Land Acquisition – National Highways Act, 1956 – Successive Declarations under Section 3D – Validity – Challenge to second notification dated 10.07.2024 issued under Section 3D(1) without issuing a fresh Section 3A notification – Allegation of change in alignment and arbitrary inclusion of petitioner’s land – Court held that no change in alignment was established – Issuance of two Section 3D notifications necessitated due to obstruction by landowners preventing survey – Both notifications part of same acquisition proceedings and issued within one year of Section 3A notification – Act, 1956 does not prohibit successive Section 3D declarations – Second notification held valid [Paras 6.2.1–6.2.13].

National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3C – Right of Objection – Limited Scope – Petitioner alleged denial of opportunity to file objections before issuance of second Section 3D notification – Section 3A notification duly published in Gazette and newspapers – Petitioner failed to file objections within statutory period – Right under Section 3C confined only to objection regarding use of land and not acquisition per se – Failure to object within time disentitles petitioner from raising grievance later – No violation of principles of natural justice found [Paras 6.3.1–6.3.9].

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Land – Bar of Judicial Challenge – Upon publication of declaration under Section 3D(1), land vests absolutely in Central Government under Section 3D(2) – Section 3D(4) bars challenge to such declaration before any court – Once vesting takes place, acquisition cannot be interdicted in writ jurisdiction [Paras 6.4.4–6.4.5, 7.1].

Compensation – Section 3G(3) – Alleged Procedural Lapse – Remedy under Section 3G(5) – Petitioner contended non-compliance with mandatory requirement of public notice before determination of compensation – Court held that even assuming procedural irregularity, it would not vitiate acquisition – Dispute relates to quantum and classification of land – Statutory remedy of arbitration under Section 3G(5) held to be efficacious – Writ petition not maintainable on this ground [Paras 6.4.1–6.4.6].

Judicial Review – Highway Projects – Limited Interference – Decisions regarding alignment, feasibility and extent of land acquisition lie within domain of technical experts – Courts not equipped to evaluate technical and policy considerations – Interference warranted only in cases of patent illegality or mala fides – No mala fides or statutory violation established in present case [Paras 6.5.1–6.5.4].

Public Interest vs. Private Interest – Infrastructure Projects – Widening and four-laning of NH-334D held to be project of national importance – Individual hardship cannot override larger public interest – Appropriate relief lies in fair compensation rather than quashing acquisition – Balance struck in favour of public interest while safeguarding right to seek enhanced compensation [Paras 6.6.1–6.6.5, 7.3–7.4].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Acquisition proceedings upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to seek enhancement of compensation through arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 – Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on merits of compensation or classification of land [Paras 8–8.1].

Tenancy Law  – Amendment of Pleadings – Subsequent Events – Article 227 – Interference Declined – Tenant challenged order permitting landlord to amend eviction petition after commencement of trial – Amendment sought to bring on record fact that tenant acquired another shop room in same locality suitable for business – Held: No illegality or perversity in order permitting amendment [Paras 1–4, 8–10].

Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Applicability to Rent Control Proceedings – Landlord sought amendment on ground of subsequent development which came to her knowledge only later – Amendment not claimed as matter of right but on showing due diligence – Rent Control Court justified in exercising discretion to allow amendment [Paras 2–3, 8–9].

Subsequent Events – Relevance in Rent Control Cases – Subsequent acquisition of another shop room by tenant in same municipality has direct bearing on eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act – Such events can be brought on record at any stage to enable court to mould relief and avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 6, 9–10].

Due Diligence – Assessment – Objection of tenant that landlord had prior knowledge of subsequent event rejected – License issued by Municipality dated 01.09.2025 supported landlord’s plea that knowledge was acquired only recently – Plea of lack of due diligence not substantiated [Para 9].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court will not interfere with interlocutory orders of Rent Control Court unless there is patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – Order permitting amendment found to be reasoned and bona fide [Paras 8–10].

Precedents – Subsequent Events – Reliance placed on Korah Abraham v. Varughis and Benjeena v. Pappachan – Subsequent events may be considered if they have fundamental impact on main issue and do not result in abuse of process – Principles applied to facts of present case [Paras 6, 9–10].

