Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Conflict between Statutory Provisions and Standing Orders – Sections 52A, 15-61-85 of NDPS Act – Representative samples of seized contraband – Section 52A(2)(c) requires samples in presence of a Magistrate – Standing Orders require samples on the spot – Held, statutory provisions prevail over Standing Orders – Representative samples must be drawn in presence of a Magistrate – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. [Para 18-19]

Procedural Safeguards – Analysis – Conflict between Section 52A of NDPS Act and Standing Orders – Section 52A mandates samples in presence of Magistrate – Standing Orders supplement Act but cannot override it – Compliance with Section 52A necessary – Standing Orders mandatorily followed unless in conflict with NDPS Act – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. [Para 19]

Chain of Custody – Discrepancies and Delays – Discrepancies in testimonies of witnesses regarding time of information and sample handling – Delays in depositing samples with Chemical Examiner – No independent witnesses – FIR number mentioned on memos before FIR registration – Serious flaws in investigation – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. [Para 19-21]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted of charges – Bail bonds discharged – Case property to be dealt with as per rules after appeal period – Appeal allowed. [Para 21-22]

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Purpose and Objectives – [Para 26-28]

The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted to establish family courts for the speedy settlement of family disputes, specifically related to marriage, divorce, custody, guardianship, maintenance, and other familial issues. The Act aimed to simplify and expedite resolution, promote conciliation, protect women’s rights, ensure the welfare of children, provide accessibility and affordability, and enable quick and effective disposal of cases.

Statutory Interpretation – Pragmatic and Harmonious Construction – [Para 40]

Courts should adopt a pragmatic and harmonious interpretation of statutes, considering the aims and objectives of the relevant Acts. This approach allows the law to adapt and evolve to address the changing needs and complexities of modern society while upholding the fundamental principles of the legislation.

Contextual Interpretation – Understanding Phrases – [Para 34, 36, 37]

While interpreting statutory terms, the court should consider the surrounding text and context, as words derive their meaning from their context. The phrase “either party thereto” should be understood in harmony with “against the other party” to provide a clear and purposeful understanding of the section’s scope.

Beneficial Construction – Ensuring Justice – [Para 46]

In cases where the meaning of a phrase is unclear or ambiguous, the principle of beneficial construction should be applied. The court should interpret the provision in a way that serves the interests of justice and aligns with the broader objectives of the law.

Upholding Rights – Equal Protection – [Para 44, 45]

Restrictive interpretations of provisions in social welfare legislation may negatively impact the principle of equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Upholding the rights of the first wife is crucial, as granted under Article 14 and the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to effectively address marital disputes.

Upholding Family Court’s Decision – Ensuring Fair Resolution – [Para 48]

The court upheld the family court’s decision, granting the first wife the right to file an application under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking the declaration of the second marriage as illegal and void. The court affirmed the validity of the impugned ruling, promoting equitable and just outcomes for all parties involved.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition – Quashing of Orders – Jurisdiction of High Court – Writ petition filed praying for the quashing of orders dated 31.3.2022 passed by the Commissioner Vindhyachal Division and 3.1.2022 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Bhadohi, along with a notice dated 22.6.2020, under U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (para 1).

Requirement of Multiple Incidents for Applicability – Examination of the legal requirements for treating an individual as a “goonda” under Section 2(b) of the Goondas Act – Court emphasized that Clause (i) of Section 2(b) necessitates at least two incidents of commission of crime – Notice in this case referred to only one extreme instance, falling short of the legal requirement (para 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, and 13).

Quashing of Impugned Orders – Court held that the impugned order dated 22.6.2020 and the appellate court order dated 31.3.2022 lack merit – Notice against the petitioner deemed illegal due to insufficient grounds – Impugned orders quashed by the Court (para 14).

Property Dispute – Will Execution – Challenge to the validity of a Will executed by the deceased Ajmer Singh in favor of the appellant, Pritam Kaur – Trial Court upheld the Will, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision citing suspicious circumstances – High Court scrutinized the evidence and circumstances. [Para 1-8]

Burden of Proof – Propounder of Will – High Court observed that the onus was on the propounder of the Will to remove all reasonable doubts and suspicious circumstances – Court found that the appellant successfully discharged this burden by producing cogent and convincing evidence, including the testimony of an attesting witness. [Para 16-18]

Suspicious Circumstances – High Court identified various factors considered by the First Appellate Court as ‘suspicious,’ such as non-registration of the Will, execution at the parental village of the appellant, and discrepancies in witness statements – Court held that these did not constitute valid grounds for doubting the Will’s authenticity. [Para 19-23]

Legal Heirs – Exclusion from Will – Court noted that the exclusion of natural heirs (respondents-plaintiffs) did not automatically render the Will suspicious – Emphasized that a Will is meant to alter the normal line of succession, and the testator had valid reasons for bequeathing his property to the appellant. [Para 20-21]

DECISION – High Court set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the decision of the Trial Court, thereby upholding the validity of the Will in favor of the appellant. [Para 24]

Recovery of excess payments made to employees – Whether permissible in law – Guidelines provided by Supreme Court – Court emphasized equitable consideration in cases of recovery, taking into account employee hardship and employer’s right.

Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes – Intended to provide financial benefits to employees with limited promotional opportunities – Monetary benefits without actual promotion – Objective of relieving frustration on account of stagnation.

Issuance of subsequent notification modifying earlier notifications and directing recovery – Without proper approval and authentication – Held to be without jurisdiction and unwarranted. Benefit granted to employees through the original notification cannot be taken away by executive order after several years of retirement. Court directed respondents to rectify the original notification if necessary, after giving a proper opportunity to individual petitioners. (Para 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 37, 40, 41, 45, 48)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Cruelty – Divorce on grounds of cruelty – Effect of abandoning the previous petition based on cruelty – Principle of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel – Filing of a new petition on the same grounds. [Para 6-12]

Scope of taking recourse to law by initiating legal action before a court of law – When it amounts to cruelty in a matrimonial relationship – Mere filing of petitions or applications before a court of law by the estranged spouse does not, by itself, constitute an instance of cruelty. [Para 28]

Condonation of acts of cruelty – Whether falling strictly within the framework of Section 23(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Unconditional abandonment of a previous petition based on cruelty leading to legal implication of condonation. [Para 25, 39]

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Discretionary power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution – Distinction between Supreme Court and High Courts – Irretrievable breakdown not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. [Para 41]

Application of Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Bar on the institution of a new petition on the same cause of action – Principles of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel – No new instances of cruelty cited in the new petition – Appeal allowed, and divorce petition dismissed. [Para 42]

Service Law- Letters Patent Appeal  – Judgment dated 26.07.2023 – Writ petition challenging the disengagement order of Special Police Officer (SPO) – Enquiry conducted under Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules – No enquiry against the petitioner, violation of principles of natural justice – Petitioner engaged as SPO by respondents in 2013 – Disengaged on the ground of alleged links with bovine smugglers – Petitioner filed SWP 2905/2016 challenging disengagement order – Grounds raised included violation of principles of natural justice, arbitrariness, and lack of opportunity to be heard – Respondents contended proper procedure followed – Enquiry report produced in court – Respondents’ reply admitted departmental enquiry conducted – Judgment distinguishes precedent relied upon by respondents – Delay and laches not applicable in certiorari petition – Judgment quashes disengagement order – Petitioner reinstated as SPO with certain conditions – Monetary benefits not granted to petitioner – Delay and laches not applicable – Judgment set aside, disposed of. (Para Number 1-19)

Criminal Revision Application – Challenging the order of Additional District & Sessions Judge (1^st Court) – Prayer for further investigation after the charge sheet was filed – Examination of the scope of power to order further investigation. [Para 1]

Importance of Fair Investigation – Citing the case of Romila Thapar v. Union of India – Emphasizing fair investigation and police’s power to further investigate until trial commences. [Para 9]

Distinction between Inquiry and Trial – Referring to Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. The State of Gujarat – Clarifying that trial commences only after charges are framed, not upon cognizance being taken. [Para 33]

Exclusive Power of Police in Investigation – Citing Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. – Stating that the power to investigate is exclusively reserved for police officers, and the High Court cannot appoint its own investigating agency unless there is a clear case of abuse of power or non-compliance with legal provisions. [Para 14]

Magistrate’s Supervisory Jurisdiction – Holding that once charges are framed, the Magistrate’s supervisory jurisdiction does not cease, and they can still order further investigation if necessary for the interest of justice. [Para 16]

Dismissal of Second Prayer for Further Investigation – Rejecting the prayer for further investigation for the second time as relevant materials were already on record, and the charge sheet and cognizance were in accordance with the law. [Para 30]

Abuse of Process of Court and Law – Stating that further indulgence would amount to an abuse of the process of court and law and be against the interest of justice. [Para 31]

Disposition of Revision Application – Dismissing the revision application and affirming the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (1^st Court) at Serampore – All connected applications also disposed of, and any interim orders vacated. [Para 32-33]

Criminal Appeals – Murder – Acquittal - Conviction under Sections 302/149 of the IPC – Multiple appellants accused of offenses – Issues raised regarding the establishment of the place of occurrence, presence of witnesses, identification of accused, non-examination of Investigating Officer, and delay in lodging FIR – Inconsistencies and contradictions in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies – Lack of proper identification – Absence of Investigating Officer’s testimony – Unreasonable delay in lodging FIR.

Place of Occurrence – Inconsistencies in testimonies of witnesses – Failure of prosecution to establish the place of occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts – Credibility of prosecution’s case questioned.

Presence of Witnesses – Contradictions in testimonies of witnesses – Failure to prove the presence of key witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence during the time of the incident – Doubts raised regarding witnesses’ accounts.

Identification of Accused – Lack of proper identification of accused – Prosecution witnesses not disclosing any source of identification – Inconsistencies in the accounts of witnesses regarding accused’s appearance – Doubts cast on the reliability and accuracy of identifications.

Non-examination of Investigating Officer – Failure to examine Investigating Officer who conducted substantive investigation – Prejudice caused to the accused’s case – Inability to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses’ statements – Material aspect overlooked in investigation.

Delay in Lodging FIR – Unreasonable delay in lodging FIR – Failure of prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay – Suspicion raised regarding the authenticity of allegations – Possibility of concoction and embellishment of the occurrence.)

Acquittal – Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts – Convictions set aside – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released from custody.