NDPS Act – Bail in Commercial Quantity Cases – Prolonged Incarceration as a Ground – The petitioner was charged under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act for allegedly facilitating drug trafficking by arranging accommodation and making financial transactions – Two previous bail applications were rejected due to prima facie involvement and statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act – Held: Where trial is unduly delayed due to prosecution’s failure, prolonged incarceration of over three years without conviction violates Article 21 of the Constitution, justifying conditional bail even in commercial quantity cases – Bail granted with stringent conditions to prevent misuse [Paras 5, 10-12].

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Delay in Trial Due to Prosecution Lapses – The prosecution failed to summon necessary witnesses initially and later sought additional witnesses through Section 311 Cr.P.C. – The trial court dismissed the request, leading to further delay – Held: When trial delay is solely due to prosecution's lethargy and not attributable to the accused, bail should be granted to prevent infringement of fundamental rights [Paras 6, 11].

Bail Jurisprudence – Article 21 vs. Section 37 NDPS Act – The court relied on Ankur Choudhary v. State of M.P. (SLP (Crl.) No. 4648/2024) where the Supreme Court ruled that failure to conclude trial within a reasonable time, leading to prolonged incarceration, overrides the statutory embargo of Section 37 NDPS Act – Held: The right to personal liberty under Article 21 takes precedence over stringent bail conditions when trial delay is exclusively due to the prosecution – Bail granted as continued detention would be unjustified [Paras 8-10].

NDPS Cases – Evidentiary Considerations at Bail Stage – The prosecution presented hotel manager's testimony (PW4) to establish the petitioner's involvement – The court clarified that observations on evidence in the bail order are not binding on the trial court – Held: Bail considerations do not determine guilt; the trial court must independently assess evidence on merits – Bail granted on execution of bond with sureties and other restrictive conditions [Para 12].

Decision: Bail granted to the petitioner with stringent conditions including a bond of ₹75,000 with two solvent sureties, restrictions on travel, surrender of passport, and prohibition from tampering with evidence.
Trial court directed to conclude trial within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
Prosecution’s failure to complete the trial within a reasonable timeframe led to prolonged incarceration, violating Article 21 of the Constitution – Warranting bail despite the statutory embargo under Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act.
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Conviction Converted to Section 304 Part-II IPC - The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to establish that the appellant murdered the deceased due to an alleged illicit relationship with the acquitted co-accused – The appellant suffered injuries during the incident, and the evidence suggested a sudden quarrel – The prosecution failed to prove premeditation, and the attack was not indiscriminate or cruel – Held: The case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight in heat of passion), warranting conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC [Paras 32-33].

Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Chain of Events Must Be Complete - The conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence – The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, requiring a complete chain of circumstances ruling out any other hypothesis – The prosecution failed to conclusively establish motive, and the discovery of the weapon was delayed – Held: Prosecution failed to meet the standard of proof for a murder conviction [Paras 5-6].

Injuries on the Accused – Scuffle Before the Incident – Benefit of Doubt Given - The medical evidence established that the appellant suffered injuries, including an incised wound possibly caused by a knife – The appellant reported a scuffle when seeking medical treatment – This suggested a mutual fight rather than a premeditated attack – Held: The presence of injuries on the accused supports the defense claim of a sudden fight, justifying conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC [Paras 17-19].

Discovery of Weapon – Delay in Recovery – Doubt on Prosecution Case - The alleged discovery of the murder weapon (knife) occurred nine days after the appellant's arrest – The Court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of investigating officers regarding the weapon's location – The prosecution failed to explain how the weapon was concealed in another person’s land – Held: Delay in recovery raises reasonable doubt, weakening the prosecution’s case [Para 21].

