Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant accused of killing his wife by pressing her mouth; conviction primarily based on testimony of child witness (PW2) and complainant – Evidence riddled with contradictions; complainant not present at incident; FIR delayed; inquest report and immediate family gave no suspicion of foul play; recovery of pillow unsupported by forensic evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 10-17, 25].

Child Witness – Evidentiary Value – PW2 aged about 10–11 years claimed to witness assault – Testimony inconsistent, improbable, and contradicted by medical and post-mortem evidence – Supreme Court precedents (Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi); Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh) cited—Held: Child witness testimony requires corroboration and must inspire confidence; in present case, it did not [Paras 14, 22-24].

Defence Witness – Daughter of Deceased – Reliable – Defence produced DW1 (14-year-old daughter) who testified appellant was away caring for grandmother on night of incident; supported good relations between parents; cross-examination did not shake testimony – Trial court failed to consider her evidence – Held: Her version credible, raising doubt in prosecution case [Paras 18, 25].

Investigation – Lapses – IO ignored initial report by deceased’s son-in-law describing sudden death without suspicion; failed to examine material witnesses; site plan inconsistencies – Held: Investigation deficient, undermining prosecution case [Paras 11, 19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 27.09.2013 in S.T. No.19/2012 set aside; appellant acquitted of charge under Section 302 IPC [Paras 25-26].

Patent Law – Refusal of Application – Section 117A of Patents Act – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged the order of the Assistant Controller refusing its national phase application for “material comprising a stack of thin layers” on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 25(1)(e) of the Act – The Court held that comparative data furnished by the appellant failed to establish technical advancement over prior art; inconsistencies in the expert affidavit further weakened the case – Prior arts already disclosed silver-based stacks with Nickel/Chromium blocking layers and dielectric coatings where optical properties were tunable by routine optimisation – Held: refusal justified; appeal dismissed [Paras 5–9, 30–44, 60–72].

Inventive Step – Requirement of Technical Advancement – Section 2(1)(ja) – Not Satisfied – On analysing comparative tables in the complete specification and expert affidavit, Court held that claimed invention did not materially improve over comparative example (Cmp.3), which already achieved identical performance parameters – Omission of data for solar factor, ET%, ERext% and shifting of target values further undermined credibility – No technical advancement demonstrated [Paras 30–40].

Obviousness – Combination of Prior Arts – Mosaicing Permissible – Applied – Court affirmed Controller’s reliance on WO 2014/164674 (Doc A), WO 2014177798 (Doc B), WO 2011062574 (D2), and applicant’s own prior filings – Held: where prior arts lie in same technical field, a skilled person would naturally combine them – No hindsight reconstruction shown; the claimed stack was an obvious optimisation of known parameters [Paras 45–63].

Person Skilled in the Art – Higher Standard under Indian Law – Court reiterated that Section 2(1)(ja) contemplates a professional with more than average skill, practical experience and knowledge of prior art, not merely an “ordinary” skilled person – Controller correctly identified PSITA as a person conversant with glass construction and manufacturing [Paras 51–54].

Foreign Patent Grant – No Binding Effect in India – Rejected – Grant of corresponding patent in France/EPO has no relevance as patent rights are territorial; Indian standards under Section 2(1)(ja) apply independently [Para 70–71].

Decision – Patent application refused on grounds of lack of inventive step and obviousness – Appeal dismissed; interim order vacated [Paras 72–75].

Waterlogging of Educational Institution – Suo Motu PIL – Breach of Agricultural Bund – District Collector’s Duty – Pursuant to the letter of students and teachers, Court initiated suo motu PIL – District Collector convened joint meetings of authorities and initiated dewatering, sanitation, and safety measures – Ad hoc committee formed to continue under Collector’s supervision – Reliefs for students ensured [Paras 3-6, 10-11, 22-24].

Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 – Sections 31-33 – Padasekharam Regulation – Act recognises traditional joint farming system and empowers Collector/Punja Special Officer to enforce bund repair and dewatering – Padasekhara Samithi responsible for annual plan preparation – Absence of annual plans noted as statutory breach – Collector empowered to inquire and act against defaulting Samithies [Paras 12-16, 18-19, 25-26].

Padasekhara Samithi – Responsibility and Financial Constraints – Respondent Samithi admitted absence of annual action plan and shortage of funds – Court directs Collector to verify compliance with annual plan obligations and ensure statutory functioning – Remedies of appeal and revision under Act preserved for aggrieved Samithi [Paras 19, 25-26].

