Criminal Law - Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act – Illegal Possession and Conscious Custody – Conviction Confirmed – Accused intercepted while transporting 150 kg of ganja—Search and seizure compliant with Section 50 NDPS Act—Evidence of P.W.1 and independent witness P.W.3 held credible—Contraband properly seized, sealed, and produced—Court upheld trial court’s findings on conscious possession and recovery [Paras 2, 8].

Section 42 NDPS Act – Compliance Established – Written information regarding secret tip-off was typed and timely conveyed to superior—Court held compliance sufficient under guidelines in Karnail Singh—Typed version acceptable when handwritten record unavailable—Challenge rejected [Paras 9.4–9.5]

Section 67 NDPS Act – Statements Held Admissible – Tofan Singh ruling held applicable prospectively—Since statements were recorded prior to the ruling, they remain admissible—Court accepted them as corroborative evidence of conspiracy and intention [Paras 10.1–10.3].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Non-Strict Compliance Not Fatal – Contraband produced at remand, stored in godown, and properly marked—Supreme Court’s Bharat Aambale and Kashif rulings followed—Substantial compliance considered adequate in light of corroborative evidence [Paras 13.1–13.3].

Conspiracy and Attempt – Sections 28 and 29 NDPS Act – Conviction Upheld – Court found that coordinated travel, volume of contraband, and Section 67 statements proved attempt and conspiracy to traffic drugs—Each charge considered independently valid despite acquittal under Sections 25 and 27(A) NDPS Act [Paras 14].

Accused’s Explanation under Section 313 CrPC – Found Unbelievable – Defense claim that third party planted contraband during mechanical breakdown found to be false and unsubstantiated—No supporting material produced—Court held that explanation was an afterthought [Paras 11.1–11.2].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, and 29 of the NDPS Act affirmed—Court found compliance with procedural safeguards and corroborated recovery—No merit in defense contentions [Paras 15–16].

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Obviousness Based on Prior Art – Matter Remanded - The patent application claiming novel piperidine compounds with anti-cancer properties was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), referencing compounds from prior art D1 – The Court held that the reasoning was interlinked with non-patentability assessment under Section 3(d) and must be reconsidered after proper identification of the closest known substance – Remanded for fresh evaluation including analysis of enhanced efficacy data [Paras 3–4, 17–19].

Patent Law – Section 3(d) – New Form of Known Substance – Identification of Known Substance Mandatory – Objection Not Sustainable - The Controller failed to identify a specific ‘known substance’ in the prior art D1 against which the claimed compound was assessed – Citing DS Biopharma, the Court ruled that the absence of such identification deprived the applicant of an adequate opportunity to respond with comparative efficacy data – Rejection under Section 3(d) set aside [Paras 12–17].

Decision – Rejection Set Aside – Remanded for Fresh Consideration - The impugned order rejecting the patent was set aside – The matter was remanded to the Patent Office for fresh adjudication after providing the appellant a hearing and addressing all submissions – The fresh order must address patentability with clear identification of the known substance and evaluation of efficacy data [Paras 20–23].

Civil Law - Gift Deed – Acceptance During Donor’s Lifetime – Valid Execution Presumed – Appeal Dismissed - The Court held that the registered gift deed (Exhibit-6), executed by Ramapada in 1988 in favour of Umapada, was validly accepted during the donor’s lifetime – Presumption arose from registered nature of deed, donor’s failure to challenge during his lifetime, and supporting testimonies confirming transfer of possession – Appellants’ arguments regarding delayed mutation or absence of tax payment found insufficient to negate legal effect of the deed [Paras 25–38, 41].

Misrepresentation – No Specific Pleadings or Proof – Allegation Rejected – Appeal Dismissed - The Court rejected the claim that the gift deed was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation – Held: Bald allegations in pleadings without particularized averments, as required by Order VI Rule 4 CPC, and absence of corroborative evidence rendered the claim unsustainable – Ramapada executed multiple deeds on the same day and his conduct did not indicate confusion or coercion [Paras 42–44, 49].

Donor’s Conduct – No Challenge During Lifetime – Validates Transaction – Appeal Dismissed - The donor lived for six years after executing the gift deed but did not raise any objection – His silence, coupled with possession by donee and contemporaneous execution of other deeds, created strong presumption of voluntariness and authenticity – Court refused to impute suspicion absent any evidence of mental incapacity or illiteracy [Paras 34–37, 46].

