad Colliery attack involving indiscriminate firing, arson of four trucks, and injuries to civilians – Recovery of country-made pistol from appellant – FSL report confirmed shells from the crime scene were fired from the appellant’s weapon – Protected witnesses identified the appellant as one of the armed attackers – Court reiterated that under Section 43D(5) UAPA, bail must be denied where accusations are prima facie true – National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 applied [Paras 33–37, 45–57, 69–73].

Bail – UAPA Offences – Delay in Trial – Applicability of Article 21 – Appellant in custody since 07.02.2021 – Trial commenced and witnesses under examination – Court held mere delay not ground for bail in serious terrorist offences; distinguished Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, as trial had progressed and constitutional violation not established – Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 SCC OnLine SC 109) followed [Paras 64–65, 68].

Bail – Principle of Parity – Distinction Between Co-accused – Co-accused Prabhat Kumar Yadav @ Dimple Yadav granted bail based on long custody and minimal role – Present appellant identified as principal conspirator who directed co-accused Ajay Turi to write threatening pamphlets and participated in arson and firing – Court held parity cannot be mechanically applied; role-specific analysis required – Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230 and Tarun Kumar v. Asst. Director, ED (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486) relied upon – Held: parity not available [Paras 66–73].

Bail – Restrictive Scope under UAPA – “Bail the Exception, Jail the Rule” – Court reaffirmed that conventional bail principle “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” does not apply under UAPA – Once prima facie satisfaction of involvement exists, bail must be rejected as a rule – Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and Watali (supra) reaffirmed [Paras 38–44, 53–57].

Result – Appellant failed to show change in circumstances or new grounds – Material on record shows active participation in terrorist act and recovery of incriminating weapons – Trial ongoing – Bail rejected – Appeal dismissed [Paras 63–75].

Co-operative Societies – Recovery Certificate – Section 101, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners denied disbursement of loan and alleged fabrication of loan documents by the Bank – Deputy Registrar issued recovery certificate under Section 101 without deliberating on specific defences raised by petitioners – Held: Registrar is statutorily bound to consider the defence and render a reasoned judgment as mandated under Rules 86-A to 86-F of 1961 Rules – Failure to record reasons amounts to violation of principles of natural justice – Order unsustainable [Paras 11–16].

Alternate Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of remedy under Section 154(2)(A) of the Act not an absolute bar when impugned order is passed in breach of statutory procedure and natural justice – Writ maintainable [Para 9].

Scope of Inquiry under Section 101 – Registrar’s jurisdiction limited to verification of correctness of arrears – If bona fide dispute as to loan disbursement or fraud is raised, Registrar must refuse to issue certificate and direct parties to remedy under Section 91 – Registrar cannot decide disputed questions of fact in summary recovery proceedings [Paras 10–12].

Reasoned Orders – Quasi-Judicial Duty – Requirement of recording reasons inherent in Section 101 read with Rule 86-F – “Rubber-stamp” or mechanical orders vitiate decision-making process – Reiterated principles in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 applied [Para 15].

Decision: Writ Petitions partly allowed – Order dated 24.09.2024 of Deputy Registrar set aside – Matter remanded for de novo inquiry and fresh decision in accordance with Rules 86-A to 86-F within four weeks – Parties directed to appear on 17.11.2025 [Para 16].

Maintenance – Section 144 BNSS – Son’s Independent Obligation to Maintain Aged Mother – Husband’s Support Not a Bar – Alleged Cattle Rearing Unsupported – Son Employed Abroad with Sufficient Means – Maintenance of Rs.5,000 Upheld – Revision Dismissed [Paras 6–9].

Maintenance of Parents – Section 144 BNSS (Sec.125 CrPC) – Independent and Concurrent Obligations – Court held that a mother’s right to seek maintenance from her son under Section 144(1)(d) BNSS is independent of her right to seek it from her husband under Section 144(1)(a) – Obligation of son is not extinguished merely because husband is alive or allegedly maintaining her – Rights under Section 144 are mutually exclusive and co-existent – Family Court rightly rejected claim that husband’s support bars maintenance from son [Paras 6–7].

Social Justice – Liberal Construction of Maintenance Provision – Section 144 BNSS is a measure of social justice intended to protect vulnerable dependents such as destitute wives, children and aged parents – Provision must be interpreted liberally in favour of claimants to achieve welfare objectives of Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution [Para 6].

Allegation of Cattle Rearing by Mother – Unsupported and Unacceptable – Plea that 60-year-old mother is rearing cattle and earning sufficiently was rejected as baseless – Court criticised the moral impropriety of expecting an aged mother to perform physically demanding labour merely to avoid statutory obligation – No evidence produced by son; petitioner did not enter witness box; respondent gave categorical evidence of no income [Para 8].