Decision – Original Petition dismissed – Order dated 26.11.2025 permitting amendment upheld – No merit found for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 [Paras 9–10].

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Insurer’s Liability – Absence of Fitness Certificate – Accident occurred after expiry of fitness certificate of offending pickup vehicle – Insurance policy contained no condition regarding fitness certificate – Evidence of insurer’s witness admitted absence of such condition – Held: Mere absence or expiry of fitness certificate does not constitute breach of policy conditions under Section 149 MV Act so as to absolve insurer of liability – Insurer liable to satisfy award [Paras 14–17].

Insurance Policy – Breach of Conditions – Burden of Proof – Insurer failed to establish specific policy condition regarding fitness certificate – Reliance on judgments of other High Courts rejected in view of binding coordinate Bench decisions – Held: In absence of explicit policy condition, insurer cannot avoid liability [Paras 14–17].

Composite Negligence and Contributory Negligence – Head-on Collision – Tribunal held drivers of both vehicles negligent – In claim of driver of Innova car, contributory negligence assessed at 60% – High Court reappreciated evidence including spot map and oral evidence – Held: Contributory negligence of deceased driver Deepak reduced to 50% as no evidence showed greater negligence on his part [Paras 19–21].

Spot Map – Evidentiary Value – Spot map showing position of vehicles and point of impact relied upon along with other evidence – Distinguished from cases where negligence inferred solely from resting position of vehicles – Held: Spot map can be considered when it depicts actual point of accident and is supported by evidence [Paras 19–21].

Compensation – Assessment of Income – Minimum Wages – Where documentary proof of income not duly proved, minimum wages applicable – Deceased Deepak treated as skilled labour – Multiplier applied as per age – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 22].

Loss of Consortium – Parents Entitled – Parents of deceased victims entitled to filial consortium – ₹40,000/- awarded to each parent in terms of settled law – Tribunal’s omission corrected [Paras 22, 24, 25, 28].

Income Tax Return – Evidentiary Value – Income tax return of deceased Akash filed prior to death accepted as reliable evidence of income – Tribunal erred in discarding return – Held: Income shown in pre-accident return to be taken for computation of compensation [Paras 23–24].

Bachelor Deceased – Deduction for Personal Expenses – In case of bachelor deceased Rajesh, 50% deduction for personal expenses appropriate – Further deduction on ground that mother also received compensation in another claim held impermissible – Tribunal misapplied Sarla Verma principle – Full dependency compensation allowed [Para 25].

Injured Claimants – Quantum of Compensation – Where no evidence of grievous injury or permanent disability produced, Tribunal’s award confined mainly to medical expenses upheld – No enhancement warranted for injured Santosh and Manish [Paras 26–27].

Students and Future Prospects – Notional Income – Deceased engineering student Hemant’s income assessed on basis of claimants’ own pleading – Treated as semi-skilled/skilled appropriately – Consortium awarded to parents – Compensation enhanced marginally [Para 28].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Enhanced compensation to carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization – Insurer directed to pay entire amount [Para 29].

Decision – Appeals filed by insurance company dismissed – Claimants’ appeals partly allowed with enhancement in specified cases – Common award modified accordingly – Insurer held liable to satisfy enhanced awards [Para 30].

Rape of Minor – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Reliability and Credibility – Victim aged 13 years gave a consistent and cogent account of forcible sexual assault and confinement by the accused – Minor discrepancies regarding school timings and routine held to be trivial – Evidence of prosecutrix found to inspire confidence – Held: Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix without corroboration when evidence is of sterling quality – Sensitivity required in appreciation of evidence of child victims [Paras 31–38].

Sexual Offences Against Children – Consent Irrelevant – Prosecution proved victim was 13 years old at the time of incident – Question of consent wholly irrelevant – Act squarely falling within offence of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under IPC and POCSO Act [Paras 34, 38].

