Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference Permissible – Miscarriage of Justice Avoided – Appellate court found trial court’s acquittal perverse due to misreading and omission of critical evidence – Held: Acquittal of accused 1 to 5 reversed, convictions recorded based on consistent and corroborated evidence [Paras 31-32, 58].

Eyewitnesses – Injured Witnesses Credible – Conviction Based – PWs 1 and 2, both injured in the attack, provided clear, consistent testimony identifying accused – Supported by medical and recovery evidence – Court found no ground to doubt reliability [Paras 9-11, 15-19, 39].

Test Identification Parade – Fair and Valid – Witnesses Identified Accused Repeatedly – PW53 conducted parades for accused 1 to 5 with PWs 1 and 2 identifying the accused in multiple rounds – Accused failed to discredit TIP process – Identification upheld [Para 24].

Forensic Evidence – Fingerprints, Hair, DNA, and Blood Match – Forensic reports linked accused 2, 4, and 5 to the crime scene vehicle and weapons – Blood on MO4 knife matched deceased’s blood group – DNA confirmed presence of accused in getaway van [Paras 26-28, 52].

Conspiracy – Charge Not Proved – Evidence Lacked Specificity – Witnesses PW7 and PW9 failed to establish a common design among all ten accused – Court found no cogent motive or agreement connecting all accused – Acquittal of accused 6 to 10 under Section 120B upheld [Paras 33-36, 49].

Section 109 IPC – No Instigation Established – Accused 6 Allegedly Procured Vehicle – Mere ownership insufficient to establish active instigation – Acquittal on this count confirmed [Paras 56].

Section 201 IPC – Suppression of Evidence Not Proved – Evidence against accused 8, 9, and 10 found unreliable or uncorroborated – Alleged concealment of swords not adequately linked – Acquittal sustained [Paras 50, 57].

Delay in FIR and FIR Forwarding – Explained and Acceptable – Court found delay justified due to injuries of witness PW1 – No deliberate suppression of facts or masking of accused identity – Trial court’s inference found flawed [Paras 40-42].

Identification of Assailants – No Masks Worn – Prosecution Rebutted Mask Theory – Despite initial medical reports suggesting masked assailants, eyewitnesses and corroborative testimonies confirmed clear identification of attackers – Trial court’s reliance on this theory overturned [Paras 43-44].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment Imposed – Accused 1 to 5 convicted under Section 302 IPC – Accused 2 and 4 also sentenced under Sections 324 and 326 IPC respectively – Court imposed minimum statutory sentence citing mitigating factors – Concurrent sentences awarded – Victim compensation ordered [Paras 4-8 of sentencing order].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Presence Proved – Appellant assaulted his brother with a trident and bamboo lathi, packed the body in a gunny bag, and disposed of it in a jungle – Held: Evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.16, corroborated by recovery of the body and medical testimony, proved the crime beyond doubt [Paras 6, 8-10].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility of Verbal Shout – Res Gestae Covered – Victim’s last words calling for help and naming his assailant, heard by P.W.16, admissible as a dying declaration and as part of the same transaction under Section 6 of the Evidence Act – Held: Statement reliable and can form basis for conviction [Paras 9, 35].

Recovery of Weapon – Disclosure Under Section 27 – Trident Seized – Admissible Evidence – Appellant’s disclosure led to recovery of the murder weapon (trident) concealed near a well – Doctor opined injuries were possible by the recovered weapons – Held: Discovery valid, despite absence of blood on trident [Paras 4, 8-10, 31-33].

Minor Contradictions – Eyewitness Versions Consistent – Discrepancy Not Material – P.W.13 and P.W.16 gave slightly different versions of what was heard but corroborated each other on material facts – Held: Discrepancies minor and immaterial, consistent with age and perception variations [Paras 9, 30-32].

Motive – Familial Dispute Over Mango Tree – Sufficient Background – Motive established through testimony about dispute between appellant and deceased over falling mangoes from a tree – Held: While motive is not necessary in all cases, it supports prosecution story [Para 36].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC confirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment with fines upheld – Held: Trial court rightly relied on credible eyewitnesses, corroborating medical and forensic evidence [Paras 10, 37].
 

Unlawful Activities – Bail under UAPA – Long Incarceration – Bail Granted - Appellant, accused of involvement in ISIS-related recruitment and conspiracy, was in custody since 02.08.2023 – Charge not yet framed and further investigation ongoing – Court considered prolonged incarceration, bleak chances of trial commencement, and parity with similarly placed co-accused who was granted bail by Apex Court – Held: Incarceration of over 8 months without trial violates right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 – Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 6-8].

