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].

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal Against Conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof Not Met – Acquittal Granted - Appellant convicted for murder of his partner based on last seen evidence and bloodstains on clothing – High Court held prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstances linking appellant to crime – Evidence of last seen was found shaky and inconclusive; no reliable motive established [Paras 1–3, 12–13, 16–22].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Inapplicability Where Chain Incomplete – Failure to Explain Not Sufficient - Conviction was primarily based on appellant’s failure to explain circumstances under Section 106 – Court clarified that where prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden does not shift to the accused – Section 106 can only serve as an additional link, not primary basis [Paras 13–16, 21].

Last Seen Theory – Witness Testimony Unreliable – Witness could not confirm when appellant and deceased returned from market prior to death – Evidence did not establish proximity of accused with deceased at time of incident – Held: No safe conviction can rest on this evidence [Paras 9–13].

Forensic Evidence – CA Report Not Conclusive – Prosecution Failed to Establish Chain - Blood stains on appellant’s clothes matched deceased’s blood group, but chain of custody and time of seizure not clearly proved – Report failed to conclusively link appellant to murder [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted of Offence Under Section 302 IPC – Released forthwith if not required in any other case – Fine to be refunded [Paras 23–24].

Eviction Petition – Bona Fide Requirement – Additional Evidence – One-Time Opportunity Granted - Tenant sought to lead further evidence by examining neighbors and MCD officials in eviction case filed on ground of bona fide requirement – Respondent landlord agreed to allow one opportunity to avoid further delay – Court permitted tenant to produce witnesses next day, including MCD official if appearing in connected matter – Held: Opportunity allowed in interest of justice, but no further chance to be granted [Paras 3–7].

Delay in Eviction Proceedings – Judicial Balancing of Expediency and Fairness – Court acknowledged that delays in bona fide eviction cases may frustrate statutory remedy – Tenant directed to ensure witness presence without Court’s assistance – Held: Tenant must produce witnesses on next date without default; no more adjournments permissible [Paras 4–7].

Connected Proceedings – Efficient Use of Common Witness – Tenant permitted to examine MCD official appearing in related eviction matter on same day – Court allowed judicial economy without compromising due process [Para 6].

Decision – Petitions Disposed – Limited Permission to Lead Evidence Granted – All other rights and contentions reserved; order to be given dasti [Paras 7–10].

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 – 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].
 

Civil Writ - Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor Children – Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Writ Not Maintainable – The petitioner-father sought a writ of Habeas Corpus against his wife, who took their minor children to the U.S.A. during the pendency of custody proceedings – Held: Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act by filing execution of the Family Court order granting him custody – Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked in absence of illegal detention or willful flouting of Court orders [Paras 1-5, 8].

Alternative Remedy – Execution of Custody Order – Remedy before Family Court Available – Petition Dismissed – The Family Court had passed an ex parte order granting permanent custody of the children to the petitioner – No steps were taken by the petitioner to enforce this order – Held: The petitioner ought to have filed execution proceedings in the Family Court instead of filing writ petition after delay of four months [Paras 3-5, 9].

Foreign Jurisdiction – Children Taken Abroad – No Illegal Detention Established – Respondent Mother Residing in USA – The respondent-mother took the children to USA without violating any court order – Held: Absence of breach of any judicial directive negates claim of illegal detention – Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot lie in such circumstances [Paras 6, 8].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Costs – The High Court found no maintainability in the writ petition under Habeas Corpus jurisdiction and dismissed the same, while leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue proper remedy before Family Court [Paras 9-10].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Set Aside – Trial Court dismissed suit as barred by limitation due to 1978 relinquishment entry – High Court held that the plaint disclosed triable issues regarding forgery and lack of notice under Section 135(d) Gujarat Land Revenue Code – Rejection of plaint held improper as limitation was a mixed question of fact and law – Suit restored [Paras 7, 11-16].

Limitation – Knowledge of Fraud – Article 59 and Section 17 Limitation Act – Applied – Plaintiff alleged forgery of relinquishment statement dated 24.02.1978 and discovered fraud only upon public notice in 2012 – Held: Limitation begins from date of knowledge of fraud; Article 59 (3 years) and Article 110 (12 years for partition) applied from discovery date – Expert opinion on forged signature supported claim [Paras 7.6, 13-14].

Relinquishment – Unregistered Statement before Talati – Invalid – Court held that mere mutation entries based on statements before revenue officers do not constitute valid relinquishment of property rights – Relinquishment must be by registered document under Transfer of Property Act – Plaintiff continued in revenue records till 1978 without formal partition [Paras 7.5, 14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order rejecting plaint quashed – Special Civil Suit No. 607 of 2013 restored to original file for trial on merits – Held: Issues of limitation, forgery, and rights in ancestral property require evidence and cannot be dismissed at threshold [Para 16].

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].
 

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Delay in Raising Dispute – Reinstatement Set Aside – Compensation Granted – Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity and back wages after delay of 13 years in reference – Held: Though termination violated Section 25(F), unexplained inordinate delay in raising the dispute cannot be ignored – Labour Court should have granted monetary compensation instead – Reinstatement order modified to lump sum compensation [Paras 1-13].

Labour Remedy – No Limitation under Section 10 – Delay Still Material – Even though no statutory limitation applies for raising an industrial dispute, unexplained delay must be considered during adjudication – Courts cannot ignore the prejudice caused to the employer by prolonged delay in seeking remedy [Paras 6-8].

Reinstatement – Temporary Employees – No Right to Post – Workmen were not appointed against permanent posts – Held: Reinstatement cannot be ordered after 19 years when no vacancy exists and workmen held no statutory right to reinstatement – Replaced with compensation [Paras 11-12].

Compensation – Quantum Based on Years of Service – Benchmark of ₹50,000 per Year Applied – Court followed precedents and awarded ₹50,000 per completed year of service to workmen – Directed compensation to be paid within 8 weeks, failing which 8% interest per annum shall apply [Paras 14-15].

*Decision – Reinstatement Orders Modified – Compensation Directed – Reinstatement and back wages set aside – Workmen awarded compensation between ₹1,00,000 to ₹3,00,000 depending on service duration – Payment to be made within 8 weeks with 8% p.a. interest on delay [Paras 15-16].