Criminal Law – Conviction under Gangsters Act – Appellant convicted under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act – Trial court sentenced appellant to four years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine – Prosecution’s evidence primarily based on a single FIR and witness testimonies – High Court examines procedural lapses, evidence admissibility, and credibility of witnesses [Paras 1-88]. 

Evidence Act – Hostile Witnesses and Corroborative Evidence – Court scrutinizes the testimony of key witnesses, including hostile witnesses – Emphasis on corroborative evidence linking appellant to the gang activities – Court addresses the legal standards for invoking Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act [Paras 62-70, 57-61]. 

Acquittal in Base Case and Impact on Gangsters Act Conviction – Appellant previously acquitted in a related murder case – Appellant’s acquittal used to challenge the Gangsters Act conviction – Court discusses the implications of acquittal on subsequent convictions under the Gangsters Act [Paras 34-48]. 

Procedural Lapses in Gangsters Act Application – Examination of procedural requirements under the Gangsters Act – Collector’s mechanical approval without proper enquiry – Importance of reasoned decisions by authorities highlighted [Paras 75-82]. 

Decision – Appeals partially allowed – Conviction under Gangsters Act set aside due to procedural deficiencies and lack of sufficient evidence – Appellant acquitted of charges under the Gangsters Act – High Court emphasizes need for proper procedural adherence and reliable evidence in such convictions [Para 14-15]. 

Public Interest Litigation – Welfare of Senior Citizens – Petition initiated suo motu based on a letter highlighting the issues faced by senior widows and widowers. The court examined the detailed counter affidavit filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi, outlining the management and implementation of pension schemes and financial assistance programs for widows, widowers, and senior citizens. Court concluded no further orders necessary and closed the petition [Paras 1-4].

Financial Assistance Schemes – Delhi Government – Two departments, namely the Department of Women and Child Development and the Department of Social Welfare, are responsible for the administration of these schemes. The schemes provide financial aid to widows, women in distress, and senior citizens residing in Delhi, ensuring social security and financial assistance [Paras 2-3].

Financial Aid to Widows and Women in Distress – The Department of Women and Child Development oversees the Delhi Pension Scheme to Women in Distress, offering Rs. 2500 per month, and the Financial Assistance for Marriage of Daughters of Poor Widows and Orphan Girls, providing Rs. 30,000 for marriage expenses [Para 3].

Senior Citizens’ Welfare – The Department of Social Welfare manages the Old Age Assistance scheme, providing financial aid to elderly residents of Delhi, ensuring a monthly pension for eligible senior citizens based on specific criteria [Para 3].

Decision:

Petition closed – No further orders required – Court acknowledged the detailed steps taken by the GNCTD for the welfare of widows, widowers, and senior citizens [Para 4].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted for the murder of Vijay Bahadur Singh alias Angnu – Trial court’s judgment based on testimonies of eye-witnesses who were relatives of the deceased – High Court examined contradictions and discrepancies in witness statements and procedural errors by the police – Witnesses’ reliability questioned due to inconsistencies and lack of independent corroboration – High Court found prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-50].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Contradictions – Eyewitnesses were close relatives of the deceased, leading to potential bias – Testimonies contained significant contradictions regarding the sequence of events, presence of light at the crime scene, and immediate actions following the crime – Inconsistencies cast doubt on reliability and credibility [Paras 33-40].

Procedural Errors – Investigation and FIR Filing – Discrepancies noted in the timing of FIR filing and police’s arrival at the crime scene – Contradictory statements by police witnesses regarding handling of evidence and procedural steps further weakened prosecution’s case [Paras 41-48].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Convictions Set Aside – Appeals allowed – Convictions set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Appellants on bail not required to surrender – Bail bonds canceled [Para 51-52].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Dishonor – Conviction and Sentence: Petitioner convicted by the trial court for dishonoring a cheque issued to discharge liability. Trial court sentenced petitioner to simple imprisonment for three months and compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/-. On appeal, compensation reduced to Rs. 3,00,000/- by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu [Paras 1-4].

Compounding of Offense – Section 147 of the Act: Petitioner and respondent settled the dispute amicably for Rs. 3,60,000/-. Entire compensation amount agreed upon paid or arranged to be paid. Respondent raised no objection to compounding the offense upon receiving Rs. 96,000/- deposited in trial court [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Offense compounded under Section 147 of the Act. Judgments of conviction and sentence by lower courts quashed. Petitioner acquitted. Trial court directed to release Rs. 96,000/- to the respondent [Paras 9-10].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Procedural Compliance – Appeal against conviction for possession of contraband (charas) – Appellant was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fined rupees one lakh – High Court found non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act – Samples not drawn in the presence of a Magistrate – Prosecution failed to establish primary evidence as required by law – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-22].