Grounds of Arrest – Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Pankaj Bansal Doctrine – Not Applicable Retrospectively – Appellant challenged arrest as illegal due to non-supply of written grounds – Court held that Pankaj Bansal judgment applies prospectively – Since arrest occurred before the judgment date (02.08.2023 vs 03.10.2023), protection under the precedent not available – Arrest upheld [Para 5].

Jurisdiction of NIA – FIR Registration – Section 6(5) of NIA Act – Validity Upheld - Challenge to FIR on ground that NIA registered it directly without prior State referral – Court relied on prior ruling in Ali K. v. Union of India to affirm that Central Government can direct investigation under Section 6(5) even without prior case registration – No illegality found in FIR registration [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to stringent conditions including travel restrictions, regular reporting, and non-interference with evidence or witnesses – Breach of any condition may lead to cancellation of bail [Para 8].
 

Civil Writ - Dealership Termination – Clause 5.1.4 MDG – Tampering Allegations – Termination Quashed – Dealership was terminated based on OEM MIDCO report of soldering marks on pulsar cards – Second OEM Dresser Wayne reported normal functioning during tests – Held: Clarificatory email relied on was never served or cited in show cause notice – Orders based on unshared evidence and contradictory standards – Termination invalid [Paras 5-9, 42-43, 48-49, 60].

Natural Justice – Reliance on Uncommunicated Evidence – Violation Found – Clarificatory email by MIDCO, used to draw adverse inference, was not included in the show cause notice or supplied to the petitioner – Held: This breached the petitioner’s right to fair hearing and invalidated the termination proceedings [Paras 48, 60(i)].

Contradictory Findings – Same Appellate Authority, Divergent Decisions – Arbitrary Action – Appellate authority took opposing stands in similar cases (e.g., Firozabad Fuels), despite comparable OEM reports – Held: Disparate treatment under identical circumstances is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 – Termination set aside [Paras 44-46, 60(iii)].

Interpretation of Clause 5.1.4 MDG – No Proven Manipulation – Termination Unwarranted – Clause requires evidence of likelihood to manipulate delivery – No short supply or evidence of undue benefit shown – Sole reliance on soldering marks insufficient – Held: Conditions for invoking Clause 5.1.4 not satisfied [Paras 24, 47, 60(iv)].

Expert Reports – Personal Views Substituted – Procedural Lapse – Licensing authority's interpretation of OEM Dresser Wayne report was speculative and unsupported by evidence – Held: Decision-making based on personal views instead of expert findings not permissible [Paras 42, 49, 60(ii)].

Delay in Show Cause Notice – Directory Not Mandatory – No Invalidity – Show cause issued after 30 days, beyond Clause 8.5.6 timeframe – Held: Timeline is directory, not mandatory – Delay does not vitiate proceedings alone [Para 43].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Termination Orders Set Aside – Court quashed orders dated 12.01.2023 and 15.05.2023 – Directed refund of pre-deposit for appeal – Held: Termination process was procedurally flawed and substantively unjustified [Paras 60-61].

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Discretion Properly Exercised - Petitioner challenged trial court’s appointment of Commissioner in a suit for declaration and injunction—Trial Court limited commissioner’s mandate to noting physical features only—Held: Commissioner’s appointment does not amount to illegal collection of evidence; Court below exercised discretion judiciously [Paras 5, 10–13].

Possession Dispute – Preliminary Recording of Site Features Permissible – Evidence Not Yet Led – Dispute over nature of land use (agricultural vs non-agricultural) and possession justified early local investigation – Held: Preserving state of property at early stage aids fair adjudication, especially when physical features may change over time [Paras 4, 7–9, 12–13].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – No Material Irregularity – Article 227 - High Court found no jurisdictional error or material illegality in trial court’s decision – Petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Order appointing Advocate Commissioner affirmed – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications also closed [Paras 14].
 