Decision – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed - The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decree dismissing the suit challenging the gift deed – Held: Plaintiffs failed to discharge burden of proof – Deed was validly executed, accepted, and free from fraud – No costs imposed – Connected application (CAN 2 of 2024) also disposed of [Paras 50–54].

Civil Review – Time-Bound Disposal Direction by High Court – No Grounds for Interference – Review Dismissed - The petitioner sought review of a direction in the appellate judgment requiring the Family Court to dispose of a long-pending matrimonial dispute within six months – Court held that such time-bound direction was justified in light of 15 years of ongoing litigation – Constitutional Bench decision in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad distinguished on facts – Review dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 2–6, 8].

Review Jurisdiction – No Error Apparent on Record – Mere Disagreement Not Sufficient – Review Dismissed - Citing settled principles from S. Murali Sundaram and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, the Court reiterated that review cannot be used to rehear or reargue already adjudicated issues – Petitioner failed to point out any self-evident error or exceptional circumstance – Review petition treated as attempt to prolong litigation [Paras 7–8].

Delay in Matrimonial Litigation – Judicial Duty to Ensure Speedy Disposal – Cost Imposed - Court noted petitioner’s conduct as dilatory, having not disclosed trial progress nor justified the need for review – Emphasized importance of finality in matrimonial cases and judicial economy – Imposed ₹5,000 cost to deter frivolous litigation and directed remittance to Lawyer's Association Welfare Fund [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Review Petition Dismissed with Cost – Finality of Judgment Maintained - Civil Review No. 259 of 2024 dismissed – Direction to dispose matrimonial dispute in six months upheld – Cost imposed and all interim applications disposed [Paras 8–10].

Service Law - Departmental Inquiry – Absence Without Leave – Major Penalty – Dismissal Justified – Petitioner was absent for 1220 days between 2004 and 2009 without leave – Contended that no inquiry report or oral evidence was provided and cross-examination opportunity was denied – Respondents argued procedural compliance and lack of sanctioned leave records – Held: Though procedural lapses occurred, petitioner failed to show prejudice or submit any defense or denial even in writ petition – Applying "test of prejudice" doctrine, dismissal upheld [Paras 2–13].

Civil Law - Territorial Jurisdiction – Re-Presentation of Returned Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Suit Re-registered Without Amendments – Set Aside – A plaint once returned for lack of jurisdiction cannot be re-registered without incorporation of new facts showing jurisdiction – Held: The re-registration of the suit on identical pleadings without any amendment was impermissible in law [Paras 8-13, 18-20].

Cause of Action – No New Averments Made – Section 151 CPC Cannot Cure Jurisdictional Deficiency – The plaintiff re-submitted the plaint without introducing any new factual pleadings indicating the defendant carried out business within Jaipur – The application under Section 151 CPC merely annexed bills and invoices, which cannot substitute formal pleadings – Held: Lack of cause of action in the plaint rendered it unsustainable [Paras 9, 13, 19-20].

Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope and Test – Court Must Examine Only the Plaint – The High Court reaffirmed that only the averments in the plaint must be examined to assess cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 – Applications or annexures cannot replace substantive pleadings – Re-registration of plaint without jurisdiction was held to be legally unsustainable [Paras 14-16].

Judicial Discretion – Duty to Reject Unsustainable Suit – Previous Order Attained Finality – Held: The Commercial Court had no legal authority to re-register the same plaint without amendment after having already returned it – Judicial discipline required consistency in orders and adherence to earlier findings [Paras 17, 20, 23].

Decision – Writ Allowed – Order Quashed – The High Court quashed the Commercial Court’s order dated 23.02.2021 – Directed return of plaint to the plaintiff for filing before competent court – Connected suit (Other Original Suit No. 2/2022) also disposed accordingly [Paras 24-29].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Testing of Non-Pharmacopoeial Drug – Disputed Factual Matrix – Quash Denied - The Company (A1) challenged the testing method used to declare ‘Omnigel’ as ‘Not of Standard Quality’ claiming non-compliance with 2008 departmental guidelines – Court held the testing method and applicability of Rule 46 involved disputed facts to be adjudicated at trial – Complaint against Company not quashed [Paras 6(i)(g), 6(i)(h)].

Screening Committee – Procedural Compliance Established – Quash Denied - Allegation that complaint was filed without requisite approval by Screening Committee was rejected – Court noted documentary evidence showed due approval was obtained – Petitioners’ reliance on Lupin Ltd. case distinguished – No merit in procedural challenge [Paras 6(ii)(a)-(d)].