Decision – Conviction Modified – Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone - The Court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC – Considering that the appellant had already undergone six years and 17 days of imprisonment, the sentence was limited to time served – Held: Appeal partly allowed, conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside, appellant convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and released [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction - Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Essential Ingredients Not Established – Acquittal Ordered – The prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of an illegal gratification to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act – In the present case, the complainant's testimony was uncorroborated by independent witnesses – Shadow witness (PW-2) did not accompany the complainant or hear any demand – The accused had already processed 75% of the complainant's bill before the alleged demand was made – No substantive evidence proving demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt – Mere recovery of tainted currency, without clear proof of demand, is insufficient to convict – Held: Conviction set aside, accused acquitted [Paras 54-64].

Criminal Law – Standard of Proof in Bribery Cases – Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof – Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – If the prosecution fails to establish demand and acceptance, the accused is entitled to acquittal – The Court must not convict based on mere suspicion or recovery of tainted money without proving a voluntary acceptance of bribe – Held: The prosecution evidence failed to meet the required standard, leading to acquittal [Paras 65-73].

Defence of False Implication – Burden of Proof on Accused – Preponderance of Probability Sufficient – When an accused offers an explanation for handling tainted money (e.g., that it was forcibly thrust upon him), the burden to disprove it is not as high as proving beyond reasonable doubt – Accused successfully demonstrated that complainant, a contractor and son of a union leader, had motive to implicate him falsely – The Court found the defence plausible – Held: Acquittal justified [Paras 69-71].
 

Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Compounding of Offence Permissible at Any Stage – The petitioner, an exporter, had issued a cheque in favor of the respondent for Rs. 43,73,398/- towards settlement of outstanding dues—On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Account Closed’—Legal notice was issued, but the petitioner failed to make payment—The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment and imposed a compensation of Rs. 53,73,398/-—The conviction and sentence were upheld by the appellate court—During the pendency of the revision before the High Court, parties amicably settled the dispute and filed a Joint Compromise Memo—Held: Section 147 of the NI Act permits compounding of offences at any stage, and the High Court has inherent powers to secure the ends of justice by allowing the compromise [Paras 9-15].

Jurisdiction of High Court – Power to Compound Offences under Section 147 NI Act – Overriding Effect on Section 320 Cr.P.C. – The respondent opposed the compounding, arguing that the conviction had already been confirmed by the appellate court—The Court held that Section 147 of the NI Act, being a special provision, overrides the restrictions in Section 320 Cr.P.C.—Even at the revisional stage, the offence can be compounded if both parties agree—Relied on Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1328 and M/s. Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta (2017) 7 SCC 558—Held: The inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked to permit compounding, even after the appellate court’s confirmation of conviction, to uphold the objective of NI Act, which is primarily compensatory rather than punitive [Paras 26-38].

Legal Recognition of Mediation Settlements in Criminal Cases – Courts Encouraged to Uphold Amicable Resolutions – The parties voluntarily settled the dispute in mediation, and the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 32,50,000/- as full and final settlement—The Court noted that in cheque dishonour cases, courts must encourage settlements to reduce litigation and ensure financial restitution to the complainant—Held: The settlement is legally valid, and the conviction is set aside in view of the compromise [Paras 45-50].

Decision: The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo dated 30.01.2025. The conviction and sentence passed in C.A. No. 421 of 2019, dated 18.03.2022, by the XXI Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No. 6549 of 2017, dated 08.11.2019, by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track No.I, Allikulam, Chennai, are modified. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner stand annulled. The petitioner, Agamadou Ibraguime Shuaid, shall be treated as acquitted on account of compounding of the offence with the complainant/respondent.
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Rule Against Reopening Same Issue Twice – The petitioner’s income for AY 2017-18 was previously reassessed under Section 147 read with Section 144B based on allegations of undervaluation of shares – The assessment order passed on 29.03.2022 accepted the petitioner’s explanation and made no additions – The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated fresh reassessment proceedings on 28.03.2024, relying on the same facts and assumptions – Held: Reopening the assessment for the same issue is impermissible – The impugned order and notice are quashed [Paras 1-7, 19-21, 24-25].

