Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 174 ampules of Lupigesic and 24 unlabelled ampules – Trial court sentenced appellant to 13 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine – Appellant challenged conviction citing procedural lapses including delay in production of contraband and non-compliance with mandatory provisions of NDPS Act – High Court found delay in production of contraband and absence of evidence regarding custody and storage – Held: Unexplained delay and missing specimen seal raise serious doubt about the integrity of prosecution case – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1, 2, 23, 24, 26].

NDPS Act – Compliance with Sections 42 and 57 – Prosecution submitted Exhibits P1 and P13 to prove compliance – Court noted both documents were received by immediate superior officer on same date and within statutory limits – PW6’s testimony on handwritten numeric ‘1’ went unchallenged – Held: Compliance with Sections 42 and 57 established [Paras 7, 8].

NDPS Act – Section 50 – Applicability and Compliance – Contraband found in plastic kit carried by accused and inside pants pocket – Appellant informed of right under Section 50 and opted to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer – Search carried out accordingly – Court held that while obligation to inform suspect is mandatory, taking accused specifically before Magistrate is not – Held: Procedural compliance with Section 50 satisfied – No violation of legal safeguards [Paras 9-15].

NDPS Act – Section 52A – Applicability – Entire contraband produced before court – Appellant’s contention that failure to comply with Section 52A vitiated case rejected – Court held Section 52A applies only when representative sample is produced – When full contraband is produced, compliance under Section 52A not required – Non-compliance not fatal to prosecution [Paras 16-21].

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Charge framed in millilitres instead of grams – Appellant argued lack of conversion renders charge faulty – Court relied on chemical report (Exhibit P20) indicating strength of Buprenorphine per ml – Cumulative content converted to over 116 grams – Held: Charge not defective – Commercial quantity established through chemical evidence – No prejudice caused [Para 22].

Criminal Trial – Delay in Production of Contraband – Contraband seized on 21-10-2011 but produced before Court only on 27 or 28-10-2011 – No clear evidence regarding interim custody or storage – Property list lacked identifiable Magistrate’s signature – Specimen seal missing from seizure mahazar (Exhibit P11) – Court held delay unexplained and prejudicial to accused – Failure to establish chain of custody casts doubt on prosecution’s case – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 23, 24, 25, 26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 22(c) NDPS Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Fine amount, if deposited, to be refunded [Para 26].

Service Law – Regularization – Seniority – Discrimination – Reversal Set Aside – Appellant appointed as Chowkidar on daily wages in 1994 – Board of Directors approved regularization based on performance in 1996 – Junior employee Mohan Lal, appointed later in December 1994, was regularized earlier despite same post – Appellant’s civil suit for regularization decreed by trial court – First Appellate Court reversed citing lack of educational qualification – Held: No rule or evidence was produced to show essential qualification for post – Respondents failed to prove any qualification norms – Appellant’s qualification not in dispute – Board’s resolution to regularize was never withdrawn – Held: Disqualification ground unsustainable – First appellate court erred in reversing decree – Appeal allowed – Suit decreed restoring appellant’s right to regularization from date of entitlement [Paras 9–15].

Hindu Law – Women’s Property – Section 14(1) Hindu Succession Act – Absolute Ownership – Bellamkonda Hanumayamma, widow of Veeraiah, possessed her husband’s estate from 1941 and executed registered gift deeds (Exs. B-9, B-16 to B-19) in 1983 in favour of her nieces (Putti Seetharavamma and sons). Held: She was in continuous possession for over four decades—by virtue of Section 14(1), property became her absolute estate—she had full power to alienate—First Appellate Court erred in applying repealed 1937 Act—Succession under Hindu Succession Act governs [Paras 38–49].

Limitation – Article 65 Limitation Act – Possession and Knowledge – Suit for possession and declaration filed in 2001, nearly 18 years after registered gift deeds (1983) and 13 years after Hanumayamma’s death (1988). Plaintiffs admitted knowledge of possession, mutation, and mortgage by donees—Suit hopelessly barred by limitation—Trial Court rightly dismissed [Paras 20–23].

Civil Procedure – Burden of Proof – Declaratory and Possessory Suits – Plaintiffs seeking declaration and possession must succeed on strength of own title—cannot rely on weakness of defendants—Admitted lack of documents, possession, or payment of revenue—Trial Court’s findings consistent with settled law (Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society, (2014) 2 SCC 269; Ananthula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594) [Paras 26–33].