Facts of the Case – On 09.12.2006, a police team, while on patrol duty, apprehended the appellant who attempted to flee upon seeing the police – Personal search revealed 2kgs of charas – Independent witnesses, PW-5 and PW-6, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case – The police officials’ testimonies were consistent but did not meet the statutory requirement of sampling in the presence of a Magistrate [Paras 2-12].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Independent witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution’s version of events – Police officials’ testimonies were insufficient to uphold the conviction in absence of compliance with Section 52A – Hostility of witnesses impacted the evidentiary value of the seizure and recovery process [Paras 9-12].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Importance of Magistrate’s Presence – Supreme Court precedents emphasized the need for Magistrate’s presence during the sampling of seized contraband – Failure to follow this procedure creates doubt about the integrity of the evidence – Prosecution’s non-compliance with Section 52A led to the inadmissibility of the CFSL report as primary evidence [Paras 15-21].

Legal Precedents – Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Mohan Lal, Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, Yusuf v. State, Bothilal v. Narcotic Control Bureau, and Mohd. Khalid v. State of Telangana were cited to highlight the necessity of following the procedural requirements under Section 52A of the NDPS Act for a valid conviction [Paras 16-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Release warrants to be prepared immediately [Paras 22-23].

Civil Procedure – Striking Off Defence – Appellants’ defense struck off for breaching court undertaking – Alleged breach involved executing an agreement to sell part of the disputed property – Agreement included transferring possession to third party – Appellants argued mere execution of agreement does not constitute sale, transfer, or alienation – Court found agreement did not create interest or charge on the property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act – Order of striking off defense set aside, suit to be decided on merits [Paras 1-35].

Agreement to Sell – Interpretation – Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act clarifies that agreement to sell does not create interest in or charge on property – Court emphasized agreement alone does not equate to sale or transfer – Notarized original agreement lacked additional handwritten contents alleging part payment and possession transfer – Trial court’s reliance on contested handwritten contents deemed erroneous [Paras 18-34].

Order XXXIX Rule 11 CPC – Applicability – Provision allows striking off defense for willful disobedience of court orders – Court noted provision is directory, not mandatory – Each case to be judged on its facts – Striking off defense in absence of conclusive evidence deemed harsh [Paras 30-35].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned order of striking off defense quashed – Suit remanded to trial court for decision on merits – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Para 35].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Rape Allegations: Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in a case registered under Section 376 IPC. The petitioner allegedly committed sexual assault on the prosecutrix under the false promise of marriage. The trial court denied bail, and the petitioner approached the High Court.

Prima Facie Evidence – Consent and Misconception: The court observed that the prosecutrix was in a long-standing relationship with the petitioner and had engaged in consensual intercourse on multiple occasions. The prosecutrix’s subsequent resumption of the relationship cast doubt on her claim that her consent was obtained under a misconception of fact arising from a false promise of marriage.

Grant of Bail – Factors Considered: The court considered the nature of the accusation, the petitioner’s young age, and the prosecutrix’s conduct. The petitioner had been in custody for over a year, and the chargesheet was already filed. The court found a prima facie case for granting bail.

Decision: Bail granted subject to conditions, including furnishing a bail bond, appearing before the trial court on each hearing, not tampering with witnesses, and not leaving the territorial limits without permission.

Narcotics Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition to quash FIR and arrest memo in narcotics case – Seizure of LSD and ganja gummies through controlled delivery – Petitioner claimed possession for self-consumption, disputing invocation of Sections 22(c) and 28 of NDPS Act – Court found prima facie case and upheld investigation citing proper procedure and pending qualitative and quantitative analysis [Paras 1-34].

Commercial Quantity – Definition and Interpretation – Dispute over LSD quantity as small or commercial – Court emphasized importance of forensic analysis for determining drug content – Rejected argument based on assumptions of drug quantity per blotter paper – Followed Supreme Court precedents affirming consideration of total weight including carrier material for commercial quantity assessment [Paras 8-26].

Judicial Restraint – Interference in Investigation – Reiterated principles for limited exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Emphasized need for thorough investigation before final judicial determination – Petition dismissed to allow due process [Paras 27-34].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Court upheld ongoing investigation and rejected petitioner's claims due to substantial material indicating commercial quantity of LSD and ganja gummies.

Octroi Duty – Valuation Methodology – Petitioner challenges the levy of octroi based on MRP less ad hoc deductions as per Rule 2(7)(b) of Octroi Rules, 1965 – Argument that determination should be based on invoice value under Rule 2(7)(a) – Court finds Petitioner's protest against levy from 2001 and subsequent Small Causes Court appeals favoring Petitioner’s contentions – However, Petitioner's failure to protest from 1995 to 2001 without any reservation weakens the claim for retrospective relief – Relief sought for refund considered unjust enrichment due to burden likely passed to consumers – Petition dismissed but leaves open issues of law for future determinations [Paras 1-42].

Unjust Enrichment – Equity Considerations – Constitutional Bench precedents cited against refund of taxes or duties passed on to consumers – Principle applied to deny refund to Petitioner despite possible misapplication of valuation rules – Court emphasizes that equity prevents recovery of such refunds when it leads to unjust enrichment of the claimant [Paras 32-39].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Issues of law regarding valuation under clauses (a) or (b) of Rule 2(7) kept open for case-by-case determination – Interim relief vacated due to GST subsumption of octroi – No order as to costs [Paras 40-42].