Civil Law - Temporary Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction claiming possession and ownership by succession from maternal grandfather - Plaintiff also filed application for temporary injunction - Defendants filed counter application for temporary injunction claiming possession through their predecessor - Trial Court allowed plaintiff application and dismissed defendants application finding prima facie possession of plaintiff based on revenue records including Pattadar Pass Book and pahanis - Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court order observing continuous reflection of plaintiff name in revenue records as pattadar and possessor - High Court observed that concurrent findings of lower courts based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence do not suffer from patent illegality or perversity - Held - No justification to interfere with well reasoned orders passed by trial court and affirmed by appellate court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction - Civil Revision Petitions dismissed - [Paras 6-9 - 35-40].

Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of interference with concurrent findings of subordinate courts - Defendants challenged concurrent orders of lower courts granting temporary injunction to plaintiff under Article 227 - High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to reiterate that power under Article 227 is of judicial superintendence and not appellate or revisional - High Court cannot substitute its own view or reappreciate evidence unless findings are patently perverse or unsupported by any evidence resulting in grave injustice - Held - Concurrent findings of lower courts based on proper appreciation of material on record cannot be said to suffer from patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 - [Paras 20-27 - 38-39].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed - No order as to costs - Pending miscellaneous applications if any stand closed.

Writ Law - Freezing of Bank Account - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 106 and 107 - Petitioner company challenged the lien placed on its bank account by the police during an investigation into an FIR for cheating and forgery involving a business dispute between Rah Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and Goel Group - Investigation revealed that part of the alleged proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 32,09,907/- was transferred to the petitioner’s account from the accused entities - Petitioner contended that the police had no authority to directly freeze the account and should have followed the procedure for attachment through a Magistrate under Section 107 BNSS - Respondents argued that the power to seize property under Section 106 BNSS includes the power to place a lien on bank accounts where suspicion of criminal activity exists - High Court analyzed the definition of proceeds of crime under Section 111(c) and the scope of Section 106 which is akin to Section 102 of the old CrPC - Held - Police officers are legally authorized under Section 106 BNSS to freeze or prohibit the operation of a bank account if it is suspected to be property derived from the commission of an offence - The requirement of attachment through a Court under Section 107 does not override the immediate investigative power of the police to seize or freeze property under Section 106 - Point of determination answered against the petitioner - [Paras 1-45].

Criminal Law - Seizure of Property - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 106 - De-freezing of Account - Ratio Decidendi - While the police have the authority to freeze accounts under Section 106 BNSS to prevent the dissipation of proceeds of crime during investigation - the Court must harmonize the rights of a potentially bona fide business entity with the rights of the complainant - Protracted freezing of accounts without final adjudication amounts to attachment before judgment - Held - To ensure a win-win situation for both the petitioner and the victim of the alleged fraud - the account shall be de-frozen subject to the petitioner furnishing security bonds equivalent to the frozen amount to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate/Trial Court - [Paras 46-49].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Removal of lien directed subject to the petitioner furnishing security bonds equivalent to the frozen amount (Rs. 32,09,907/-) – Investigating Agency to withdraw the lien within three working days of receiving intimation from the Magistrate.

Writ Law - Disputed questions of fact - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Dispute regarding title and mutation based on alleged forged documents and unregistered sale deeds - Petitioner claimed land fell to his share in family partition and respondents fabricated a partition deed to grab the land - Revenue Divisional Officer initially set aside the mutation in favour of respondents and remanded the matter - Revisional authority being the Special Tribunal reversed the order and directed the parties to approach the competent civil court as the matter involved disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and validity of documents - High Court upheld the Special Tribunal order noting that the petitioner approached the authorities after an unexplained delay of 11 years - Held - Rival contentions raising pure questions of fact require examination of evidence and material documents which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction - Parties directed to approach the competent civil court - Writ Petition dismissed - [Paras 7-15].

Writ Law - Scope of writ jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Adjudication of disputed facts - Allegations of forged partition deeds and sale of land without title - Veracity of documents needs to be examined under the provisions of the Evidence Act - Held - Matter involving disputed question of fact about the ownership of the land in question could not be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - High Court is justified in directing the parties to approach the civil court for resolving such dispute - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Writ Petition is dismissed – Petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.