Long-term Measures – Expert Study – Court recognised frequent bund failures as aggravated by human and natural causes – Chief Engineer, Kuttanad Package and Inland Navigation directed to conduct study on long-term solutions including durable bund construction, bio-protection, and water regulation – State Government to consider feasibility and act on report [Paras 20-21, 27-28].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed – Directions issued for ad hoc committee to continue under District Collector, statutory compliance by Padasekhara Samithies, inquiry into bund collapse, and expert study for long-term solutions – Appreciation recorded for Amicus Curiae and Kerala State Legal Services Authority [Paras 22-30].

Service Law – ACR/APAR – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Writ Court not Appellate Over Tribunal – Where the Competent Authority gives reasoned orders on each adverse entry after examining records and partially expunges where warranted, Tribunal’s refusal to re-appraise is not perverse – High Court affirms that grading and personality-assessment are matters of subjective satisfaction, ordinarily immune from interference absent perversity or procedural illegality [Paras 18-21].

CCS (Conduct) Rules – Rule 3(2)(ii) “Best Judgment” – Officer’s Duty to Act Judiciously vis-à-vis Superiors’ Directions – “Best judgment” does not license an officer to sit in judgment over or defy lawful directions – Tribunal’s construction upheld as a plausible view in writ jurisdiction – Mere disagreement with policy/implementation cannot sanitize adverse entries when targets remain unachieved and record shows non-cooperation [Paras 15-16, 19-20].

Adverse Remarks – Communication and Representation – AIS (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 r.8 & r.10 – DoPT OMs (20/05/1972; 14/05/2009; 23/07/2009) – Procedural Compliance – Representations considered through detailed, reasoned orders; some pejorative phrases expunged while core remarks retained – Such calibrated consideration satisfies r.10 and administrative instructions; no ground to quash surviving entries [Paras 17-19].

Post-Retirement Challenge – Consequential Relief – Petitions filed after superannuation without specific consequential claims – Government’s contention that dispute is academic noted – Court decides on merits but finds no case for interference – Reliefs held inconsequential in the absence of demonstrated legal infirmity in the process or perversity on the face of the record [Paras 11, 20-22].

Connected Matters – Mixed Outcomes Before CAT – In OA 436/2014 the Tribunal directed consideration for deletion of the observation “prone to commit financial irregularities”; others dismissed – High Court, addressing the common challenge by the Petitioner for fuller expunction, declines to expand relief and maintains the Tribunal’s calibrated orders [Paras 5, 20-22].

Decision – Original Petitions Dismissed – CAT’s view sustained; no perversity or procedural violation shown – Appreciation recorded for amicus curiae [Paras 21-23].

Second Appeal – Maintainability – Order under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Second Appeal Not Maintainable - The appellant challenged the dismissal of his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was upheld by the First Appellate Court – The High Court held that an order refusing to reject a plaint does not amount to a "decree" under Section 2(2) CPC and does not fall under any clause of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC – Consequently, such an order is not appealable and a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not maintainable – The First Appellate Court committed jurisdictional error by entertaining the appeal – Held: The second appeal is not maintainable, and the order of the First Appellate Court is without jurisdiction [Paras 1, 16-23].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Stay Pending Application to Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Article 227 – Order 21 Rule 26 CPC – Executing Court’s refusal upheld – Court reiterated that ex-parte decree remains valid and enforceable until set aside – Application for stay must be made before the Court where proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 are pending – Executing Court correctly declined stay [Paras 3-5].

Scope of Order 21 Rule 26 CPC – Limited Jurisdiction – Executing Court may stay execution for reasonable time to enable judgment-debtor to approach Court passing decree or appellate Court – Where JD instead filed stay before Executing Court itself, rejection proper – No irregular exercise of jurisdiction [Para 5].

Relief in Interest of Justice – Protective Interim Order – Though dismissal upheld, High Court granted protective stay of one week to enable petitioner to move application for stay in pending Order 9 Rule 13 proceedings – Directed expeditious disposal of such application within 15 days – Execution stayed till decision of such application [Para 5].

Decision – Civil Revision dismissed with observations – Executing Court’s order sustained – Interim protection granted to petitioner for one week, extendable till decision on stay application in main proceedings [Paras 5-6].

