Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – False Disclosure – Appellant accused of misleading the authority by providing false information about his caste and residential address to obtain prior sanction for property sale in a disturbed area – FIR lodged for offences under IPC and the Disturbed Areas Act – Appellant contends lack of prima facie case and procedural lapses by the authorities – High Court examines the factual and legal matrix of the allegations [Paras 1-14].

Forgery and Cheating – Elements of Offence – Allegation of submitting false affidavit to obtain sanction for property sale – High Court finds prima facie evidence supporting allegations of forgery and cheating under Sections 406, 465, 467, 471 of the IPC – Disputes over factual matrix to be resolved at trial stage – Emphasizes that concealment of true address and caste can mislead authorities [Paras 15-17].

Statutory Bar – Sections 177 and 181 of IPC – High Court notes statutory bar under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. against taking cognizance without written complaint from public servant – Proceedings under these sections quashed – Clarifies that authority may initiate fresh proceedings following proper procedure [Paras 18-19].

Amendment of Statute – Section 6(d) of the Disturbed Areas Act – High Court acknowledges the amendment was not in force at the time of FIR registration – Quashes proceedings under this section [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Application Partially Allowed – Charges under Sections 177 and 181 of IPC and Section 6(d) of the Disturbed Areas Act quashed – Other charges to be tried by Trial Court – Observations are tentative and do not influence trial proceedings [Paras 22-23].

Bail Application – Non-commercial Quantity Consideration – Applicant sought bail for charges under NDPS Act, contending false implication and non-commercial quantity of seized drugs – Court assessed statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Supreme Court's rulings in Tofan Singh and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain cases – Applicant, without prior criminal history and co-accused granted bail, found entitled to bail on parity basis – Bail granted [Paras 1-17].

Confessional Statements – Admissibility Under NDPS Act – Confession of co-accused before NCB officers deemed inadmissible based on Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 67 of NDPS Act and Article 20(3) of Constitution – Court relied on Apex Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh, determining confessions to NCB officers are inadmissible [Paras 7-14].

Conditions of Bail – Judicial Discretion and Compliance – Bail granted with conditions to prevent misuse, ensure presence at trial, and prevent adjournments when witnesses are available – Applicant to remain present during critical trial phases, with compliance subject to review by trial court under relevant IPC and Cr.P.C. provisions [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Bail Granted – Application allowed subject to personal bond and sureties, with stipulations to prevent misuse and ensure trial cooperation [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Health Condition – Petitioner, a 75-year-old woman with advanced carcinoma, sought anticipatory bail. The Court considered her critical health condition and allowed her to join the investigation through video conferencing instead of traveling from the USA to Amritsar, Punjab [Paras 1-6].

Custodial Interrogation – Not Required – Court noted that the case was primarily based on documentary evidence, with no allegations of the petitioner’s personal interaction with co-accused, making custodial interrogation unnecessary [Para 8].

Bail Conditions – Digital Surety Bonds – Court permitted petitioner to furnish bail bonds digitally, considering her inability to travel. The petitioner was allowed to join the investigation through video conferencing and furnish personal and surety bonds through her counsel [Paras 19-20].

Judicial Precedents – Bail Principles – Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the principles of granting bail, including the balance between personal freedom and the need for investigation, and the presumption of bail over jail except in certain circumstances [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Anticipatory Bail Granted – Petition allowed with conditions for digital submission of bail bonds and video conferencing for investigation [Paras 11-27].
 

NDPS Act – Conviction and Sentence – Recovery of poppy husk – Appellants not apprehended at the scene – Identification issues – Procedural lapses – Independent witness not examined – Case property not produced – Appeals allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 1-16].

Adverse Inference – Case property destruction due to flood – Allegation deemed unsupported – Trial court's reliance on uncorroborated testimony criticized [Paras 10-11].

Identification – No test identification parade conducted – Prosecution's reliance on witness claiming prior knowledge of appellants deemed insufficient – Absence of local witnesses to corroborate presence at crime scene noted [Paras 12-13].

Investigative Bias – Investigating Officer also the complainant – Potential for bias highlighted – Supreme Court precedents referenced [Para 15].

Relief – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 16-18].