Criminal Law - Drugs and Cosmetics - Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 - Sections 18(a)(i) 27(d) and 34 - Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 - Rule 45 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Petitioners sought quashing of criminal complaints regarding drugs found Not of Standard Quality - Samples of Propin 40 and Injection Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate drawn in June and July 2017 - Analyst reports confirming quality deficiencies received in September 2017 and April 2018 - Complaints instituted in June and August 2023 after nearly six years - Period of limitation for offences under Section 27(d) punishable by two years is three years under Section 468 CrPC - Rule 45 mandates testing by Government Analyst within sixty days whereas analysis in present cases took over three and nine months respectively - Complaint failed to provide specific averments regarding the role of Petitioner No. 2 as proprietor in day-to-day manufacturing - Licensing records showed technical staff were responsible for manufacturing - Held - Continuance of proceedings beyond the limitation period and in violation of mandatory procedural timelines constitutes an abuse of process - Complaints and summoning orders quashed - [Paras 1-58].

Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 - Section 34 - Offences by Companies and Firms - Prosecution of Proprietor - Complaint against firm and its proprietor - Allegations lacked specific details regarding the proprietor’s direct involvement in manufacturing or conduct of business - High Court noted that criminal liability under Section 34 is not automatic by virtue of designation - Complainant must aver how the person was in charge and responsible for company affairs at the time of offence - Held - Mere status as a proprietor without specific averments of active management is insufficient to fasten criminal liability - [Paras 32, 47-54].

Criminal Law - Limitation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 468 and 469(1)(b) - Bar on taking cognizance after expiry of limitation - Knowledge of offence - Offence came to light upon receipt of Government Analyst report - Limitation period began from date of such knowledge - Complaints filed five years after reports received were patently time-barred - Held - Prosecution hit by the bar of limitation under Section 468 CrPC cannot be sustained - [Paras 30, 58].

Procedural Law - Mandatory Timelines - Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 - Rule 45 - Mandatory versus Directory nature - Rule 45 requires analysis report within sixty days - Delay in testing affects the right of the accused to seek re-analysis before expiry of shelf-life - Held - Compliance with statutory timelines for drug testing is mandatory - Violation of such timelines renders the prosecution bound to fail - [Paras 33, 55].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Complaint Case Drugs and Cosmetics Act/ 0000001/2023 and Complaint Case Drugs and Cosmetics Act/2/2023 along with all consequential proceedings quashed – Petitioners discharged.

Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Abduction - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 361, 363 and 366 - Acquittal - State appeal against the acquittal of the respondent accused of kidnapping a minor girl with intent to compel marriage - Prosecution alleged that the accused threatened to upload victim's photographs on the internet to coerce her into joining him - Trial Court acquitted the accused after finding that the victim voluntarily accompanied him - High Court re-appreciated evidence noting that the victim (PW3) in her cross-examination admitted the accused never slapped her and that she never gave him any photographs - Evidence revealed the victim travelled with the accused in public buses and visited crowded terminals at Anand Vihar and Haridwar without seeking help from police or public officials present - High Court observed such conduct is inconsistent with a person being taken under coercion or threat - Essential ingredients of taking or enticing under Section 363 IPC not established as there was no clear evidence of inducement or active participation by the accused in forming the victim's intention to leave her home - Held - No interference called for with the trial court's order of acquittal - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-19, 21-22].

Criminal Law - Sexual Harassment - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 12 - Essential Ingredients - Accused charged with sexual harassment under Section 12 POCSO Act - Victim (PW3) specifically deposed that the accused neither had sexual intercourse with her nor sexually assaulted or touched her in any manner - Allegation of threat to upload photographs was rendered speculative as the victim admitted she never provided such photographs to the accused - In the absence of reliable evidence establishing any act constituting sexual harassment within the meaning of Section 11 of the POCSO Act - Held - The offence under Section 12 is not made out beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 2, 15, 18, 20].

Criminal Procedure - Procedural Compliance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 232 - Non-compliance of hearing - Trial court omitted to conduct a hearing as contemplated under Section 232 CrPC after questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC - High Court held that non-compliance of the said provision does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless it resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused - Respondent-accused did not raise any case of prejudice - Held - The trial proceedings were not vitiated by this technical omission - [Para 7].

