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].
 

• Alka Gupta v. Narinder Kumar Gupta, (2010) 10 SCC 141
• Gurbux Singh v. Bhoora Lal, AIR 1964 SC 1810
• Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., 2025 INSC 73 (Civil Appeal Nos. 372–373 of 2025)

Representing Advocates:

Mr. Paras Jagga, Advocate for the Petitioner

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].
 

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].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Double Homicide of Couple – Acquittal Granted - Accused convicted of killing a man (Sharafat) and a woman (Soni) due to alleged illicit relationship – High Court found prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Alleged eyewitnesses turned hostile; motive insufficient – Held: Prosecution case not established, benefit of doubt given [Paras 1–5, 23–29, 44–45].

Eyewitness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – No Corroboration - Key witnesses including the informant and others initially supported prosecution but turned hostile after de novo trial ordered on framing of additional charges – Court held that testimony after contradiction lacks credibility without corroborative support – No reliance could be placed on their statements [Paras 22–27, 33–34].

Post-Mortem Findings – Cause of Death Not Sufficiently Linked – Independent Medical Evidence Inconclusive - Though injuries and cause of death (asphyxia and hemorrhage) were established, no direct nexus with accused proved – Court held medical evidence alone insufficient in absence of cogent eyewitness account [Paras 14–17, 30–32].

Investigation – Defective and One-Sided – Recovery and Arrest Doubtful – Police failed to provide independent witnesses for recovery; procedural irregularities noted in recording statements and recovery memos – Held: Investigation tainted with doubt, cannot form sole basis of conviction [Paras 18–21].

Decision – All Appeals Allowed – Convictions Set Aside – Accused Ibrahim, Sannaur, Mussarat and others acquitted of charges under Sections 147, 302 read with 149 IPC – Bail bonds cancelled; fine amounts directed to be refunded [Paras 44–45].
 

Criminal Law – Summoning CDRs under Section 91 CrPC – Protection of Accused's Right to Fair Trial – Petition Allowed – Petitioner, a taxi driver accused in an NDPS case, filed for preservation of call detail records and tower location of his phone and that of the raiding party to establish his location and alleged illegal arrest – Trial Court dismissed the application citing privacy and security of investigating officials – Held: As per Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar v. UOI, electronic records are admissible, and location data can be summoned with caller details redacted to balance privacy and justice – Order rejecting the application set aside [Paras 1–6].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of Tower Location – Right to Present Defence – Supreme Court Precedent Applied – Reiterated that Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act permit electronic data such as CDRs and tower logs, provided procedural requirements are met – Court directed only relevant tower location data to be provided to avoid compromising investigation or privacy – Fair trial rights take precedence in permitting limited access to digital evidence [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Trial Court Order Set Aside – CDRs to be Produced with Restrictions – High Court allowed the criminal revision, quashed the impugned order dated 08.05.2024, and directed limited production of mobile data for tower location without revealing full call records – Rights of accused to prove innocence must be preserved while maintaining safeguards on investigator privacy [Para 6].
 

Bail - Dowry Death – Suicide at Parental Home – Section 304B IPC – Bail Denied - Accused sought bail on grounds that the deceased committed suicide at her parental home and not matrimonial home, and that no harassment occurred “soon before” her death – Court held: Location of suicide irrelevant for Section 304B IPC—what matters is ongoing matrimonial relationship and harassment – Prima facie material exists for trial to proceed [Paras 6–8, 9].

Interpretation of “Soon Before Death” – Not Synonymous with “Immediately Before” – Relative Expression - Court cited Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Kans Raj v. State of Punjab to emphasize that “soon before” is a flexible term depending on context – Continued telephonic contact, judicial separation proceedings, and a final long call days before suicide suggested a live link between harassment and death [Paras 8.1–8.3].

Case Law Distinguished – Bail Jurisprudence – Delay in Trial Not Sole Ground - Cited SC ruling in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra was held inapplicable, as trial had already commenced and six of forty witnesses examined – Bail in dowry death cases demands stricter scrutiny due to grave societal impact [Paras 4–5].

Judicial Caution in Dowry Deaths – Strong Message from Judiciary – Citing Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., Supreme Court - Court reiterated that judicial approach in dowry death cases must be sensitive to societal impact and reflect seriousness of the crime – Releasing prime accused on bail at early stage may undermine justice and public trust [Paras 5, 8.3].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court held it is not a fit case for grant of bail considering nature of allegations, ongoing trial, and societal implications – Trial court directed to continue independently [Para 10].

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].