NDPS Act – Sampling Procedure – Section 52A(2) – Mandatory Compliance – Accused found with Buprenorphine and Diazepam injections – Samples drawn by detecting officer at spot without moving application to Magistrate – Held: As per Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) and Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2023), samples must be drawn in presence and under supervision of Magistrate; failure vitiates prosecution – Prosecution case not free from suspicion – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 12-15].

Criminal Trial – Evidence Recording – Sections 273 & 276 Cr.P.C. – Invalid Chief Affidavits – Trial court accepted affidavits of PWs 1 & 4 as chief-examination, contrary to Section 276 Cr.P.C. requiring recording in court in presence of accused – Violated accused’s right to object to leading questions – Prejudice caused – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 8-11].

Benefit of Doubt – Doubts in Procedure – Absence of statutory compliance in sampling and defective recording of witness testimony cumulatively rendered prosecution unreliable – Acquittal directed [Paras 16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case. Acquittal [Para 16].

Specific Performance – Registered 1977 Agreement – Money-lending backdrop – Section 20 Specific Relief Act & Section 52 TPA – Decree Set Aside – Parties litigated over an alleged agreement to sell ancestral land in favour of deceased Ankush; Trial Court held the document was a sham/security for loans, First Appellate Court reversed – Held: On a holistic view of contemporaneous loan suits, decrees and receipts, the agreement operated as security and not a genuine sale agreement; appellate reversal ignored Trial Court’s reasoning and vital evidence – Decree for specific performance set aside; Trial Court decree restored [Paras 20-26, 32-34, 45-46].

Specific Relief – Discretion under Section 20 – Ancestral joint family property – Need to prove legal necessity/authority of manager – Discretion improperly exercised – First Appellate Court failed to frame/decide the issue of equitable discretion despite admitting the property was ancestral; no proof of legal necessity or authority to bind co-sharers – Grant of specific performance vitiated for want of proper application of Section 20 – Appeal allowed [Paras 27-29, 35, 45-46].

Evidence – Non-examination of principal and effect – Power-of-attorney testimony limited – Adverse inference – Plaintiff No.1, who signed on behalf of Ankush and allegedly made the payments, did not enter the witness box – Applying Vidyadhar and Man Kaur, adverse inference drawn; PA holder’s evidence could not substitute for principal’s personal knowledge – Appellate Court erred in overlooking this [Paras 30-33].

Appellate Practice – First appeal reversing facts – Duty to engage with Trial Court’s reasons – Santosh Hazari applied – Reversal cannot rest on defendant’s weaknesses or registration alone; appellate court must confront and displace trial reasons with cogent analysis – Failure here rendered the decree unsustainable [Paras 22, 25-26, 32-33].

Lis Pendens – Section 52 TPA – Registered cancellation deed by Class-I heirs during pendency – Not hit by Section 52 – Where Class-I heirs (widow/children of Ankush) executed a registered cancellation in 2020, they validly relinquished the right to seek specific performance; being a Class-II heir, the father alone could not sustain the decree – Exhibit X1 is admissible and operative inter partes and does not offend lis pendens; decree cannot survive only for Plaintiff No.1 – Suit agreement unenforceable – Appeal allowed [Paras 38-44, 46].

Decision – Second appeal allowed – First Appellate Court’s decree dated 24/08/1993 quashed; Trial Court’s dismissal dated 28/09/1987 restored; suit dismissed; no order as to costs [Para 46].

Bail – Anti-National Facebook Post – Sections 152, 192, 197(1), 353(2) BNS – Bail Rejected – Applicant posted provocative and derogatory content including insult to Indian National Flag and slogans glorifying Pakistan – Cyber investigation traced posts to applicant's verified IP and mobile – Court found conduct detrimental to national integrity and social harmony – No grounds for bail [Paras 2–10].

Cyber Crime – Electronic Evidence – Facebook Post Verified Through IP and Mobile Linking – Meta data and cyber report confirmed the posts were made from applicant's mobile using his SIM and devices – Forensic collection upheld as credible prima facie evidence linking accused to offense [Paras 6(i)-(ii), 8].

National Flag – Insult to National Honour – Bail Denied – Photograph showing dog sitting on Indian Flag uploaded by applicant was termed as deliberate act of dishonour – Court reaffirmed importance of safeguarding national symbols and noted that such acts were punishable and socially corrosive [Paras 7, 9].

Criminal Antecedents – Previous Involvement in Arms Act and Attempt to Murder Cases – Considered in Bail Rejection – Two prior cases including one under Section 307 IPC weighed against applicant's plea for liberty [Para 6(vi)].