Medical Evidence – Corroborative Value – Medical examination revealed old hymenal tear, redness, tenderness and history of repeated sexual assault – Minor discrepancy in medical opinion not fatal – Held: Ocular testimony of victim prevails over medical evidence – Medical findings sufficiently corroborated prosecution case [Paras 40–44].

Delay in FIR – Effect – FIR lodged after victim returned home next morning – Delay satisfactorily explained considering age of victim and circumstances – No adverse inference drawn [Paras 39, 44].

Criminal Trial – Error in Framing of Charge – Deleted Statutory Provision – Charge framed under Section 376(2)(i) IPC which stood deleted prior to date of incident – Accused contended grave prejudice and failure of justice – Held: Mere error in charge is curable under Sections 215 & 464 CrPC unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown – Accused fully aware that prosecution case was rape of a girl below 16 years – No prejudice caused to defence [Paras 45–58].

Alteration of Conviction at Appellate Stage – Powers of Appellate Court – Conviction under deleted Section 376(2)(i) IPC altered to Section 376(3) IPC – Ingredients of both provisions identical and maximum punishment same – Accused not placed in a worse position – Appellate Court competent to correct error and alter conviction where no failure of justice is demonstrated [Paras 54–66].

Sentencing – Meaningful Hearing – Alleged Prejudice – Contention that hearing on sentence was defective rejected – Accused had opportunity to address sentencing both before Trial Court and High Court – Any defect cured at appellate stage – No violation of principles of fair trial [Paras 61–63].

POCSO Act – Section 42 – Higher Punishment to Prevail – Trial Court correctly applied Section 42 POCSO Act and imposed sentence under Section 376(3) IPC as providing higher punishment – Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for remainder of natural life upheld [Paras 65–67].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 342, 363, 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC maintained – Conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC altered to Section 376(3) IPC – Conviction and sentence under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 POCSO Act upheld – Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life (remainder of natural life) with fine confirmed [Paras 67–68].

Bail – NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Commercial Quantity – Rigours of Section 37 – Petition under Section 483 BNSS for regular bail by accused not found in possession of contraband but alleged to be part of drug trafficking network – Recovery of ₹4,40,000/- as alleged drug money from petitioner and commercial quantity of 140 grams Racemorphan from co-accused – Prima facie involvement inferred from coordinated recoveries and disclosure statements – Explanation regarding source of money involving disputed questions of fact not determinable at bail stage – Held: Court not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty or that he would not commit offence while on bail – Bail declined [Paras 8–11].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Twin Conditions – Scope and Application – Bail Court required to record satisfaction regarding innocence and likelihood of re-offending – Seriousness of allegations, commercial quantity recovery from co-accused, and antecedents of petitioner showing involvement in other FIRs – Mere absence of contraband recovery from petitioner not sufficient to dilute statutory embargo – Held: Rigours of Section 37 not met [Paras 8–10].

Bail Jurisprudence – Long Incarceration – Delay in Trial – Article 21 – Petitioner in custody for about 10 months – Charges framed and trial underway – No prosecution witness examined yet – Held: Period of custody not unreasonably long in light of gravity of offence and punishment prescribed – Delay alone not a ground to override Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 7, 10].

Evidence at Bail Stage – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Bail Court not to conduct roving enquiry or adjudicate disputed facts – Interconnected recoveries and material collected by investigating agency sufficient to form prima facie view – Determination whether money is drug proceeds to be decided during trial [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Regular bail declined – Observations confined to bail adjudication and not to affect merits of trial.

Mining Lease – Deemed Extension – Section 8A(3), MMDR Act – Validity of Original Grant – Minimum Area Requirement – Petitioner sought deemed extension of mining lease for limestone and dolomite granted in 2006 over an extent of 6 acres (2.43 hectares) – Lease rejected on the ground that the area was below the minimum requirement of four hectares under Rule 22-D(c) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Held: Though Section 8A(3) provides for deemed extension of validly granted leases to 50 years, such benefit cannot enure to a lease which was void ab initio for being granted in contravention of statutory rules – Deemed extension presupposes existence of a valid lease [Paras 14, 18, 21, 30].