Evidence – Registered Gift Deeds – Effect – Execution and acceptance of gift deeds by donees in 1983 established through Exs. B-9, B-16 to B-19, mutation entries, and revenue records—Plaintiffs failed to challenge deeds or produce contrary evidence—Gift validly executed by competent owner [Paras 34–35].

Statutory Interpretation – Repeal and Overriding Effect – Section 4 of Hindu Succession Act – Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, repealed by Section 31 of Hindu Succession Act (later omitted by Act 58 of 1960)—does not revive 1937 Act—Any reliance on repealed law by Appellate Court erroneous—Succession after 1956 governed exclusively by Hindu Succession Act [Paras 42–43].

Possession and Enjoyment – Revenue Recognition and Mortgage – Donees’ possession evidenced by mutation, revenue receipts, and bank loans—Admissions by plaintiffs corroborate continuous possession from 1983—Findings of Trial Court reinstated [Paras 46–47].

Doctrine – Widow’s Estate and Enlargement – Hindu widow possessing property as limited owner before 1956 becomes absolute owner under Section 14(1)—Purpose is to abolish “limited estate” and confer full ownership and alienation rights—Hanumayamma’s possession for decades satisfied statutory requirement [Paras 48–49].

Appellate Review – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court cannot substitute its view unless First Appellate Court’s findings are perverse, contrary to law, or unsupported by evidence—First Appellate Court erred by misapplying repealed statute and ignoring evidence—Trial Court’s judgment restored [Paras 16–17, 39–40].

Decision: Second Appeals (S.A. Nos. 651 & 652 of 2019) allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s common judgment restored – Contempt Case No. 1067 of 2021 closed – No order as to costs.

Railways – Freight Classification – Distance Based Charges (DBC) – Domestic vs. Export Tariff – Respondent (KIOCL Ltd.), a Government of India undertaking, booked a rake of iron ore fines from NMDC’s Kirandul Siding to Visakhapatnam Port in December 2012 for domestic pelletization. Railways levied DBC treating it as export movement under Rate Circular No.36/2009—Tribunal found that during the relevant quarter (Oct–Dec 2012), all pellets were sold domestically, none exported—Held: DBC impermissible where consignment demonstrably for domestic use—Levy contrary to governing tariff—Refund rightly ordered [Paras 7–11, 26–29].

Administrative Law – Scope of Sections 78 & 83, Railways Act, 1989 – Sections 78 (re-measurement) and 83 (recovery of undercharges) are procedural and enabling—They empower recalculation of freight only within existing tariff heads, not reclassification of traffic post-facto—Cannot be invoked to impose new levy where tariff circular precludes DBC for domestic traffic—Use of these provisions to retrospectively recharacterize tariff head impermissible [Paras 24–25, 31–32].

Tariff Circular – Interpretation – Rate Circular No.36/2009 – Circular creates dual classification: Class 180 + DBC for export movements and Class 140 (without DBC) for domestic movements—End-use of consignment is determinative criterion—Documentary compliance (affidavit, indemnity) is procedural safeguard; once domestic end-use proved through excise returns, minor procedural lapses immaterial—Doctrine of substantial compliance applies [Paras 26–28, 31].

Evidence – Excise Returns – Proof of Domestic Sale – Excise records for Oct–Dec 2012 showed nil exports, confirming domestic sales—Appellate court defers to concurrent factual finding of Tribunal—Prior export conduct of KIOCL (2008–11) irrelevant to 2012 consignment—Tariff classification is transaction-specific, not reputation-based [Paras 29–30].

Judicial Review – Appellate Restraint – Tribunal’s findings were based on contemporaneous industrial records, not conjecture—No perversity or illegality shown—Appellate interference unwarranted—Doctrine of appellate restraint applies [Paras 32–33].

Interest on Refund – Restitution – Interest at 6% p.a. awarded from 02.12.2015 till payment affirmed—Represents equitable balance between restitutionary fairness and fiscal restraint—Interest to continue till date of actual refund [Para 14].

Pending Proceedings – No Bar – Pendency of SLP (C) No.15869/2015 and connected T.Ps. concerning constitutional validity of DBC does not bar adjudication—No specific stay applicable—Mere pendency not prohibition [Para 32(xii)].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Tribunal’s judgment affirmed – Railways directed to refund ₹58,01,110.80 with 6% interest from 02.12.2015 till actual payment within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 15–16].