Criminal Law – Summoning CDRs under Section 91 CrPC – Protection of Accused's Right to Fair Trial – Petition Allowed – Petitioner, a taxi driver accused in an NDPS case, filed for preservation of call detail records and tower location of his phone and that of the raiding party to establish his location and alleged illegal arrest – Trial Court dismissed the application citing privacy and security of investigating officials – Held: As per Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar v. UOI, electronic records are admissible, and location data can be summoned with caller details redacted to balance privacy and justice – Order rejecting the application set aside [Paras 1–6].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of Tower Location – Right to Present Defence – Supreme Court Precedent Applied – Reiterated that Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act permit electronic data such as CDRs and tower logs, provided procedural requirements are met – Court directed only relevant tower location data to be provided to avoid compromising investigation or privacy – Fair trial rights take precedence in permitting limited access to digital evidence [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Trial Court Order Set Aside – CDRs to be Produced with Restrictions – High Court allowed the criminal revision, quashed the impugned order dated 08.05.2024, and directed limited production of mobile data for tower location without revealing full call records – Rights of accused to prove innocence must be preserved while maintaining safeguards on investigator privacy [Para 6].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing Of FIR - NDPS Act – Absence of Contraband in Forensic Report – FIR Quashed – Petition Allowed - Petitioners were booked under Sections 8/22 & 29 NDPS Act for alleged possession of 3.376 kg of Mephedrone (MD) – FSL reports (both initial and control sample recheck) confirmed the seized substance was a neutral material and did not contain any narcotic or psychotropic substance – Held: Since no contraband was found, continuation of criminal proceedings is abuse of process of law – FIR and proceedings quashed [Paras 2.1–3, 6].

NDPS Act – Re-Sampling and Retesting – Permissible Only in Exceptional Circumstances – Procedure Clarified - Court reiterated that retesting of narcotic samples is not a matter of routine and is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, as held in Thana Singh v. CBN – Application for retesting must be filed within 15 days of initial FSL report – No re-sampling/retesting to be entertained beyond that period unless justified by compelling circumstances [Paras 3–5].

Investigation Protocol – Mandate for Strict Adherence to NDPS Guidelines – Directions Issued - Directions issued to Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to circulate this judgment to all SHOs – Judicial Officers entrusted with NDPS cases to be guided by this ruling for future compliance [Paras 7–8].

Quashing – Criminal Proceedings Based on Misidentified Substance – Abuse of Process - FSL confirmed that substance was not a contraband – Prosecution under NDPS Act not sustainable – Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent miscarriage of justice – FIR and all related proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 6].

Taxation Law - Income Tax Settlement – Grant of Immunity – Scope under Section 245H – Immunity Upheld – The Revenue assailed the Settlement Commission’s order only to the extent it granted immunity from prosecution and penalty to the assessee company and its directors – Held: The Settlement Commission’s satisfaction on full and true disclosure, manner of deriving the income, and cooperation of the assessee was not challenged by the Revenue – Without such challenge, the Commission’s grant of immunity stands legally sound – Writ petition seeking interference with immunity granted is not maintainable [Paras 1, 12-16]. 
 
Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission – Full and True Disclosure – Conditions for Valid Application – Commission Empowered – The Court observed that once the Commission admits an application under Section 245D(1) and finds it valid under Section 245D(2C), it implies compliance with Section 245C(1) requirements – Held: Where the Revenue did not dispute the Settlement Order itself, the grounds for interfering with the immunity portion do not survive – Application was valid, and jurisdiction was properly exercised [Paras 611, 13-15]. 
 
Judicial Review – Scope and Limitation – No Error in Exercise of Power by Commission – 
Held: The Commission recorded satisfaction that all statutory conditions under Section 245H were fulfilled – In absence of any plea disputing this satisfaction, no case for interference is made out – Petition dismissed as no jurisdictional error or perversity shown [Paras 16-17]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Commission’s order granting immunity from prosecution and penalty sustained – No merit found in Revenue’s challenge [Para 17]. 
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Copyright Infringement – Section 63 of Copyright Act – Mens Rea Essential – Proceedings Quashed - Accused were directors of a publishing company that printed a book allegedly plagiarizing respondent's blog – Held: To constitute offence under Section 63, publication must be done “knowingly” – No material in complaint indicating petitioners were aware of plagiarism at time of publication – Hence, no criminal liability made out [Paras 6–9].
Mens Rea – Knowledge of Infringement Required – Conduct Shows Bona Fide - Petitioners withdrew book from public domain promptly upon learning about issue and informed complainant – This conduct negates “culpable mental state” – Allegations of deliberate infringement considered perfunctory and unsupported by specific facts [Paras 7–9].
Criminal vs Civil Remedy – Parallel Suit Maintained – No Bar to Civil Proceedings - Court clarified that quashing of criminal case does not impact civil suit pending before District Court for the same copyright violation – Observations limited to criminal liability [Para 9].
Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers to Prevent Abuse – Petition Allowed - High Court exercised power under Section 482 to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Proceedings in C.C. No. 625/2018 quashed against petitioners [Paras 9–10].
Decision – Petition Allowed – Criminal proceedings against Petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 to 5, 7 & 8) in C.C. No. 625/2018 quashed – Civil suit proceedings to continue unaffected [Para 10].