NDPS – Failure to Follow Procedural Safeguards – Acquittal Upheld – The respondents were acquitted by the Trial Court despite the recovery of 10,000 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon – State challenged the acquittal on the ground that prosecution evidence sufficiently proved possession and seizure – Held: Failure to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 52, 52A, and 57 of the NDPS Act vitiates the trial – No independent witnesses were associated with the search and seizure, and there were contradictions in seizure memo, FIR timing, and forensic sampling – Acquittal upheld [Paras 10-12].

Search and Seizure – Violation of Section 52A NDPS Act – Sampling Not Done in Presence of Magistrate – The prosecution failed to produce seized drugs before a Magistrate for sampling and resealing, as required under Section 52A of NDPS Act – Samples were prepared and sealed by police personnel instead, without magistrate’s certification – Held: Procedural violations cast doubt on authenticity of seizure and sampling, leading to benefit of doubt for accused [Paras 13-16].

Presumption under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act – Failure to Establish Foundational Facts – No Reversal of Burden – The prosecution relied on presumptions of culpable mental state and possession under Sections 35 and 54 – Held: Presumptions apply only when foundational facts are established beyond reasonable doubt – Inconsistencies in prosecution case, failure to prove chain of custody, and missing procedural compliance negate applicability of these presumptions [Paras 20-22].

Unexplained Delay in Sending Samples to Forensic Lab – Genuineness of Seizure Questioned – The samples were sent to FSL after a significant delay, violating guidelines requiring dispatch within 72 hours – Held: Unexplained delay in forensic examination creates doubt regarding tampering and authenticity of seizure, benefiting the accused [Paras 25-26].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – The Court held that prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden, and procedural irregularities seriously undermined the case – Appeal dismissed – Concern expressed over casual and unscientific investigations in NDPS cases, urging stricter compliance with mandatory procedures [Paras 29-30].
 

Electrocution – Negligence of Power Department – Compensation Awarded – The victim, aged eight at the time of the incident, suffered severe burns and amputation due to contact with an uncovered 11KV electric wire. The appellants admitted that the victim came into contact with a live wire but argued that he was at fault. Held, it was the duty of the Power Department to ensure public safety, and failure to insulate or secure the transformer amounted to negligence, making them liable for compensation [Paras 6-12].

Government Compensation Scheme – Not a Bar to Judicial Compensation – The appellants relied on Government Order No. 454-F of 2019, which prescribes ex-gratia relief of Rs. 7.5 lakhs for total disability and Rs. 2 lakhs for partial disability. Held, ex-gratia schemes cannot prevent constitutional courts from awarding just compensation to victims of state negligence. Compensation must be determined based on facts and the extent of disability, beyond statutory ex-gratia amounts [Paras 11-12].

No Contributory Negligence by Minor – The victim was eight years old at the time of the incident. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a child below seven years is incapable of committing a crime, and similar principles of incapacity apply under civil law. The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria does not apply to minors. Held, the minor’s actions cannot absolve the appellants of liability [Paras 12-13].

Quantum of Compensation – Based on Disability and Future Needs – The victim suffered 78% disability, including amputation and severe burns. The Writ Court awarded Rs. 20 lakhs in compensation without itemizing heads. The Supreme Court’s principles in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, for determining compensation in motor accident cases were applied. Held, considering medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, and cost of an artificial limb, the awarded compensation was reasonable and not excessive [Paras 14-15].

Delay in Filing Writ Petition – Explained and Justified – The incident occurred in 2007, and the writ petition was filed in 2018. The victim, a minor at the time, began pursuing his claim after attaining majority. Held, delay and laches cannot be a ground for rejection when the delay is satisfactorily explained, and the victim was legally incapacitated as a minor [Para 15].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the Writ Court is upheld. The Power Development Department is directed to pay Rs. 20 lakhs to the victim along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the writ petition until realization. The court holds that state authorities must ensure public safety and compensate victims fairly in cases of negligence.
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Compounding of Offence – Joint Compromise Memo Filed – The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonor of a cheque for ₹20,00,000/-. During the pendency of the Criminal Revision, the parties amicably resolved the matter through a joint compromise memo, agreeing to settle the dispute for ₹19,00,000/-. The Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, permitted the compounding of the offence and annulled the conviction – Held: Offences under Section 138 of the NI Act, being primarily compensatory in nature, can be compounded even at the revisional stage to secure the ends of justice. Conviction annulled, and petitioner acquitted [Paras 6-10, 40-44].