Social Media Responsibility – Posts Capable of Inciting Communal Disharmony – Court observed that the content uploaded was capable of disturbing public peace and order – Bail denied due to possibility of larger societal impact [Para 8].

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Prima facie materials against the accused supported by technical evidence and witness statements – Insult to National Flag viewed as serious and non-bailable conduct – Application dismissed [Paras 10–11].

Service Law – Regularization of Long-serving Employees – Denial on Ground of No Sanctioned Posts – Arbitrary and Unconstitutional – Petitioners appointed in 1995 onwards, repeatedly litigated; co-worker Vir Bahadur regularized – Respondents denied petitioners’ regularization citing absence of sanctioned posts – Court held plea unsustainable; reliance on Umadevi misplaced – Continuous exploitation through ad hocism violates Articles 14, 16, 21 – Services directed to be regularized within six weeks; failing which deemed regularization with full benefits – Writ allowed [Paras 5–10, 18].

Constitutional Mandate – State as Model Employer – Court condemned “perennial ad hocism” in public employment; financial constraints or lack of sanctioned posts cannot justify decades-long denial of regularization where work is perennial – State duty-bound to create posts and budgetary provisions; exploitation under guise of outsourcing or casualization unconstitutional [Paras 6–9, 11–12].

Judicial Directives – Enforcement of Court Orders – Administrative Indifference – Court expressed concern over habitual delays and bureaucratic non-compliance with judicial mandates – Laid down parameters: accountability of officers, statutory timelines, monitoring cells, digital transparency, grievance redressal, training, and appraisal linkage – Warning of contempt under Article 215 if directions flouted [Paras 13–17, 19].

Decision – Petition allowed – Respondent-Corporation directed to regularize services of petitioners within six weeks, else deemed regularized with arrears, seniority, and parity benefits as granted to Vir Bahadur – Copy sent to Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh for litigation policy reforms [Paras 18–21].

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Section 14 – Nature of Magistrate’s power – Ministerial vs. adjudicatory – Powers exercised by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/District Magistrate under Section 14 are purely ministerial – Magistrate not required or empowered to adjudicate disputes between borrower, secured creditor, or third parties – Duty limited to assisting secured creditor in taking possession on compliance with statutory affidavit requirements [Paras 9.1–9.3, 10.1–10.2].

SARFAESI Act – Section 14 – Requirement of notice to borrower – No obligation – Statutory scheme mandates only filing of authorised officer’s affidavit – Magistrate to act within 30 days (extendable to 60 days with reasons) – No requirement to issue notice to debtor or hear objections – Any grievance lies under Section 17 before DRT [Paras 11.3–11.8, 12.4–12.6].

Possession Delivery Warrant – Condition regarding third parties – Impermissible – Once property is a secured asset under SARFAESI, Magistrate cannot restrict possession delivery warrant by saving alleged third-party rights – Such disputes, if any, to be adjudicated under Section 17 before DRT, not by Magistrate under Section 14 [Paras 12.1–12.6, 13.1–13.2].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Observation in impugned order dated 29.04.2025 in Crl. Misc. No.16/2025 (“possession delivery warrant is not binding on 3rd parties, if they are in possession of the property in any capacity”) quashed – Order under Section 14 SARFAESI to be implemented without the said observation [Para 13.3, 26].

Tax Settlement Scheme – Appeal dismissed as non-maintainable after specified date – Assessee held eligible under DTVSV Scheme, 2024 as appeal was pending on 22.07.2024 – Rejection of declaration quashed.

Income Tax – Eligibility under DTVSV Scheme – Appeal pending on specified date but later held non-maintainable – Declaration rejection quashed – Appeal was pending as on 22.07.2024 and hence taxpayer was eligible under Scheme despite subsequent dismissal as non-maintainable – Rejection of declaration on ground of invalidity of appeal not justified [Paras 6–25].

Scheme Interpretation – Applicability of CBDT FAQ No.36 – Circulars binding – Clarifies eligibility even if appeal disposed on merits or dismissed as withdrawn after specified date – Held: FAQ No.36 clarifies scheme covers such cases – Appeal treated as pending on 22.07.2024 [Paras 10–14, 23].

Binding Precedents – Prior decisions on similar schemes applicable – Tushar Agro Chemicals and Atul Roshanlal Gupta relied – Appeals, even if incompetent or irregular, held to be pending for purpose of benefit under tax settlement schemes [Paras 21–22].

Administrative Law – Rejection of benefit on hyper-technical ground – Not permissible when scheme intends to resolve disputes – Reiterated that interpretation should align with object of the scheme to reduce litigation and promote compliance [Paras 21, 23–24].