Income Tax Law – Assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Appeals against ITAT’s deletion of additions under Section 68 – Assessments based on voluntary disclosure of unaccounted income during a search operation – ITAT quashed additions due to lack of incriminating material found during the search – Held, assessment cannot be based solely on statements recorded under Section 132(4) without corroborative evidence – AO’s failure to provide cross-examination of witnesses amounts to a violation of natural justice, rendering the assessment invalid – Reliance on Section 292B to cure jurisdictional defects found unmerited – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-37]

Evidence Evaluation – Statements under Section 132(4) – Mere admissions by the assessee during search insufficient for assessment without corroborative material – Statements recorded under Section 132(4) can only constitute information and must be corroborated by evidence discovered during the search – Courts reaffirmed that assessments should be based on tangible evidence found during search operations, not solely on admissions. [Paras 20-23, 25]

Principles of Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examination – Failure to provide cross-examination of key witnesses violates natural justice – Supreme Court’s precedent in Andaman Timber Industries reaffirms that denial of cross-examination renders orders null and void – Jurisdictional AO must provide an opportunity for cross-examination when requested by the assessee – Assessments based on statements without cross-examination deemed invalid. [Paras 30-32]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – Appeals dismissed due to lack of incriminating material and violation of principles of natural justice – ITAT’s order setting aside assessments and deleting additions upheld – The assessment proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities and lack of substantiated evidence. [Para 37]

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Assessment – Appeal against the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs’ refusal of a patent application for a portable vehicle management system – Refusal based on the application not meeting the inventive step requirement under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 – Claims rejected as obvious in light of prior art D4 (US2002019703A1) and D5 (US2015019266A1) – Court upheld the refusal, stating the claimed features of portability and comprehensive monitoring were well-known and lacked inventive ingenuity. [Paras 7-26]

Patent Law – Doctrine of Non-Obviousness – Analysis – Court found the invention lacked inventive step as the features of portability and anomaly detection were already disclosed in prior arts – The combination of known technologies from prior arts D4 and D5 was deemed obvious and within the capabilities of a person skilled in the art – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 15-26]

Decision – Rejection of Patent Application – Court affirmed the Assistant Controller’s decision to reject the patent application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 – Held that the subject invention did not exhibit an inventive step over prior arts – Patent refusal justified. [Para 25-26]

Criminal Law – Acquittal in Rash and Negligent Driving Case – Petitioner’s brother died due to an alleged rash and negligent driving by accused-respondent – Trial court acquitted the respondent, citing major contradictions and lack of conclusive evidence – High Court upholds acquittal, finding no error in trial court’s detailed and reasoned judgment [Paras 1-9].

Evidence Evaluation – Witness Testimony – High Court notes trial court’s thorough assessment of evidence, identifying contradictions and inconsistencies in witness statements – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8-9].

Appellate Review – Parameters for Interference – High Court refers to Supreme Court precedents on interference in acquittal judgments – Emphasizes reluctance to interfere unless judgment is contrary to evidence, clearly unreasonable, or based on ignored material evidence [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed – High Court finds no compelling reason to overturn acquittal – Petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal or factual error warranting interference – Trial court’s judgment upheld [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law – Conviction Under Common Intention – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC – Court finds material contradictions in eyewitness testimonies – Appellants not proven to have individually caused fatal injuries – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside, convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained [Paras 1-18].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Several prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Injured eyewitness could not identify attackers due to darkness – Court notes inconsistencies and contradictions in statements regarding involvement of accused in causing fatal injuries [Paras 12-14].

Evidence and Delay – Incident reported with two-hour delay – Bloodstained lathis recovered but blood group undetermined – Court finds prosecution failed to conclusively link appellants to fatal injuries [Paras 8, 16].

Joint Liability – Applicability of Section 149 IPC – Material contradictions in evidence regarding common intention – No direct evidence linking surviving appellants to causing fatal injuries – Court emphasizes requirement for clear evidence of common object for joint liability [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Convictions under Section 302/149 IPC quashed – Convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained – Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act extended – Appellants' bail bonds discharged [Paras 18-19].

Civil Procedure – Remand Order – Appellate court quashed trial court's judgment and remanded case for fresh consideration – Appellant contended appellate court failed to specify new issues or necessity for additional evidence – High Court finds remand order lacks justification, sets it aside, and directs appellate court to decide appeal on merits [Paras 1-13].

Order 41 CPC – Powers of Appellate Court – Remand under Rules 23, 23A, 24 – Appellate court must specify issues or necessity for remand – Evidence on record sufficient for adjudication mandates final decision without remand – High Court emphasizes appellate court’s obligation to decide appeal on merits unless retrial is essential [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Precedents – High Court refers to Kerala and Allahabad High Courts' rulings, emphasizing minimal use of remand powers and appellate court’s duty to decide on merits when evidence suffices – References: Gopalkrishnan v. V. Ponnappan, Prem Raj v. Nagar Palika, RSRTC v. Haridwarilal Sharma [Para 10].

Decision – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Allowed – Remand order quashed – Appellate court directed to hear and decide appeal on merits – Parties to appear before appellate court on specified date [Paras 11-13].