Inherent Powers – High Court’s Jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC – The Court, invoking its inherent powers, compounded the offence to secure the ends of justice despite the appeal confirming conviction – Held: High Court has discretion to quash convictions under Section 138 of the NI Act when the dispute is amicably resolved, irrespective of procedural restrictions in Section 320 CrPC [Paras 22-25].

Section 147 of NI Act – Overriding Effect on Section 320 CrPC – Section 147 of the NI Act, which permits compounding of offences, overrides restrictions under Section 320 CrPC. Compounding at any stage is permissible for offences under the NI Act, provided it aligns with the objective of compensatory justice [Paras 30-33].

Damodar S. Prabhu Guidelines – Applicability at Revisional Stage – Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., compounding at the revisional stage is subject to appropriate costs to discourage undue delay. However, where compromise is bona fide, the Court may accept the settlement without imposing costs [Paras 10, 43].

Decision – Criminal Revision allowed based on the joint compromise memo – Conviction and sentence imposed by lower courts annulled – Petitioner acquitted [Paras 43-46].
 

Criminal Law - Murder Conviction – Circumstantial and Direct Evidence – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants were convicted for the murder of Gehal Singh based on eyewitness accounts and corroborative evidence – The prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s son, consistently deposed that accused Hira Singh inflicted fatal injuries with a spade while co-accused Jasbir Kaur restrained the victim – The post-mortem confirmed sharp-edged injuries consistent with the weapon recovered at Hira Singh’s instance – Held: Minor discrepancies in testimonies do not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case – The presence of the eyewitnesses was natural and their testimony was supported by medical and forensic evidence – Conviction upheld [Paras 3-8, 13-17].

Reliability of Child Witness – No Mandatory Corroboration Required – Testimony Accepted – The defense challenged the reliability of Phuman Singh (PW-7), a 10-year-old eyewitness – Held: A child witness’s testimony can be accepted if found credible and not tutored – In this case, Phuman Singh’s presence at the crime scene was natural, and his testimony was consistent with other prosecution witnesses – Courts have upheld child witness testimonies if they withstand scrutiny and show no signs of tutoring – Conviction sustained based on corroborated testimony of PW-7 [Paras 14-17].

Delay in FIR Registration – Not Fatal to Prosecution Case – The FIR was lodged approximately 8 hours after the incident – The defense argued that this delay indicated fabrication – Held: The delay was justified as the key eyewitnesses, being elderly and in shock, waited until morning to approach the police – Courts have held that delay in filing an FIR does not automatically vitiate the prosecution’s case unless there is proof of deliberation and false implication – No such evidence existed here – Conviction upheld [Paras 18-19].

Motive for Murder – Illicit Relationship Between Accused – Established Beyond Doubt – The prosecution established that Jasbir Kaur and Hira Singh were in an illicit relationship, leading to the murder of Gehal Singh – Witnesses confirmed that the deceased had objected to their relationship before his death – Held: Motive was clear and consistent with the circumstances – While motive alone cannot sustain a conviction, its presence reinforced the prosecution’s case – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20-21].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Limited Scope for Interference – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The trial court and first appellate court arrived at consistent findings based on direct and circumstantial evidence – Held: High Court will not interfere with concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse or manifestly erroneous – The conviction was based on sound legal principles and reliable evidence – Appeal dismissed, and accused directed to surrender for serving their remaining sentence [Paras 21-22].
 

Civil Law - Export Credit – Interpretation of Maximum Tenure – Paragraph 1.1.2(ii) of the Master Circular – Partial Relief Granted - The Borrowers challenged the reversal of subvention on export credit due to delays in submitting export documents despite fulfilling export obligations within the stipulated period of 450 days. Held: Submission of export documents is a procedural requirement aimed at proving exports. A minor delay in submission does not disqualify the advances as "export credit" when the export obligation is fulfilled within the prescribed period. [Paras 43-47, 56].

Subvention Reversal – Validity of Banking Ombudsman’s Decision – Set Aside for First Lot; Upheld for Second Lot - For the First Lot of export transactions, where exports were effected within 450 days, the reversal of subvention was held to be unjustified. For the Second Lot, where exports did not materialize within 450 days, the reversal of subvention and reclassification of advances as domestic credit were upheld. [Paras 50-56, 62-63].