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Rule 22-D – Applicability – Proviso to Rule 22-D – Rule 22-D prescribing minimum lease area came into force on 10.04.2003 – Proviso excluding its applicability applies only to leases granted prior to insertion of the Rule – Mining lease in question granted on 25.01.2006, after Rule 22-D and its proviso came into force – Held: Proviso does not save the lease – Grant of lease for dolomite over area less than four hectares was in clear violation of Rule 22-D(c) [Paras 16, 18, 20].

Void Mining Lease – Section 19, MMDR Act – Consequences – Any mineral concession granted in contravention of the Act or Rules is void and of no effect – Lease granted contrary to Rule 22-D is statutorily void – Such void lease cannot be validated by subsequent statutory amendments or by invoking deemed extension provisions – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in Muneer Enterprises v. Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd. [Paras 21–22].

Negative Equality – Article 14, Constitution of India – Petitioner relied on instances where similarly placed lessees were allegedly granted deemed extensions despite holding areas less than the prescribed minimum – Held: Article 14 does not envisage negative equality – Erroneous or illegal benefits conferred on others cannot form the basis for claiming similar relief – Illegality cannot be perpetuated on grounds of parity [Paras 24–26].

Effect of Subsequent Rules – 2016 Concession Rules – Contention that under the 2016 Rules the minimum area requirement stood reduced rejected – Lease granted prior to coming into force of 2016 Rules governed exclusively by Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Subsequent change in law cannot cure an illegality existing at the time of grant [Paras 28–30].

Transfer of Lease – Rights of Transferee – Petitioner being a transferee of the lease cannot assert a higher right than the original lessee – Transferee cannot question legality of the original grant when predecessor accepted the lease without demur – Doctrine of “no one can benefit from own wrong” held inapplicable [Paras 27, 29].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Impugned order rejecting deemed extension upheld – Mining lease held void for violation of Rule 22-D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

NDPS Act – Sections 21(b) & 22(c) – Conviction Set Aside – Non-compliance of Section 50 – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for possession of cocaine and LSD and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and five years respectively – On appeal, High Court examined compliance of statutory safeguards under Section 50 NDPS Act – Held: Conviction unsustainable due to gross and total non-compliance of mandatory provisions [Paras 1, 33–36, 40].

Search and Seizure – Section 50 NDPS Act – Mandatory Safeguard – Right of Accused – Prosecution witnesses including complainant and members of raiding team consistently deposed that accused was informed only of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer – No option of being searched before a Magistrate was given – Such partial or defective intimation held to be in direct violation of Section 50(1) NDPS Act [Paras 12–21, 33–35].

Gazetted Officer – Member of Raiding Party – Not Independent – Accused was informed that Dy. S.P., a Gazetted Officer and part of the raiding team, was present at the spot and could conduct the search – Held: A Gazetted Officer who is part of the raiding/investigating team cannot be treated as an independent officer for purposes of Section 50 – Offering such “third option” pollutes the free exercise of statutory right of the accused [Paras 23–26, 32, 36].

Evidence Appreciation – Panch and Police Witnesses – Evidence of PW 1 (panch witness) and PW 2, PW 6, PW 9 (police witnesses) uniformly demonstrated that only one option under Section 50 was conveyed – Court held that even police witnesses failed to establish compliance in letter and spirit – Burden on prosecution not discharged [Paras 15–21, 33–34].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Strict Compliance – No Concept of Substantial Compliance – Reiterating settled law from Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja and Ranjan Kumar Chadha – Section 50 confers a valuable and mandatory right – Failure to strictly comply renders recovery of contraband suspect and vitiates conviction where recovery from personal search is the sole basis [Paras 26, 28, 33–35].

Effect of Violation – Recovery Inadmissible – Since recovery of contraband was effected pursuant to an illegal personal search, same could not be relied upon – Presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act could not be raised – Conviction based solely on such recovery held illegal [Paras 33–36, 39].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2024 quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Appellant directed to execute P.R. bond under Section 481 BNSS, 2023 [Paras 40–41].

