Sports Law – Anti-Doping Violation – Suspension Quashed – Petitioner, a national-level basketball player, challenged orders of provisional suspension, notice of charge, and penalty of 4-year ineligibility for anti-doping violation under Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the National Anti-Doping Rules, 2021 – Urine sample tested positive for 19-norandrosterone (19-NA), a non-specified anabolic steroid – Petitioner claimed substance entered his system via regular consumption of pork, especially meat from non-castrated male pigs – Evidence included purchase bills, affidavits from meat suppliers, and expert scientific opinions – Disciplinary and Appellate Panels failed to consider this evidence or allow Pharmacokinetics testing as suggested by Petitioner – Held: There was a clear breach of procedural fairness and statutory requirements under Sections 21 and 22 of the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022 – Orders were vitiated due to non-application of mind and failure to address cogent scientific defence – Writ Petition allowed [Paras 2, 4, 5, 6, 15.5, 15.6, 15.7, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21].

Procedural Fairness – Non-Consideration of Vital Defence Evidence – Petitioner submitted scientific studies, affidavits from experts, and biochemical rationale supporting the dietary origin of 19-NA – Disciplinary Panel ruled the violation as intentional without meaningful engagement with the evidence – Appellate Panel mechanically upheld the finding – Court held both Panels failed to discharge obligations under Section 22(8) of the Act which mandates fair hearing and reasoned orders – Ignored pharmacokinetic testing route despite indicating its relevance – Violation of principles of natural justice – Orders unsustainable [Paras 15.5, 15.6, 15.7, 16, 17, 18].

Sample Handling – Breach of Integrity and Testing Protocol – Sample opened, resealed, and transported to foreign lab without documented adherence to WADA Code and Section 21 of the Act – Petitioner not informed about initial test report from National Laboratory – Result Management obligations under Section 21 and Article 6.4 of WADA Code breached – Findings based on unverified processes cannot form basis of punitive action [Paras 15, 16].

Strict Liability Principle – Limits and Safeguards – Though anti-doping law operates on strict liability, Court emphasized that procedural safeguards and fairness remain indispensable – Ignominy suffered by athletes under presumption of guilt mandates punctilious adherence to rules and reasoned evaluation – Failure to do so can nullify strict liability outcomes [Paras 17, 18, 19].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders of Disciplinary Panel (11-10-2022) and Appellate Panel (16-04-2024) quashed – Petitioner reinstated – Held: Disciplinary proceedings lacked statutory and procedural compliance – No remand due to lapse of time and substantial period of penalty already elapsed [Paras 20, 21].

Arbitration – Commencement of Proceedings – Interpretation of Section 21 of Arbitration Act vis-à-vis Rule 9(4) of Karnataka Rules – Appeal Allowed - Appellants challenged Commercial Court’s order vacating interim injunction for non-initiation of arbitral proceedings within three months under Rule 9(4) – Court held that issuance of notice under Section 21 dated 18.01.2024 constituted valid commencement of arbitration – Delay in arbitrator appointment due to mediation and respondent’s resistance not fatal – Held: Trial Court erred in applying Rule 9(4); interim order rightly granted and continued until disposal of pending Section 11 petition [Paras 3-14].

Taxation Law - Wealth Tax – Urban Land – Building Under Construction – Taxability Upheld - ITAT excluded respondent’s land under construction from wealth tax by relying on Rohini Hotels case – High Court held this reliance misplaced in light of Supreme Court’s later decision in Giridhar G. Yadalam v. CWT which reversed Rohini Hotels – Held: Land with partially constructed buildings does not qualify for exclusion under Section 2(ea); exemption applies only when building is fully constructed and approved – Appeals allowed, ITAT orders set aside [Paras 3–23].

Insurance Claim – Non-Disclosure of Previous Policy – Proposal Form Left Blank – Claim Allowed - Petitioner’s wife died of heart attack; LIC repudiated death claim citing non-disclosure of earlier policy taken three months prior – Proposal form had column for previous policies left blank, allegedly under LIC agent’s advice – Court held: Mere omission in column 9 not deliberate suppression; LIC already held policy data, and failure to verify or seek clarification before issuing policy bond constituted waiver – Held: No fraudulent intent proved; rejection arbitrary and contrary to Section 45 and SC rulings – Impugned orders set aside; LIC directed to release insured amount within six weeks [Paras 10–28].