Beneficial Instruments – Purposive Interpretation of Master Circular – Relief Granted for Procedural Lapses - The Court emphasized that the Master Circular is a regulatory instrument promoting export competitiveness and must be interpreted in letter and spirit to fulfill its objective. Procedural delays in document submission should not undermine the substantive compliance of export obligations. [Paras 23, 47, 55].

Rule of Compliance – Strict vs. Substantial – Beneficial Instruments - Distinguishing between strict compliance (exports within 450 days) and substantial compliance (delayed submission of documents proving exports), the Court held that substantial compliance suffices to uphold the advances as "export credit." [Paras 43, 66-67].

Decision of the Court – The reversal of subvention for the First Lot was set aside, and the Borrowers were entitled to the benefits under the Subvention Scheme. However, the reversal for the Second Lot was upheld due to failure to effect exports within the stipulated period. Directions issued for recalibration of accounts and compliance by the Bank. [Paras 72(a)-(l)].
 

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Judicial Review – Detention Order Quashed – The detaining authority failed to establish a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the alleged activities of the detenue – Subjective satisfaction was vitiated due to lack of material evidence and application of mind – Decision: Detention quashed, detenue released [Paras 13, 20, 24].

Grounds of Detention – Vagueness and Ambiguity – Constitutional Safeguards Violated – Held: Grounds of detention lacked specificity, rendering them vague and irrelevant – Non-disclosure of material relied upon by the authority violated the detenue’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution – Decision: Detention order set aside [Paras 19, 21-23].

Health Grounds – Preventive Detention and Medical Needs – Constitutional Safeguards Ignored – The detenue’s health condition, including a chronic medical ailment, was overlooked by the detaining authority – Failure to consider medical grounds amounted to a constitutional violation – Decision: Detention order quashed; detenue released [Paras 7, 23].

Role of Advisory Board – Duty to Conduct Independent Review – Held: The Advisory Board failed to provide an independent review of the detention order, reducing its role to a mere formality – Such actions violate constitutional protections – Decision: Detention quashed [Paras 18, 20].

Relevant Material – Non-Disclosure – Constitutional Violation – Non-supply of documents relied upon by the detaining authority invalidated the detenue’s opportunity for an effective representation – Held: Failure to supply essential material violated Article 22(5) – Decision: Detention quashed; immediate release ordered [Paras 21-23].

Decision: The detention order issued under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, was quashed on grounds of non-application of mind, vagueness in allegations, and failure to adhere to constitutional safeguards. The Court ordered the immediate release of the detenue unless required in any other case.
 

Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Appeals and Cross Objections – Appeals and Cross Objections arose from a Common Order enhancing compensation for acquired lands – Reference Court enhanced market value from ₹45,000/- to ₹1,13,000/- per acre for dry land and from ₹65,000/- to ₹1,33,000/- per acre for irrigated dry land (ID land) – Held: Market value determined by the Reference Court is lawful, reasonable, and adequately supported by evidence – No interference warranted in the Reference Court's findings [Paras 1-3, 11, 19, 53, 55].

Mineral Deposits – Kadapa Slabs and Limestone – Claim Rejected – Claimants contended that the acquired lands contained deposits of Kadapa slabs and limestone – Reference Court and High Court rejected the claims due to lack of evidence, as no records, quarrying activities, or official documents substantiated the claim – Claimants failed to mention mineral deposits in their initial claim statements, raising doubts about credibility – Contentions regarding mineral deposits were introduced post-acquisition to inflate compensation – Held: Lands cannot be classified as containing Kadapa slabs and limestone [Paras 20-22, 31-33, 37, 39-40].

Post-Notification Transactions – Non-Consideration – Claimants relied on Ex.A.2 (post-notification sale deed indicating ₹3,00,000/- per acre) to argue for higher compensation – Reference Court rightly ignored Ex.A.2, as the transaction occurred over two years after the notification and was influenced by subsequent developments – Held: Market value must be based on pre-notification or contemporaneous transactions, not post-notification sales [Paras 41-43, 44-47].

Comparable Awards – Escalation Applied – Reference Court relied on comparable Awards (Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.9) for determining market value – 10% annual escalation applied for 12 years from ₹50,000/- to ₹1,13,000/- for dry land and ₹1,33,000/- for ID land – High Court found this escalation reasonable and in line with precedents – Held: No merit in the Government Pleader’s contention against the 10% escalation [Paras 48-53].