Son’s Plea of Obligation to Maintain His Own Family – No Defence – Contention that petitioner must maintain his wife and child held untenable – Son cannot evade his legal duty to maintain aged parents on the ground of personal family responsibilities [Para 8].

Sufficient Means – Son Employed in Gulf – Evidence showed petitioner employed abroad with sufficient means; denial of income unsupported by documents; mother’s claim of Rs.2,00,000 per month income not disproved – Finding of sufficient means upheld [Paras 5, 9].

Quantum of Maintenance – Rs.5,000 per Month Reasonable – Considering mother’s needs and son’s earning capacity, Family Court award found reasonable and even modest – Court declined to interfere in revision [Para 9].

Decision – Revision Petition dismissed; maintenance order affirmed [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Rape – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Credibility – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix – FIR lodged after delay of one day, allegedly after husband’s consent – Medical examination showed ruptured hymen but no external injuries – Neighbours, husband, and key witnesses not examined – Held: In absence of corroboration and amid glaring contradictions regarding the occurrence, identification of accused, sleeping arrangement, and presence of weapon, conviction cannot be sustained – Sole testimony not inspiring confidence [Paras 10–16, 18–21].

Criminal Evidence – Delay in FIR – Victim lodged complaint one day after incident citing need for husband’s permission – Husband not examined to corroborate – No neighbour examined despite claim that one informed husband – Delay and absence of explanation create serious doubt on authenticity of allegation [Paras 11–13].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Doctor found only ruptured hymen, no external injuries or marks of violence – Victim a married woman with three children – Held: Medical findings inconsistent with allegation of forcible rape; rupture of hymen not conclusive of sexual assault [Paras 14–15].

Defective Investigation – Investigation found to be perfunctory – Failure to seize mat, weapon, or clothing – No site sketch or verification of call records – No examination of key witnesses – Held: Though defective investigation alone not ground for acquittal, when coupled with unreliable and inconsistent evidence, prosecution case collapses [Para 19].

Presumption of Innocence – Standard of Proof – Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion cannot substitute proof – Major inconsistencies and unexplained circumstances warrant benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 20–21].

Decision – Trial court erred in relying solely on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix despite serious contradictions and lack of evidence – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Connected applications disposed of [Paras 22–23].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Proclamation under Section 82 CrPC – Illegal Declaration – Petitioner declared proclaimed person in FIR involving Sections 406 and 420 IPC – Court found that procedure under Section 82 was not followed – No evidence of petitioner absconding or concealing himself – No fresh proclamation issued after adjournment – Minimum 30-day notice period not complied with – Held: Declaration of proclaimed offender without adherence to statutory safeguards is illegal and unsustainable – Order set aside [Paras 5–6, 8–9, 11]

Natural Justice – Right to Fair Process – Petitioner, a 77-year-old NRI, was not served any notice nor restrained despite travelling to and from India – Proclamation proceedings initiated without attempting service via Embassy or international procedure – Held: Proceedings violated principles of natural justice – There was no deliberate evasion or wilful non-appearance – Non-service and absence of notice fatal to validity of proclamation [Paras 2, 5, 9]

Judicial Oversight – Magistrate’s Failure to Record Satisfaction – Order under Section 82 must be preceded by judicial satisfaction that accused is absconding or evading – Court below failed to record such satisfaction – No inquiry conducted nor legal threshold met – Held: Proclamation issued mechanically and contrary to law – Cannot sustain in view of settled precedent [Paras 5–6, 8]

Precedent – Compliance with Section 82 Mandatory – Citing Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319 – Reiterated that failure to comply with all modes of publication and procedural safeguards under Section 82 renders proclamation void – Conditions under Section 82 are mandatory, not procedural irregularities that can be cured [Paras 7–8]

Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioner had joined investigation and cooperated – Keeping proceedings alive serves no purpose – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings unjustified – Appropriate to invoke inherent powers to quash proceedings [Para 10]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 28.10.2016 declaring petitioner a proclaimed offender quashed – All consequential proceedings also quashed – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Identity of Accused Not Established – Accused acquitted by Trial Court for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of MV Act – Prosecution failed to conduct Test Identification Parade – Witnesses identified accused for the first time in Court after long lapse of time and in absence of prior familiarity – Held: Dock identification without TIP in such circumstances is highly unreliable and cannot sustain conviction – Acquittal upheld [Paras 6, 14, 16, 19, 20, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate court can interfere only if judgment of acquittal is perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Where two views are possible, appellate court must defer to trial court – Held: Trial court’s view was reasonable and based on evidence; High Court refused to substitute alternative view in absence of compelling reasons [Paras 12, 13, 25].

