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].
 

Civil Writ - Public Tender – Cancellation After H-1 Declaration – Arbitrary Action – High Court Interference – MCD abandoned the tender despite the petitioner being the highest bidder and bid exceeding the reserve price – Held: Such cancellation without justifiable basis frustrates legitimate expectations and violates Article 14; decision quashed and MCD directed to issue Letter of Award [Paras 1-3, 15-17, 29-31, 47-48].

Judicial Review in Government Contracts – Arbitrary Cancellation Amenable to Writ – Legal Principles Reaffirmed – Court reaffirmed that even non-statutory contracts are subject to judicial review if cancellation is arbitrary, discriminatory or lacking public interest – Distinguished between legitimate administrative discretion and capricious denial of contractual rights [Paras 32-42].

Legitimate Expectation – Arises Post H-1 Bid – Protection Required – Once petitioner was declared H-1 and had unconditionally extended bid validity, expectation for fair treatment crystallized – Held: Public authority bound by fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness; cannot cancel bid process on vague speculation of fetching more revenue [Paras 17, 29-30, 36-38].

Procurement Policy – Ministry of Finance Circular – Re-bidding Discouraged Without Material Grounds – Circular dated 29.10.2021 emphasizes that single or fewer bids don’t automatically negate competition if process is open and fair – Held: MCD’s reasons of “bringing more competition” unsupported by contemporaneous material and contrary to procurement guidelines [Para 19].

Public Interest – Must Be Genuine and Evident – No Cogent Material – MCD’s decision to explore higher revenue without actual data or analysis was deemed arbitrary – Held: Public interest cannot be a pretext for overriding contractual norms; sanctity of concluded tender process must be protected [Paras 27-28, 36-39].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned cancellation set aside – MCD directed to issue Letter of Award to Petitioner as H-1 bidder within 15 days – Observed that tender sanctity is essential for encouraging fair public-private partnerships [Para 48].
 

Criminal Law - Arms Act – Conviction under Section 7 vs Section 3 – Prohibited Arm Not Proven – Conviction Modified - Appellant was initially convicted under Section 7/25 of the Arms Act for possession of a country-made revolver – Trial court relied on a District Magistrate's report but no ballistic report or scientific evidence was produced to prove it was a prohibited arm – Held: In absence of proof that seized arm was automatic or met other criteria under Section 2(1)(i), conviction under Section 7 not sustainable – Conviction altered to Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Proof of Weapon Type – No Expert or Technical Evidence Produced – Prosecution Failed to Prove Prohibited Nature of Weapon – No ballistic expert opinion or technical data was produced to confirm the nature of the firearm as “prohibited” – Armourer was a field constable without expert credentials – Held: Failure to meet evidentiary threshold required under Arms Act to convict under Section 7 [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Sentencing – Reformative Justice – Probation Principles Applied – Sentence Reduced - Appellant was 21 years old at time of offence, with no prior criminal record and had already undergone over 2 years in custody – Maximum punishment for Section 3 offence is 3 years – Held: Sentence reduced to period already undergone and benefit of reformative principles under Probation of Offenders Act considered appropriate [Paras 5.7–Conclusion].

Appeal – Partial Allowance – Conviction Modified – Appellant Acquitted of Section 7 Charge - Court set aside conviction under Section 7/25 – Convicted instead under Section 3/25 of Arms Act – Sentence modified to time already served – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith [Conclusion].
 

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Absence of Application or Evidence – Decree Set Aside – Appellant challenged the Family Court’s direction to pay ₹70 lakhs as permanent alimony despite absence of written or oral application by wife under Section 25 HMA – High Court held that permanent alimony, though discretionary and equitable, must be supported by pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence on financial condition of parties – Held: Award of alimony without any such foundation unsustainable in law [Paras 2.1-2.6, 4.7, 5-6].

Maintenance – Mandatory Framing of Issue and Financial Assessment – Court held that without framing issue or assessing oral and documentary evidence regarding earning capacity, conduct, and living standard of both parties, permanent alimony cannot be granted – Reliance solely on U.S. court’s child support order was impermissible – Matter remanded for proper adjudication [Paras 2.5, 3.7, 4.7, 5].

Oral Application – Permissible but Not Made – Equitable Relief Requires Legal Foundation – Though the Court accepted that application under Section 25 need not be written, it found that no oral prayer was made either – Respondent-wife’s failure to disclose income details and evidence of financial independence also weighed against grant without trial [Paras 2.2, 2.5, 4.7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Alimony Order Quashed – Matter Remanded – Family Court directed to reconsider alimony based on oral and documentary evidence from both sides and complete adjudication within ten weeks – ₹15 lakhs deposited by appellant to be transferred to Family Court and kept in FDR pending outcome [Paras 6-7].
 

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 – 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].

Service Tax – Exemption for Legal Practitioners – Demand Raised Based on Third-Party Disclosure – Notice Quashed - Petitioner, an individual practicing advocate, was issued a service tax demand notice and recovery order based on third-party income disclosure – Court reiterated settled law that legal services provided by individual lawyers are exempt under the negative list – Held: Issuance of such notices violates prior judicial orders and binding departmental instructions; notices quashed with liberty to assess non-professional income, if any, under applicable law [Paras 5–8].

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].
 

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].