Criminal Law  – Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC / Section 351 BNSS – Mandatory Duty of Court – Fair Trial – Convict sentenced to death for rape and murder of a five-year-old child – Trial Court failed to put vital incriminating circumstances, including DNA report, toxicology report and Section 164 CrPC statements, to the accused – Long omnibus questions reproducing entire prosecution case framed instead of specific material circumstances – Held: Such examination defeats the object of Section 313 and violates principles of audi alteram partem – Causes serious prejudice to the accused in a capital punishment case [Paras 22–29, 31–56].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Incriminating Evidence – DNA Evidence – Failure to Put to Accused – Ext PZ DNA report forming the backbone of prosecution case not put to accused under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Circumstances not put to the accused must ordinarily be excluded from consideration – In a case involving death sentence, omission is grave and non-negotiable – Fair opportunity to explain incriminating material is imperative [Paras 24–26, 40–43, 59].

Capital Punishment – Procedural Safeguards – Heightened Scrutiny – Death penalty imposed by Trial Court – Proceedings concluded with undue haste and without strict adherence to procedural safeguards – Held: In capital cases, every safeguard must be scrupulously followed – Any dilution of fair trial standards vitiates the conviction and sentence [Paras 59–60].

Appellate Powers – Remand – Section 386 CrPC – Curable Irregularity – Though defects under Section 313 CrPC are curable – Considering nature of omissions, defence rights, and need to balance justice to accused and victim – Held: Appropriate course is remand to Trial Court from the stage of recording statement of accused under Section 351 BNSS – Not a case of acquittal on merits nor mere exclusion of evidence [Paras 64–66, 69–70].

Criminal Appeal and Murder Reference – Result – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Death Reference Rendered Infructuous – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence quashed – Matter remanded to Sessions Court to re-commence trial from stage of Section 351 BNSS (Section 313 CrPC) – Accused to be examined afresh on all incriminating circumstances and permitted to lead defence evidence – Murder Reference disposed of as infructuous [Paras 67–75].

Decision: CRA-D-750-2021 partly allowed to the extent of remand – Conviction and death sentence set aside – Murder Reference No. 3 of 2021 disposed of – Trial to recommence from the stage of examination of accused under Section 351 BNSS.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Rule 45 – Mandatory Time Limit – Quashing of Prosecution – Criminal prosecution launched against manufacturer and its directors alleging manufacture of drug not of standard quality – Samples drawn on 12.07.2022 and sent to Government Analyst on 14.07.2022 – Analyst sought extension only on 01.11.2022, i.e., after expiry of statutory period of 60 days – Report furnished on 18.01.2023 without proof of valid extension being granted – Held: Rule 45 mandates analysis and report within 60 days, extension to be sought within stipulated period with reasons – Non-compliance vitiates prosecution – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 3–5, 8–9].

Right of Accused – Retesting of Sample – Prejudice Caused by Delay – Delayed analysis defeats valuable right of accused to seek re-testing of sample – Time is of essence in drug analysis as quality may deteriorate with passage of time – Failure of Drug Inspector to monitor compliance or issue reminders to Analyst compounds illegality – Prosecution held unsustainable [Paras 9–10].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reliance placed on decision in Swapnil s/o Liladhar Mane v. State of Maharashtra, 2024(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 673 – Held: Ratio squarely applicable – Delayed analysis beyond statutory period without justification renders complaint invalid [Para 8].

Drugs Regulation – Lapses by Authorities – Need for Systemic Reforms – Court expressed concern over repeated procedural lapses by Drug Administration benefiting manufacturers of sub-standard drugs and frustrating objectives of the Act – Emphasised that public health is paramount and strict adherence to statutory timelines is mandatory [Paras 10–12].

Directions – Regulatory Oversight – Compliance with Rule 45 – Detailed directions issued to Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra – To ensure timely testing within 60 days – To take disciplinary action against erring officers – To augment laboratory infrastructure – To create efficient online, web-hosted, real-time monitoring system for drug sample testing and reporting – Compliance directed within three months with report to Court [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Criminal writ petition allowed – Prosecution in S.C.C. No. 637/2023 quashed – Directions issued to Drug Administration authorities – Matter listed for compliance [Paras 13–17].