Criminal Law - Motor Vehicle Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC – Conviction Set Aside – The accused was convicted by the Trial Court and the same was upheld by the First Appellate Court for allegedly causing death by rash and negligent driving – Held: Prosecution failed to establish rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt – Sole eyewitness PW-1 found to be unreliable, with contradictory testimony and no corroboration from other witnesses – Postmortem report indicated presence of alcohol in deceased’s body – Benefit of doubt extended to accused – Conviction and sentence quashed [Paras 12–20].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PW-1's Presence at Scene Disbelieved – PW-1 claimed to be eyewitness but admitted visiting hospital on call from accused and signing documents at police station – Held: Testimony found doubtful and inconsistent – No other eyewitness supported the prosecution version – Spot mahazar not supported by credible firsthand account – Conviction cannot rest solely on untrustworthy evidence [Paras 13–14].

Speed and Rashness – Mere High Speed Not Equivalent to Rash Driving – Reference to Supreme Court Judgment in State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493 – Held: No material on record showing actual speed or driving behaviour of accused to infer rashness – High speed, without context, not enough to establish offence under Section 279 IPC [Paras 15–17].

Foreseeability and Contributory Negligence – Influence of Alcohol on Deceased – Postmortem showed strong traces of alcohol in deceased – Held: Prosecution failed to show foreseeability or breach of duty by accused – In absence of clear proximate cause linking accused’s conduct to the fatal accident, conviction unsustainable [Paras 18–19].

Final Decision – Acquittal Ordered – Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence by Trial and Appellate Courts set aside – Fine, if paid, to be refunded [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Conviction  – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory and Recovery of Bloodstained Articles – Conviction Set Aside - Appellant was convicted for murder of his foster daughter based solely on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution relied on last seen theory, recovery of bloodstained pant, and alleged improper motive – Court held last seen theory not proved due to lack of corroborative witnesses and uncertain timeline – Ownership of pant not established – No conclusive proof of motive or sexual assault – Chain of circumstances incomplete and failing the test in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, conviction unsustainable, appellant acquitted [Paras 14-24].

Bail - NDPS Offense – Commercial Quantity – Application of Section 37 – Bail Granted – Petitioner accused of possessing 71 Buprenorphine injections, constituting commercial quantity under FSL report – Despite applicability of statutory bar under Section 37, prolonged incarceration of 1 year and 5 months invoked constitutional protection under Article 21 – Held: Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Paras 6-11].

Clean Antecedents – No Prior Criminal Record – Considered Favorably – Petitioner had no criminal history and undertook not to indulge in any future NDPS Act offense – Assurance accepted as mitigating factor justifying conditional release [Paras 2, 4].

Prolonged Pre-trial Custody – Grounds for Bail – Article 21 Consideration – Noted by Court that trial had not commenced and petitioner was in custody for over 1.5 years – Delay in trial held to be unjustified restraint on liberty – Conditional liberty granted to ensure fairness and avoid irreversible injustice [Paras 10-13].

Comparative Precedents – Supreme Court Bail Orders Followed – Cited series of SC judgments including Chitta Biswas, Rajib Dey, and Tajmul SK cases granting bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases with long incarceration – Held: Constitutional guarantee of liberty prevails over statutory embargo when trial delay is substantial [Paras 9, 11, 12].

Firearm Restrictions – Bail Condition – Court imposed prohibition on possession of arms post-release, citing need to protect society and deter intimidation of witnesses – This measure based on preponderance of probability rather than certainty [Para 20].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Bail Granted – Regular bail granted to petitioner under strict compliance terms including personal bond, prohibition on weapon possession, and cooperation with trial – State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail upon any future NDPS offense by petitioner [Paras 15-26].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Sexual Harassment and Intimidation – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Sections 354, 354A, 506 IPC, alleging false implication by his niece-in-law – The Court noted that FIR disclosed specific acts of molestation and intimidation occurring over a sustained period – Held: Allegations, if taken at face value, prima facie disclosed commission of cognizable offences – Mere absence of such claims in parallel proceedings or assertions of malafide cannot justify quashing at preliminary stage – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–13].

Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery – Appeal Against Conviction - Circumstantial Evidence and Last Seen Theory – Conviction Confirmed - Appellants convicted under Sections 302 and 392 IPC for murdering their employer and robbing his belongings – Prosecution relied on 'last seen together' evidence, mobile phone data, recovery of gold chain from jeweler, and blood-stained clothing – Court found that circumstantial chain was complete and unbroken – Held: No explanation provided by accused consistent with innocence; prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and life sentence upheld [Paras 2–18].