Criminal Law - Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 361 - Distinction between taking and allowing to accompany - High Court applied the principle established in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras - Distinguished between the act of taking and merely allowing a minor of sufficient understanding to accompany a person - Where a minor voluntarily leaves the protection of a guardian without inducement or active participation by the accused - it cannot be said that the accused has taken the minor - Held - Prosecution failed to provide independent evidence corroborating threats or coercion - [Paras 13, 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Trial Court affirmed.

Criminal Law - Murder and Robbery - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 394 and 411 - Appellant Dharmendra Singh and co-accused Charan Singh were tried for the murder and robbery of a businessman who had collected Rs. 1,25,000 from local traders - Prosecution case established that Sher Singh (deceased) shot the victim while Dharmendra Singh snatched the suitcase and was caught red-handed by police personnel on a railway bridge - Suitcase containing specific currency bundles with signatures/seals of traders and personal effects was recovered from him - Trial Court convicted both appellants - High Court found that while fact witnesses turned hostile, they admitted the date, time, and factum of the incident - Dharmendra Singh's apprehension with the loot was corroborated by consistent police testimony - Evidence against Charan Singh found insufficient due to lack of arrest at the spot or incriminating recovery - Held - Conviction of Dharmendra Singh under Sections 302/34, 394, and 411 IPC affirmed - Charan Singh granted benefit of doubt and acquitted - [Paras 1-66].

Evidence Law - Hostile Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 154 - Evidentiary value of hostile witnesses and First Information Report - Informant (PW-2) and several eyewitnesses turned hostile and resiled from statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC - Informant claimed FIR was dictated by police - Court relied on settled law that testimony of a hostile witness is not rejected in toto and can be used to the extent it supports the prosecution - FIR relevance is not lost merely because the informant turns hostile if the registration is proved and it forms part of official records - Date, time, and nature of incident were established through admissions of hostile witnesses - Held - Relevancy and sanctity of FIR maintained - conviction sustainable despite hostility of fact witnesses - [Paras 25-38, 53].

Evidence Law - Police Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Reliability of recovery witnesses - Contention that no independent public witness supported the recovery of the looted suitcase - Prosecution relied solely on police personnel who caught the accused red-handed - Court held that there is no rule of law requiring discarding of police testimony merely due to their official status - Presumption that every person acts honestly applies to police officials - No evidence of enmity or motive for false implication was adduced by the defense - Held - Conviction can be safely recorded on the reliable testimony of police witnesses if it inspires confidence - [Paras 46-51].

Criminal Law - Arms Act - Arms Act 1959 - Section 25 - Proof of workability - Country-made pistol and cartridges recovered from Dharmendra Singh - Investigating Officer (PW-9) admitted in evidence that the weapon was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert examination - No personal testing conducted to prove the weapon was in workable condition - Failure to connect the weapon with the alleged crime - Held - Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act is bad in law and contrary to settled principles - conviction set aside - [Paras 56, 58].

Decision: Criminal Appeal No. 2075 of 2008 (Charan Singh) allowed – Appellant acquitted of all charges. Criminal Appeal No. 2718 of 2008 (Dharmendra Singh) partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 302/34, 394 and 411 IPC affirmed – Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act set aside – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.

Civil Law - Suit for Possession - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Sections 11 96 and 100 - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 27 and Articles 64 and 65 - Regular Second Appeal filed against concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for possession in favor of the plaintiffs - Plaintiffs sought possession of land based on ownership title while the defendant was recorded as Kabiz in the column of cultivation since the 1983-84 settlement - Defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation and the principle of res judicata as a previous suit filed by one of the plaintiffs was dismissed for default - High Court observed that the plaintiffs established ownership through jamabandi records whereas the defendant failed to plead or prove a case of adverse possession - High Court clarified that under the Limitation Act 1963 the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to establish adverse possession once the plaintiff proves title - Further held that dismissal of a suit for default under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC does not amount to an adjudication on merits and therefore does not operate as res judicata - Held - No perversity found in the findings of the courts below - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-31].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 27 and Articles 64 and 65 - Extinguishment of right - Suit for possession based on title - Shift in burden of proof - Comparison with Limitation Act 1908 - Under the old Act the plaintiff had to prove possession within twelve years - Under the 1963 Act once the plaintiff proves title the burden shifts to the defendant to prove they perfected title through adverse possession - Mere long possession does not constitute adverse possession - Held - In the absence of a plea of adverse possession by the defendant the suit based on title is maintainable and not barred by limitation - [Paras 23-26].