Decision – Impugned rejection communication dated 11.04.2025 quashed – Respondent directed to process declaration in accordance with DTVSV Scheme, 2024 – Petition allowed [Paras 24–25].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Award – Hearsay Evidence – Rejection of Admitted Documents – Award Set Aside – Arbitral award allowed Respondent’s claim for refund due to allegedly defective packaging – Petitioner contended that the arbitrator relied on hearsay evidence from an expert witness (CW-2), and disregarded two SGS India lab reports that showed no odour or defect in the packaging – Held: Arbitrator wrongly disregarded admitted contemporaneous evidence in the form of SGS India reports and instead relied on CW-2’s report, based on hearsay statements from Respondent's staff in 2016 about goods received in 2013 – Such reliance constitutes a gross procedural error and offends basic notions of justice – Award shocks the conscience of the Court and is liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act [Paras 34–40, 47].

Public Policy – Section 34(2)(b)(ii) Arbitration Act – Violation of Basic Notions of Justice – The rejection of reliable and admitted laboratory evidence, coupled with acceptance of uncorroborated hearsay testimony, amounted to a breach of public policy and justice – The Award conflicts with Explanation 1(iii) to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) as it offends the most basic notions of fairness, reliability, and adjudicative reasoning – Held: The conduct of the arbitrator fell foul of judicial standards and vitiated the award [Paras 44–47].

Admissibility and Evidentiary Value – Marking of Documents and Cross-examination – Arbitrator erred in holding that SGS India reports had no evidentiary value for lack of author testimony, despite both parties having marked and admitted the documents – Court held that contemporaneous lab reports should have been preferred over retrospective hearsay-based expert opinion – No obligation on Petitioner to cross-examine when burden of proof not met by Respondent [Paras 36–43].

Decision – Commercial Arbitration Petition allowed – Arbitral Award dated 02/12/2019 set aside – Deposit of USD 165,000 made pursuant to earlier court order permitted to be withdrawn by Petitioner after 4 weeks [Paras 48–52].

Civil Writ - Paddy Land – Classification Error – Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Rejection of Form 5 application without inspection/satellite images – Order Quashed – Petitioner’s land wrongly included in data bank as “paddy land”—Authorised officer dismissed exclusion application mechanically based only on Agricultural Officer’s report—Held: Officer failed to comply with statutory mandate of Rule 4(4f); non-application of mind—Impugned order quashed and matter remitted for fresh consideration with mandatory inspection/satellite verification – Writ petition allowed [Paras 3–5].

Administrative Law – Duty to Record Findings – Failure amounts to arbitrariness – Authorised officer must independently determine nature and character of land as on 12.08.2008 and whether exclusion prejudices surrounding fields – Absence of such findings renders order unsustainable [Para 5].

Decision – Ext.P5 order dated 21.06.2024 quashed – RDO directed to reconsider petitioner’s application under Rule 4(4d), with personal inspection or satellite images—Fresh decision within two months (inspection) or three months (satellite images) – Writ petition allowed [Operative Part].

Murder – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony of related witnesses – Conviction upheld; appeal dismissed [Paras 2–4, 27–33].

Criminal Appeal – Murder in Furtherance of Common Intention – Conviction Upheld – High Court affirmed conviction under Section 302/34 IPC where appellant fired on deceased during marriage function – Eyewitness account of father and brother found reliable – Delay in trial due to absconding not fatal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2–4, 27–33].

Identification of Accused – Kaushal @ Alok Chauhan – Identity Dispute Rejected – Appellant’s claim that he was misidentified as “Kaushal” refuted based on consistent reference to both names in investigation and local familiarity – Dock identification and corroborating testimony confirmed involvement [Paras 7, 25, 28–30].

Evidence – Related Witness – Trustworthiness Affirmed – Father and brother of deceased found to be natural and probable witnesses – Prompt FIR, consistent testimony, and their presence at the event established – Held: Related witness evidence cannot be discarded if trustworthy [Paras 18, 26, 30].

Medical and Documentary Evidence – Post-Mortem, FIR, and Site Plan Corroborated Ocular Testimony – Timely FIR and inquest, wound characteristics consistent with close-range firearm use – Trial court’s factual findings based on coherent chain of evidence upheld [Paras 20–24].

Plea for Reduction of Offence – Section 302 vs. Section 304 IPC – Rejected – Argument that death was unintentional or accidental found baseless – Court held accused fired intentionally knowing consequences – No grounds to convert conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 31–32].

Appellate Interference – Scope of Section 386 CrPC – No Perverse Finding – Where trial court’s view is plausible and supported by evidence, appellate court must refrain from interference – Conviction legally sustainable [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Conviction Under Section 302/34 IPC Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant directed to surrender and serve remaining sentence – Bail bonds forfeited [Para 33].