Income Tax – Reassessment Based on New Information – Absence of Fresh Tangible Material – The AO claimed that fresh information was received indicating that the petitioner had transferred the entire Friends Colony property through a sale of shares – The petitioner demonstrated that TREPL, the company in question, owned only two floors and not the entire property – No new material was provided by the AO to contradict the petitioner’s position – Held: In absence of new tangible material, reopening of assessment is invalid [Paras 16-22].

Income Tax – Requirement to Consider Assessee’s Reply Before Passing Reassessment Order – Section 148A(d), Income Tax Act – The petitioner provided detailed replies to both the earlier and latest reassessment proceedings, explaining that TREPL owned only two floors of the Friends Colony property – The AO disregarded this explanation and proceeded with reassessment – Held: Failure to consider the assessee’s reply before passing an order under Section 148A(d) renders the reassessment order unsustainable [Paras 23-24].

Decision: The impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and the impugned notice dated 22.04.2024 issued under Section 148 are set aside – Reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 quashed as they were based on the same issue previously adjudicated – Court refrains from examining the limitation issue [Paras 25-27].
 

Bail in NDPS Cases – Section 37 NDPS Act – Prolonged Pre-Trial Custody – Bail Granted - The petitioner was accused of supplying narcotic drugs based on the disclosure statement of co-accused and call detail records – The prosecution failed to produce independent corroborative evidence such as recovery from the petitioner – The Supreme Court has granted bail in similar cases involving prolonged incarceration – Held: Given that the petitioner has spent over a year in custody and considering judicial precedents, bail is granted [Paras 14-18].

Disclosure Statements under NDPS Act – No Independent Corroboration – Insufficient to Deny Bail - The petitioner’s implication was based solely on the disclosure statements of co-accused – Relying on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the Court held that such statements made to police officers are inadmissible as evidence – Held: Mere disclosure statements without recovery do not satisfy the stringent requirements of Section 37 NDPS Act, justifying bail [Paras 10-11].

Call Detail Records – Mere Telephonic Conversations Do Not Prove Guilt – No Direct Evidence of Drug Trade - The prosecution relied on call detail records showing conversations between the petitioner and the co-accused – The petitioner did not explain these calls – The Court held that call records, without further evidence linking them to illegal activities, do not conclusively establish guilt – Held: Petitioner entitled to bail as prosecution failed to meet the burden under Section 37 NDPS Act [Para 9].

Right to Speedy Trial – Fundamental Right Under Article 21 – Bail Granted on Grounds of Delay - The petitioner had been in custody for over a year, with no substantial progress in trial – The Court relied on Tajmul SK v. State of West Bengal, CrA 3047-2024, where prolonged incarceration without trial commencement was held to justify bail – Held: Bail granted as further pre-trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 16-17].

Decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court – Bail Granted with Conditions - The Court allowed the bail application, imposing conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensuring the petitioner’s availability for trial – The petitioner was required to furnish personal identification details and was restricted from possessing firearms until acquittal – Held: Petition allowed, bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 20-30].

Civil Law - Permanent injunction - Land Assignment – Cancellation of DKT Patta – Validity of Cancellation Process – Procedural Irregularity – Rejection of Claim – The Plaintiff challenged the cancellation of a DKT Patta and sought a permanent injunction against dispossession – The First Appellate Court found that the cancellation was done after due notice and that the Plaintiff failed to cultivate the land as per the conditions – Held: Substituted service of cancellation notice was justified as the Plaintiff was not residing in the village – No legal infirmity in the cancellation process [Paras 19-21].

Possession Rights – Injunction Suit Without Declaratory Relief – Maintainability – The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction without challenging the cancellation of the patta – The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove possession at the time of filing the suit – Mere past possession and kist receipts until 1980 did not establish possession in 1987 – Injunction suit without a declaratory relief challenging patta cancellation is not maintainable – Held: Plaintiff had no possessory rights as of the suit date, and an injunction could not be granted [Paras 22-24].