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 and Order 9 Rule 8 - Adjudication on merits - Appellant argued that the dismissal of a prior suit in 1999 for default barred the present suit - Held - Dismissal for default is not a determination of the case on merits - Principle of res judicata applies only where there is a final adjudication on the merits of the dispute - Section 11 CPC is not attracted in cases of dismissal for default - [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings and decree of the lower courts affirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Absolute Liability - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 96 - Fatal electrocution - Trial Court partly decreed civil suit awarding Rs 341400 with 7 percent interest to heirs of deceased electrocuted by transformer - Appellant electricity company challenged decree claiming self negligence of deceased who allegedly attempted to fix transformer fuse during a drizzle - High Court upheld Trial Court relying on absolute liability for inherently hazardous activities like electricity distribution - Appellant failed to hermetically seal transformer and maintain safety - Held - appellant cannot claim self negligence defense under strict liability - First Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-16].

Civil Law - Torts - Law of Torts - Strict Liability - Electricity distribution - Defense of contributory negligence - Appellant contended deceased was negligent by trying to join fuse illegally - High Court held that transmitting electricity involves hazardous and inherently dangerous activity attracting absolute liability - Liability is strict and absolute irrespective of precautions taken or alleged self negligence of the victim - Burden lies on electricity company to maintain safety and ensure transformers are hermetically sealed - Held - Appellant strictly liable to pay compensation regardless of victim alleged fault - [Paras 9-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Judgment and decree of the Trial Court affirmed - Any deposited amount with the Trial Court to be disbursed to the plaintiffs-claimants with accrued interest - Registry directed to return records and proceedings forthwith.

Civil Law - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Scope of interference with concurrent findings - Appellant challenged the judgment and decree which directed the removal of an illegal compound wall and bathroom encroaching upon a 10-foot area of a 20-foot-wide public road - Plaintiff proved the road reservation via a sanctioned layout plan from the Taluka Development Officer and a map prepared by the Revenue Talati - Appellant contended the findings were perverse and based on unauthorized measurements - High Court observed that power under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law and concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless shown to be grossly erroneous or contrary to settled principles - Held - No perversity found in the reasoning of the courts below - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-21].

Evidence Law - Presumption of Official Acts - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 - Authority of Revenue Officer - Map prepared by Talati-cum-Mantri at Exhibit 63 - Defendants argued that the Talati had no authority to measure non-agricultural plots and failed to provide written notice - High Court noted that PW-3 acted in his official capacity upon an application for removal of encroachment - Under Section 114 the law permits the court to presume that official acts are regularly performed - No rebuttal evidence or material was produced by defendants to suggest mala fides - Held - Finding of encroachment based on the official map is justified - [Paras 13-15].

Civil Law - Framing and Decision on Issues - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XIV Rule 2 - Order XX Rule 5 and Order VIII Rule 6A - Failure to answer specific issues - Appellant argued that the Trial Court committed a serious error by not answering issues regarding the plaintiff's residence and breach of allotment conditions - High Court observed that the Trial Court supplied detailed reasons for not deliberating on those issues - These issues involved facts raised in the written statement that sought affirmative relief without a formal counterclaim or payment of ad-valorem court fees - Court is precluded from granting relief on unpleaded grounds or expanding the scope of the suit beyond the lis defined in the pleadings - Held - No illegality in the Trial Court's refusal to decide extraneous issues in the absence of a counterclaim - [Paras 18-19].

Civil Law - Local Government Duties - Gujarat Panchayats Act 1993 - Section 105 - Removal of Encroachments - The suit road was situated within the limits of the Village Panchayat - High Court emphasized that it is the statutory duty of the Panchayat to remove obstructions from public streets - Actions of the Revenue Talati in measuring the encroachment were within the legal framework governing panchayat administration - Held - The measurement and subsequent report cannot be deemed unauthorized - [Para 17].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts affirmed – Connected Civil Application for stay stands disposed of.