Severance Charges – New Claim Not Entertained – Claimants sought severance charges at the appellate stage – Held: New claims beyond the pleadings cannot be introduced under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act – Cross objection on this point rejected [Para 54].

Decision – Appeals and Cross Objections dismissed – Compensation determined by the Reference Court upheld – Miscellaneous pending applications dismissed [Paras 55-56].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Burden of Proof – Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act – Relief Granted – The plaintiff must establish both readiness (financial capacity) and willingness (conduct) to perform obligations under the contract – In this case, evidence in the form of fixed deposits and legal notices proved the plaintiff's readiness and willingness – Held: Plaintiff demonstrated compliance with Section 16(c), justifying specific performance – Decision: Decree upheld with additional interest and costs. [Paras 15, 18, 23, 32].

Execution of Sale Agreement – Burden of Proof – Sections 101-103, Evidence Act – Sale Agreement Upheld – The burden to prove the sale agreement's validity was on the plaintiff, discharged through corroborative witness testimonies and documentary evidence – Defendant’s assertion of fabrication unsupported by evidence – Held: Execution of the sale agreement was valid – Decision: Decree upheld with modifications. [Paras 19-23, 38].

Judicial Admissions – Weight and Impact – Admission by Defendant – Statements in cross-examination regarding signing the agreement and receipt of money constituted judicial admissions, shifting the burden onto the defendant to refute – Held: Defendant’s failure to rebut admissions reinforced the validity of the agreement – Decision: Defendant’s claims rejected. [Paras 20-21, 33-37].

Discretion in Specific Performance – Section 20(2), Specific Relief Act – Discretion Exercised Judiciously – Grant of specific performance lies within judicial discretion and depends on equitable considerations – In the absence of hardship or unfair advantage, the trial court’s decree was affirmed – Held: Trial court exercised discretion correctly – Decision: Specific performance granted with equitable relief. [Paras 50-52].

Escalation in Property Prices – No Bar to Specific Performance – Grant of Additional Amount – Escalation in property prices during litigation does not bar specific performance but may justify equitable relief – Held: Additional amount of Rs. 3,00,000 awarded to the defendant, along with interest on the balance consideration – Decision: Decree modified to include interest and additional payment. [Paras 49, 61].
 

Criminal Law - Section 91 CrPC – Issuance of Summons Without Investigation – Quashed – Summons issued by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) under Section 91 CrPC were challenged on the ground that they were issued in the absence of any pending investigation, inquiry, or trial. The court held that Section 91 can only be invoked during a lawful investigation, inquiry, or trial under the CrPC and not during preliminary verification. Since preliminary verification does not amount to an investigation under the CrPC, the issuance of summons was held to be without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. [Paras 6-9].

Preliminary Verification by Anti-Corruption Bureau – Excessive Delay – Prejudice Caused – The ACB's preliminary verification relating to financial transactions dating back to 1990 was challenged for being initiated after an inordinate delay of over three decades. The court held that such delay caused inherent prejudice to the petitioner society, making it impossible to effectively defend itself. The loss of documents, records, and key individuals involved violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the verification procedurally unfair. The delayed initiation of verification was thus quashed. [Paras 7-9].

J&K Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Registrar – The court noted that the Jammu & Kashmir Cooperative Societies Act provides a comprehensive framework for the regulation, audit, inspection, and accountability of cooperative societies. The Registrar has the exclusive authority to address financial irregularities and enforce compliance. The ACB's attempt to circumvent the statutory mechanism under the Act was held to be without legal basis. [Paras 5-6, 7].

Principles of Natural Justice – Right to Fair Defence Compromised – Initiating verification proceedings against a cooperative society after a lapse of more than three decades was deemed to place the society at an insurmountable disadvantage. The loss of records and the inability to mount an effective defence constituted a violation of the right to fair defence, rendering the verification proceedings invalid. [Para 7].

Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Intervention to Secure Justice – The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the impugned summons and preliminary verification as their continuance would constitute an abuse of process and cause a miscarriage of justice. [Para 10].

Decision: CRM(M) No. 317/2024: The petition was allowed, and the summons issued under Section 91 CrPC by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 02/04/2024 were quashed. CRM(M) No. 133/2024: The petition was allowed, and the preliminary verification initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau vide No. SSP/MSA/Misc.16/2023/ACB/8961-62 dated 20/12/2023 was quashed. The court clarified that this decision is confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a binding precedent.