Witness Testimony – Identification in Court – No Prior TIP – Eyewitnesses claimed to identify accused only during trial – No prior identification during investigation – Held: Identification for the first time in Court without prior TIP is weak and inherently suspect – Particularly when visibility was poor, incident occurred at night, and accused was a stranger – Testimony held unreliable [Paras 16, 17, 19, 24].

Investigative Lapses – No Explanation How Accused Was Identified – IO failed to explain how the accused was linked to the incident – No chain of evidence or identification process disclosed – Held: Investigation lacked procedural safeguards; raises doubt about correctness of prosecution case – Acquittal justified [Paras 14, 15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal affirmed – No error or perversity found – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Directed to furnish bond under Section 437-A CrPC / Section 481 BNSS for appearance before the Supreme Court in case of further appeal.

Patent Law – Computer-Related Invention – Section 3(k) – Technical Contribution – Graphic Data Lineage Generation – Rejection on ground of being algorithmic and lacking technical effect – Held: System incorporating diagram generator, metadata querying interface, configuration information sets, and dynamic iterative lineage generation constitutes technical effect and technical contribution – Not excluded under Section 3(k) [Paras 17–54]

Patent Law – Database Management System – Technical Effect – Claim enabling ad-hoc upstream/downstream tracing of data transformations using metadata – Reduction of query response time, avoidance of manual multi-step tracing, and configuration-based autonomous retrieval amount to technical advancement – Invention not mere presentation of information nor simple execution of an algorithm – Technical effect established [Paras 49–54]

Patent Law – Novelty and Inventive Step – Section 2(1)(j) – Prior Art D1 distinguished – D1 disclosed entity-relationship visualisation but did not disclose tracing of data evolution, metadata configuration sets with distinct selection specifications, or iterative querying of metadata management systems – Claimed invention addresses a different technical problem and yields different technical results – Not obvious to PSITA even with common general knowledge – Novelty and inventive step satisfied [Paras 55–61]

Computer Programme Per Se – Technical Effect Test – Indian Position aligned with EPO rather than UK approach – Indian jurisprudence recognises patentability where software-enabled inventions use technical means to solve technical problems – CRI Guidelines 2025 emphasise technical contribution, consistent with precedents such as Lava International and Microsoft decisions – Held: Claimed invention not barred by Section 3(k) [Paras 19–48]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Rejection order dated 13/07/2020 set aside – Patent Application No. 4693/CHENP/2010 to proceed to grant based on last submitted claims – No order as to costs.

Intellectual Property – Trademark Infringement – Device Mark – Word Mark – Invalid Registration – Concealment – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant had valid registration only for device mark containing the word QUANTUM and not for the standalone word mark – Registration certificate for the word mark obtained improperly without applying for it – Appellant failed to disclose this to the court – Held: Concealment of application and affidavit constituted wilful suppression disentitling interim relief under Order XXXIX CPC – Appellant cannot rely on invalid registration for claiming exclusivity [Paras 18.1–18.14, 19.1, 21.2].

Trademark Infringement – Device Mark – Dominant Part Doctrine – Appellant entitled to protection of device mark against similar use of dominant element “QUANTUM” by respondent – Respondents admitted user of marks QUANTUM and QUANTUM DISPLAY since 2015 through affidavit – Goods such as TVs and displays held similar to registered goods under Class 9 – Likelihood of confusion exists – Infringement made out in principle – However, relief denied due to lack of clean hands [Paras 19.2–19.14].

Trademark Law – Passing Off – Lack of Evidence – Though respondents admitted adoption of QUANTUM and QUANTUM DISPLAY marks in affidavit, no evidence of actual use or sale in market produced – Manner of use not established – Goodwill of appellant prior to 2015 not proven – No misrepresentation or deception established – Held: No prima facie case of passing off made out [Paras 20.1–20.6].

Civil Procedure – Interim Relief – Clean Hands Doctrine – Appellant concealed affidavit and registration details which revealed invalidity of word mark registration – Court reiterates that equitable relief like interim injunction not available to a party approaching with unclean hands – Appeal rightly dismissed on this ground [Paras 18.10–18.14, 21.2].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant disentitled to interim relief due to deliberate concealment of material facts – Though prima facie case of infringement established on basis of device mark, Court declines to interfere due to lack of bona fides – No case of passing off made out – No order as to costs.