Railways – Freight Classification – Distance Based Charges (DBC) – Domestic vs. Export Tariff – Respondent (KIOCL Ltd.), a Government of India undertaking, booked a rake of iron ore fines from NMDC’s Kirandul Siding to Visakhapatnam Port in December 2012 for domestic pelletization. Railways levied DBC treating it as export movement under Rate Circular No.36/2009—Tribunal found that during the relevant quarter (Oct–Dec 2012), all pellets were sold domestically, none exported—Held: DBC impermissible where consignment demonstrably for domestic use—Levy contrary to governing tariff—Refund rightly ordered [Paras 7–11, 26–29].

Administrative Law – Scope of Sections 78 & 83, Railways Act, 1989 – Sections 78 (re-measurement) and 83 (recovery of undercharges) are procedural and enabling—They empower recalculation of freight only within existing tariff heads, not reclassification of traffic post-facto—Cannot be invoked to impose new levy where tariff circular precludes DBC for domestic traffic—Use of these provisions to retrospectively recharacterize tariff head impermissible [Paras 24–25, 31–32].

Tariff Circular – Interpretation – Rate Circular No.36/2009 – Circular creates dual classification: Class 180 + DBC for export movements and Class 140 (without DBC) for domestic movements—End-use of consignment is determinative criterion—Documentary compliance (affidavit, indemnity) is procedural safeguard; once domestic end-use proved through excise returns, minor procedural lapses immaterial—Doctrine of substantial compliance applies [Paras 26–28, 31].

Evidence – Excise Returns – Proof of Domestic Sale – Excise records for Oct–Dec 2012 showed nil exports, confirming domestic sales—Appellate court defers to concurrent factual finding of Tribunal—Prior export conduct of KIOCL (2008–11) irrelevant to 2012 consignment—Tariff classification is transaction-specific, not reputation-based [Paras 29–30].

Judicial Review – Appellate Restraint – Tribunal’s findings were based on contemporaneous industrial records, not conjecture—No perversity or illegality shown—Appellate interference unwarranted—Doctrine of appellate restraint applies [Paras 32–33].

Interest on Refund – Restitution – Interest at 6% p.a. awarded from 02.12.2015 till payment affirmed—Represents equitable balance between restitutionary fairness and fiscal restraint—Interest to continue till date of actual refund [Para 14].

Pending Proceedings – No Bar – Pendency of SLP (C) No.15869/2015 and connected T.Ps. concerning constitutional validity of DBC does not bar adjudication—No specific stay applicable—Mere pendency not prohibition [Para 32(xii)].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Tribunal’s judgment affirmed – Railways directed to refund ₹58,01,110.80 with 6% interest from 02.12.2015 till actual payment within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 15–16].

Specific Performance – Existence and Validity of Contract – Absence of boundaries in agreement, partial alienation by defendant, and plaintiff’s failure to plead/claim relief under Section 12(2) – Trial Court erred in decreeing specific performance – Appeal allowed – Suit dismissed [Paras 29–39].

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement – Absence of Boundaries – Execution Not Established – Ex.A1 agreement of sale lacked boundaries, did not mention village name, was written on plain white paper and later stamped—court held such deficiencies cast serious doubt on its execution; plaintiff failed to satisfactorily prove agreement under settled principles in Pemmada Prabhakar, Nanjappan, Satish Kumar [Paras 24.1–24.2, 31–32].

Partial Alienation – Section 12(2) Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff Did Not Seek Relief – Appellant sold 7½ guntas under Ex.A5 during trial; though Section 12(2) permits specific performance of remaining land, plaintiff never pleaded or prayed for such relief before trial court; first attempt raised only in appeal—held impermissible; reliance placed on Hemanta Mondal and Bachhaj Nahar regarding necessity of pleadings and bar on new pleas in appeal [Paras 9, 30–31, 37].

Readiness and Willingness – Only Token Payment Made – No Substantial Acts – Plaintiff paid only ₹4,500 as advance out of total ₹7,79,025; no evidence of substantial acts or losses; no proof of continuous readiness/willingness under Section 16(c)—court held plaintiff not entitled to equitable relief [Paras 32, 21].

Discretion Under Section 20 – Trial Court Erred – Trial court granted decree mechanically without considering hardship to defendant, absence of boundaries, partial alienation, and the long lapse of time—High Court held trial court failed to apply judicial discretion under Section 20; in circumstances, specific performance not warranted [Paras 33, 36].