Delay in Filing Complaint – No Prejudice – Quash Denied - Petitioners alleged expiry of shelf-life of drug before complaint filing prejudiced right to re-analysis – Court held that since company failed to notify intention to controvert analyst report under Section 25(3), right under Section 25(4) was extinguished – Precedents in Brij Lal Mittal and Amery Pharma followed – No prejudice caused [Paras 6(iii)(a)-(g)].

Sanction – Not Mandatory for Offence Charged – Quash Denied - The complaint was not under Chapter IV-A of the Act; hence no sanction under Section 33M required – Even assuming sanction needed, its validity can only be tested during trial – Complaint not quashed on this ground [Paras 6(iv)(a)-(d)].

Managing Director – No Specific Allegations of Responsibility – Quash Allowed - The second accused (Managing Director) was prosecuted solely based on designation without any averment of being in-charge or responsible for business conduct – Company’s license identified specific technical staff responsible for manufacture – Applying Cheminova and Swati Ajay Piramal rulings, complaint against A2 quashed [Paras 6(v)(a)-(j)].

Decision – Company’s Petition Dismissed – MD’s Petition Allowed - Crl.O.P. No. 19832 of 2022 (Company) dismissed – Crl.O.P. No. 19643 of 2022 (MD) allowed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 7].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Abetment of Suicide – Scope of Section 306 IPC – FIR Quashed – Petitioners challenged the registration of FIR under Section 306 read with 34 IPC based on an alleged verbal altercation with the deceased Savitri Devi – Court noted that even taking the prosecution’s case at face value, there was no proximate or direct instigation or aiding that could link the petitioners to the suicide – FIR revealed only a short verbal quarrel, and a nine-day gap between the incident and recovery of the deceased’s body – Held: Mere quarrel or harsh words unaccompanied by a proximate act or intent cannot constitute abetment – FIR quashed as it failed to satisfy the threshold for prosecution under Section 306 IPC [Paras 3, 15-16].

Abetment of Suicide – Mens Rea and Proximate Causation – No Direct or Indirect Instigation – Essential Ingredients Missing – To prove abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear mens rea, an active or direct role in instigating or aiding the act of suicide – Court reiterated law that instigation must go beyond mere harsh words or fleeting arguments – Deceased’s hypersensitivity cannot fasten criminal liability on the accused without evidence of deliberate intent – Held: In absence of overt acts, the petitioners’ role fails the legal test for abetment [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Principles Governing Quashing of FIR – Application of Bhajan Lal Guidelines – FIR Does Not Disclose Prima Facie Offence – The Court invoked the settled principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to quash proceedings where allegations even if accepted did not constitute any cognizable offence – Held: No sufficient ground exists to prosecute the petitioners under Section 306 IPC based on the facts and evidentiary record [Para 11].

Decision – FIR Quashed – The Court allowed the petition – FIR No. 54/2022 dated 22.03.2022 registered at Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, along with consequential proceedings, were quashed – Held: Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process and not serve the ends of justice [Para 66].

Child Custody Law - Visitation Rights – Paramountcy of Child’s Welfare – Writ Dismissed – Petitioner challenged visitation rights on grounds of non-payment of maintenance and desertion by father – Held: Visitation right is independent of spousal disputes and hinges solely on welfare of the child – Denial of access without extreme justification is not permissible – Trial court’s order granting fortnightly visitation upheld [Paras 4-8].

Child’s Best Interest – Access to Both Parents Essential – No Bar from Pending Custody Petition – Held: Child is entitled to affection, protection and guidance from both parents – Visitation right not barred by pendency of custody petition under Section 26 HMA – Welfare of child remains overriding consideration over technical objections [Paras 5-6].

Maintenance Default – Not Sufficient Ground to Deny Access – Father’s Right to Meet Child Not Contingent – Held: Non-payment of maintenance does not nullify father's visitation rights – Visitation is a facet of child’s right to parental care, not a tool of enforcement in maintenance litigation [Para 7]

Judicial Approach – Allegations Between Spouses Irrelevant to Visitation Decision – Focus on Child’s Needs – Court emphasized that custody battles should not sacrifice the emotional and developmental needs of the child – Courts must weigh what serves best interests of the child, not ego disputes of parents [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted with Trial Court’s Visitation Order – Finding that the father’s access to child posed no harm or exceptional concern – Petition dismissed without costs [Paras 8-9].