Jurisdiction – Authority of Mandal Revenue Officer to Cancel Assignment – Board Standing Order No. 15 – The Plaintiff contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer lacked the authority to cancel the assignment after 20 years – The First Appellate Court rejected this argument, holding that the Plaintiff violated conditions of the assignment and was not cultivating the land – Held: Cancellation was within jurisdiction and followed due process – Plaintiff failed to take legal steps to challenge the cancellation order in proper forums [Paras 17-18].

Substituted Service – Validity of Notice – Awareness of Cancellation Proceedings – The Plaintiff argued that substituted service of cancellation notice was impermissible under Board Standing Orders – The Court held that as the Plaintiff’s whereabouts were unknown, substituted service was justified – Evidence indicated that the Plaintiff was aware of the cancellation but failed to challenge it in a timely manner – Held: No procedural irregularity in the service of notice [Paras 19-20].

Burden of Proof – Plaintiff's Failure to Prove Possession – Adverse Findings by First Appellate Court – The Plaintiff relied on kist receipts from 1962 to 1980 but failed to show continuous possession beyond that period – The First Appellate Court observed that revenue records did not support possession after 1980, and the Plaintiff failed to pay kist after that year – Held: Inference drawn by the First Appellate Court that the Plaintiff was not in possession at the time of suit was correct – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-23].

Findings of First Appellate Court – No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court held that the First Appellate Court properly appreciated evidence and found that the Plaintiff was neither in possession nor had challenged the patta cancellation in appropriate legal forums – No substantial question of law was involved in the Second Appeal – Held: Second Appeal dismissed, and injunction relief denied [Paras 24-26].
 

Civil Law - Cancellation of a Conditional Gift – Violation of Conditions – Reversion to Donor – The donor gifted land to the Gram Panchayat for construction of a bus stand—Condition stipulated that if not used for the specified purpose, the property would revert—Panchayat attempted to construct a school—Held: Condition violated—Gift stands cancelled—Property reverts to the legal heirs of the donor [Paras 14-25].

Limitation for Recovery of Possession – Article 66 of Limitation Act Applied – The Trial Court wrongly applied Article 59 of the Limitation Act and held the suit time-barred after three years—Held: Since the suit was for recovery of possession due to breach of condition, the correct provision was Article 66, which provides a twelve-year limitation period—Suit was filed within time and was maintainable [Paras 15-19].

Encroachments and Non-Compliance with Gift Terms – Right to Reclaim – Advocate Commissioner's report showed unauthorized encroachments and no bus stand construction—Panchayat failed to comply with the gift’s purpose—Held: Breach of conditions justified reversion—Possession granted to appellants [Paras 22-24].

Decision: The appeal is allowed—Trial Court’s decree and judgment set aside—Gift deed dated 04.10.1968 is cancelled—Defendants directed to deliver vacant possession of the property to the plaintiffs within four months—Failure to comply will entitle plaintiffs to take legal action—No order as to costs.

Limitation Law – Condonation of Delay – Family Court Appeal – Held: Delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is not inordinate – The explanation provided by the applicant is reasonable – Courts must adopt a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach in matrimonial matters – Delay condoned [Paras 10, 13, 24].

Limitation Law – Family Courts Act vs. Hindu Marriage Act – Inconsistency in Limitation Period – Held: The period of limitation for filing an appeal under the Family Courts Act remains 30 days, while under the amended Hindu Marriage Act, it is 90 days – Lack of uniformity causes prejudice to litigants – Desirable for a uniform limitation period for appeals in matrimonial matters [Paras 18-21].

Legal Interpretation – Supreme Court and High Court Precedents – Held: Courts should adopt a liberal approach in matrimonial disputes – Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (AIR 2002 SC 591), the inconsistency in limitation periods needs legislative intervention – The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shivram Dodanna Shetty v. Sharmila Shivram Shetty (2017(1) Mh.LJ) held that the 90-day limitation should apply uniformly [Paras 16, 22-23].

Decision – Delay condoned – Appeal directed to be registered and listed for admission – Recommendation for legislative intervention to harmonize limitation periods under the Family Courts Act and Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 24-26].