Pleadings – New Case Cannot Be Made in Appeal – Plaintiff attempted to rely on Section 12(2) only during appeal—court held no amount of evidence can be looked into on a plea not pleaded; new case cannot be projected at appellate stage—principle reaffirmed from Bachhaj Nahar [Paras 27–31].

Compensation/Refund – Cannot Be Granted Without Pleading – Plaintiff neither sought refund of earnest money under Section 22 nor compensation under Section 21—court held it cannot grant such relief suo motu in absence of pleadings [Para 39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 30.06.2017 in O.S. No.111/2012 set aside – Suit dismissed without costs – Interim orders vacated – Miscellaneous applications closed.

Medical Reimbursement – Belated Claim – Right to Health under Article 21 – Claim for treatment during 2007 scrutinised and approved (after 15% cut) under A.P. Medical Attendance Rules – G.O.Ms.No.230 dated 15.10.2011 held prospective and cannot override constitutional rights – Executive orders cannot nullify statutory rules or fundamental rights – Memo returning proposal unsustainable – Writ allowed – Directions issued for sanction and payment [Paras 16–25].

Medical Reimbursement – Delay – Relaxation under Rules – Under A.P. Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, belated medical reimbursement claims may be entertained with relaxation and 15% cut – Director of Medical Education scrutinised bills and approved ₹96,424/- after statutory deduction – Government cannot deny relaxation contrary to the Rules [Paras 13–15, 22].

G.O.Ms.No.230 Finance Department – Prospective Operation – Issued on 15.10.2011 to ensure fiscal discipline – Cannot operate retrospectively to reject a claim relating to treatment in 2007 and bills submitted in 2009 and 2011 – Executive instructions cannot override vested rights or completed processes under statutory rules [Paras 16, 20].

Right to Health – Fundamental Right – Medical care of government employees (serving or retired) is integral to Article 21 read with Article 39(e) – State cannot deny reimbursement on ground of fiscal constraints – Reiterated principles from Consumer Education & Research Centre (1995) 3 SCC 42 and Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997) 2 SCC 83 – Financial burden cannot override constitutional obligation [Paras 17, 21].

Executive Instructions – Cannot Override Statute or Constitution – Following Partha Das v. State of Tripura, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844, held that executive instructions under Article 166 cannot supplant statutory rules – G.O.Ms.No.230 cannot nullify relaxation mechanism built into A.P. Medical Attendance Rules [Paras 19–20].

Judicial Review – Memo Returning Claim – Unsustainable – Memo dated 31.01.2012 returning proposal for relaxation contrary to statutory rules and constitutional guarantees – Held arbitrary, capricious, and illegal – Quashed [Paras 11, 23].

Mandamus – Directions – Respondent No.1 directed to grant relaxation and sanction ₹96,424/- within 3 weeks – Respondent authorities thereafter to ensure payment within 4 additional weeks – Petitioner unfairly made to wait over a decade for lawful entitlement [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Memo No.25569/D2/2011-3 dated 31.01.2012 set aside – Authorities directed to process and disburse approved amount as per Rules – No costs [Paras 23–25].

Criminal Writ – Quashing - Organised Crime – KCOCA Invocation – Prior Approval – Improper Invocation – Petitioner, accused No.12, was in police custody at the time of the alleged incident of conspiracy to commit dacoity – Inclusion of KCOCA against accused based solely on co-accused’s voluntary statement without independent corroboration – Held: No material existed to establish petitioner’s membership in organised crime syndicate – Prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) KCOCA was without basis and unsustainable – Inclusion of KCOCA quashed [Paras 2, 6, 7, 9, 10].

Criminal Law – Confession by Co-Accused – Admissibility – Petitioner implicated solely on the basis of voluntary statements of co-accused – No other evidence or corroborative material linking petitioner to the alleged offence – Held: Confession of co-accused not substantive evidence and inadmissible against petitioner – Proceedings based solely on such statement cannot stand [Paras 7, 8].

Criminal Conspiracy and Preparation for Dacoity – Ingredients Not Made Out – Petitioner was in custody in another case at the time of the alleged conspiracy and assembly – Held: Offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC require physical presence and preparatory acts – Allegations failed to meet statutory requirements – Quashing of entire proceedings justified [Paras 6, 8, 10].