Tenancy Law - Civil Revision – Eviction Orders under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Sham Sale Transaction – Revisions Allowed – The petitioners-tenants challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on grounds of bona fide requirement and ceased occupation under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – Authorities below accepted the landlord’s title on basis of registered sale deed – High Court held that the transfer of property in favour of the landlady was a sham transaction devised to procure eviction, evidenced by intra-family conveyance, contradictory testimony, and inconsistent consideration – Findings of bona fide requirement and ceased occupation based on misreading and ignoring crucial evidence – Held: Eviction orders unsustainable – Revisions allowed and appellate orders set aside [Paras 8, 12–17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – Interference when findings are perverse/misread – Applied – The Court reiterated that while revisional power does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as in appeal, interference is warranted where findings are perverse, based on misreading, or lead to miscarriage of justice – Relying on Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the Court examined whether the authorities below misread crucial evidence and concluded that they did, justifying interference [Paras 11–12].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Attornment on Transfer – Title enquiry in rent proceedings – Exception for apparent fraud/sham – Though a registered sale deed generally suffices to establish landlordship and attornment follows transfer, the Court held that, on the peculiar facts (intra-family transfers, earlier NRI proceedings, immediate re-transfer, and inconsistent testimony), the sale in favour of the landlady was a sham devised to procure eviction – Authorities below erred in treating the sale as unimpeachable without engaging with the broader context and record [Paras 12.2, 14–16].

NRI Eviction Proceedings – Earlier petitions withdrawn – Res judicata – Not a bar to fresh cause – Contextual relevance – The earlier NRI petitions withdrawn after leave to defend did not operate as res judicata; however, their sequence (transfer to NRI relative to invoke special provisions, withdrawal upon challenge, followed by reconveyance and fresh eviction plea) was material context evidencing a contrived scheme, which the authorities below failed to weigh [Paras 13, 14.1–14.3].

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Documentary Inconsistencies – Sale consideration timing (cheque dated 06.12.2016) vis-à-vis sale deed (12.12.2017) – Non-negotiation of price – Ignorance of market rate/ownership change – Cash vs cheque contradictions – Cumulative effect – The landlady’s evidence revealed material inconsistencies suggesting lack of genuine consideration and awareness—indicative of a colourable device; authorities’ omission to grapple with these contradictions amounted to misreading of evidence [Paras 15.1–16.2].

Eviction Grounds – Bona fide Requirement & Ceased Occupation – Concurrent findings set aside – Since the foundational premise (genuineness of landlord’s title and bona fides) was vitiated by misreading and perversity, the resultant eviction orders on bona fide requirement and ceased occupation could not stand – Revisions allowed; impugned appellate orders set aside [Paras 8, 16.3–17].

Taxation Law - Tax Classification – White Petroleum Jelly IP – Held as Drug and Not Cosmetic – MP Commercial Tax Board’s classification set aside – White Petroleum Jelly I.P. manufactured under valid drug license falls under Entry 19A of MP VAT Act as “Drug and Medicine”, not cosmetic – Appeals allowed and reassessment held unjustified [Paras 4–36].

Sales Tax – Classification of White Petroleum Jelly – Functional Use Test Applied – The Court applied the “functional test” to determine the dominant usage and found its primary utility to be therapeutic – Product held to have curative properties, not for beautification – Relied on SC decisions in Ponds India, Hindustan Lever, and Reckitt Benckiser [Paras 28–34].

Res Judicata – Consistency in Classification – White Petroleum Jelly already judicially recognized as drug – Tripura High Court and Apex Court earlier held it as medicament – Burden lies on Revenue to prove change in nature or usage – No such evidence produced [Paras 17, 19, 30–31].

Reassessment – Reopening Held Invalid – Tax Department’s attempt to reopen concluded assessments based on change in opinion impermissible – Classification earlier accepted by department – Reassessment order quashed [Paras 12–14].

Interpretation – Specific Entry vs. Residuary Entry – Entry 19A dealing with drugs is specific and overrides residuary cosmetic category – Reliance on 'common parlance' test rejected where statutory and scientific criteria establish product's use as medicine [Paras 17–18, 25].

Final Decision – White Petroleum Jelly IP to be taxed as a drug under Entry 19A – Appellate Board’s classification reversed – Levy of interest under Section 18(1)(a) also set aside – All VAT Appeals and Tax References decided in favour of assessee [Paras 34–37].

NDPS – Possession of 20 kg Poppy Husk – Section 15 NDPS Act – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Appellant convicted for intermediate quantity – No minimum punishment prescribed – Trial Court imposed 1½ years RI – High Court considered that appellant already served 4 months, faced trial for 14 years, not involved in other cases, and has since lived peacefully – Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 10,000 – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 6, 9-11].

Sentencing – Discretion and Proportionality – Awarding of sentence not a formality – Courts must balance deterrence with reformation and proportionality – Reliance placed on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., AIR 2017 SC 1166 – Punishment should suit crime and offender; undue harshness avoided [Paras 7-8].

Right to Speedy Trial – Delay in Proceedings – Occurrence in 2011, conviction in 2012, appeal decided in 2025 – Prolonged pendency and mental agony considered as mitigating factor – Sentence reduced accordingly [Paras 6, 10].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction maintained – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 payable within one month, default leading to one month RI – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 11-12].