Consistency and Parity – Equal Treatment with Co-Accused – Charges under KCOCA and related offences already quashed against co-accused (Accused No.11) in Crl.P. No.9819 of 2023 and W.P. No.16771 of 2017 – Allegations and circumstances against petitioner identical – Held: Petitioner entitled to parity – Quashing of proceedings warranted [Paras 7, 9].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Crime No.58/2017 and entire proceedings in Spl.C.C. No.414/2017 quashed as against petitioner (Accused No.12) – Observations limited to petitioner’s case and not to affect proceedings against other accused [Paras 10].

Criminal Law – Bail – Triple Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Denial of Bail – Appellant, brother-in-law of late Atiq Ahmad, sought bail in connection with the daylight murder of witness Umesh Pal and two police guards – Allegation that appellant financed, sheltered, and conspired with co-accused including Guddu Muslim – Co-accused statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. corroborated by independent witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – DVR recovered from appellant’s house allegedly contained footage of Guddu Muslim visiting after the crime – Section 65-B certificate produced – Court held that while detailed admissibility to be tested at trial, recovery and corroborative evidence form prima facie material establishing complicity – Distinguished from P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1157, as multiple independent and electronic evidences corroborate co-accused statements [Paras 23–33, 42–43].

Electronic Evidence – Recovery of DVR – Section 65-B Evidence Act – Prima Facie Admissibility – DVR and mobile phone recovered from appellant’s residence showing visit of Guddu Muslim post-crime – Original DVR being primary evidence – Court relied on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1 – Held: At bail stage, recovery and certificate sufficient to consider prima facie involvement; forensic verification to be determined at trial [Paras 30, 39–41].

Bail Jurisprudence – Gravity of Offence – Societal Impact – Presumption Against Release – Court reiterated factors in Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42, Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 – In heinous crimes causing public terror, liberty of accused cannot override societal interest – Seriousness, influence, and risk of tampering justify denial of bail [Paras 33–38, 45–48].

Statements of Co-accused – Evidentiary Value at Bail Stage – Though inadmissible as substantive evidence, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be considered for prima facie satisfaction when corroborated by Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and other material – State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 followed [Paras 27, 29].

Result – Held: Prima facie evidence shows appellant’s active role in conspiracy by financing, sheltering, and facilitating key accused – Nature and gravity of offence, societal impact, and risk of witness intimidation weigh against bail – Criminal appeal dismissed – Bail refused [Paras 47–49].

Criminal Law – Bail Cancellation – Pre-arrest Bail – Relationship and Misuse of Liberty – Respondent No. 2 granted pre-arrest bail in FIR under Sections 376, 506, 323, 34 IPC based on allegations of sexual assault over a prolonged period – Trial Court found prolonged relationship, absence of early complaint, and lack of evidence of coercion as relevant factors – Held: Trial Court's order was reasoned and not arbitrary [Paras 31–34, 38].

Criminal Procedure – Supervening Circumstances – Indirect Contact and Influence – After grant of interim protection, Respondent No. 2 contacted prosecutrix indirectly through associates – Audio evidence of attempts to influence prosecutrix via friend and judicial officer to withdraw case and accept monetary settlement – Such conduct constituted supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of bail [Paras 38–45].

Judicial Conduct – Misuse of Influence – Enquiry Ordered – Allegations that judicial officers known to both parties contacted prosecutrix and offered ₹30 lakhs to dilute case – Prima facie material including transcripts and recordings supported claims – Court directed administrative enquiry into conduct of judicial officers [Paras 38.3, 50].

Criminal Law – Counter-Allegation of Extortion – Demand for ₹50 lakhs – Respondent No. 2 alleged prosecutrix filed complaint for extortion and had already accepted ₹30 lakhs – Transcripts produced but Court held allegations do not absolve Respondent No. 2 of attempting to subvert justice using influence and money – Matter requires further investigation [Paras 40–44].

Bail Law – Liberty vs Fair Trial – Conditions Violated – Court reaffirmed that bail liberty is conditional and must yield to fair trial and public interest – Attempts to tamper with investigation and influence witnesses are sufficient to cancel bail – Held: Respondent No. 2's conduct warranted revocation of bail despite original order being legally sound [Paras 45–49].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Pre-arrest bail granted to Respondent No. 2 set aside – One week granted for surrender before the Trial Court – Administrative enquiry ordered against two judicial officers alleged to have interfered with justice process – Observations Observations not to affect merits of trial [Paras 49–52].