NDPS Act – Section 67 Statements – Admissibility – The applicant’s role was primarily established through statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Following Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, such statements are inadmissible as confessions under the Evidence Act – Held: Section 67 statements cannot sustain a prima facie case for continued detention [Paras 12–18].

Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Applicant has been in custody for over three years, with no progress in trial – Apex Court judgments underscore that undue delay in trials violates fundamental rights, even under statutes like NDPS – Held: Bail granted despite commercial quantity being seized, given the lack of corroborative evidence and delayed trial [Paras 19–23].

NDPS Act – Section 37 Embargo – Conditional Liberty Overriding Statutory Bar – While Section 37 of the NDPS Act prescribes strict conditions for bail, prolonged detention without trial completion or substantial evidence allows the Court to override the embargo – Held: Applicant is entitled to bail with stringent conditions [Paras 24–28].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Applicant granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure non-interference with trial proceedings and restrictions on travel [Para 29].

Scope of Section 100 CPC – Interference in Second Appeal – Court reiterated that its jurisdiction in second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law and not errors in factual findings or re-appreciation of evidence – Decision: Appeal dismissed as the issues raised were factual and lacked a substantial question of law [Paras 16-19].

Interest on Claims – Determination of Interest from Suit Filing Date – Plaintiff sought interest on withheld amounts and damages from an earlier date – Court held that interest was rightly awarded from the date of suit as no prior claim for interest was made before filing – Decision: Judgment of the appellate court upheld as consistent with settled principles [Paras 28-30].

Reassessment of Damages – Consistency with Documentary Evidence – Plaintiff challenged the exclusion of watchman charges and withheld amounts – Appellate court justified in excluding claims due to lack of proof and endorsement relinquishing claims – Decision: Findings of the appellate court were held valid and affirmed [Paras 24-26].

Substantial Questions of Law – Requirement for Review – Court emphasized that second appeals must involve debatable legal issues or contraventions of settled legal principles – Decision: Appeal dismissed as no such substantial legal issues were presented [Paras 32-34].

Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, in A.S. No. 6 of 1997 was affirmed, and the trial court’s decree was upheld to the extent of Rs. 21,000 with appropriate interest. Pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction overturned - Dying Declarations – Conflicting Evidence – Two inconsistent dying declarations formed the basis of the prosecution's case – Court observed significant discrepancies in the deceased's statements regarding specific overt acts by the accused – Decision: The Court held it unsafe to convict the accused solely based on inconsistent dying declarations without corroborative evidence, leading to acquittal [Paras 28-32, 45-47].

Corroborative Evidence – Lack of Supporting Witnesses – Prosecution failed to examine crucial witnesses who could corroborate the deceased's statements – Key witnesses turned hostile, raising doubt about the prosecution's case – Decision: The absence of corroboration was deemed critical, warranting the appellants' acquittal [Paras 33-36].

Standard of Proof – Benefit of Doubt to Accused – Highlighted the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof – Court emphasized the duty to ensure guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt – Decision: The appellants were granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted [Paras 40-43].

Judicial Examination of Evidence – Admissibility of Dying Declarations – Reiterated that dying declarations must be voluntary, consistent, and corroborated by surrounding circumstances – Found inconsistencies and lack of clarity in statements raised doubts about their veracity – Decision: Conviction based solely on the declarations was overturned [Paras 24-27].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 IPC by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, were set aside. The appellants were acquitted under Section 235(1) CrPC.

Dowry Harassment and Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – Insufficient Evidence – Appellant alleged harassment and demands for ₹1,50,000/- on two occasions for job recruitment and transfer – Trial Court found no corroboration for the incidents, with gaps in medical and material evidence – Held: Mere allegations without supporting evidence cannot sustain conviction under Section 498A IPC – Acquittal upheld [Paras 10–15].

Delay in Filing FIR – Impact on Credibility – Incidents allegedly occurred in 2012, but the FIR was filed in May 2014 after failed counseling efforts – Delay and inconsistencies in testimony undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case – Held: Courts rightly dismissed allegations due to procedural delays and lack of corroborative proof [Paras 16–20].

Marital Cruelty – Evaluation of Witness Testimony – Prosecution relied on testimonies of the appellant, her mother, and sister – Courts found evidence from interested witnesses inconsistent and lacking material proof – Held: Findings of the trial and Sessions Courts do not warrant interference [Paras 22–24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court's judgment dated 18/01/2019 and Sessions Court's judgment dated 15/09/2022 upheld – Interim Application disposed of as a result of appeal dismissal [Para 25].

Public Land – Unauthorized Construction – Jurisdiction of Authorities – The petitioner alleged unauthorized construction on government land under Dag Nos. 1320 and 1321 belonging to the Irrigation Department – Private respondents admitted partial encroachment and sought long-term lease – Held: Encroachment on Jola and Doba land, classified as irrigation land, requires specific permission – Sub-Divisional Officer directed to take necessary steps for eviction and demolition of illegal construction under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962, within eight weeks [Paras 11-15].

Locus Standi – Right to Challenge Encroachment on Public Land – Petitioner, as an affected neighbor, has locus standi to lodge complaints about encroachment on public land – Responsible individuals can approach authorities for violations of public land laws – Authorities are duty-bound to act in accordance with law [Paras 12-13].

Parallel Proceedings – Impact on Writ Jurisdiction – Private respondents contended that parallel proceedings in civil court barred the writ petition – Court clarified that writ jurisdiction is maintainable for illegal encroachment on public land even if civil proceedings address related disputes – Relief granted without impinging on pending title suit [Paras 9-10, 15].

Demolition of Encroachment – Directions to Authorities – Sub-Divisional Officer directed to proceed with eviction and demolition under statutory provisions, ensuring proper hearing to all parties – Order made keeping pending civil proceedings in view to avoid conflict of decisions [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions for eviction and demolition – Sub-Divisional Officer to comply within eight weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 15-17].

Domestic Violence – Maintenance to Divorced Wife – Applicability of PWDV Act – Applicant challenged the enhancement of maintenance awarded to his divorced wife under the PWDV Act – Contended that divorce dissolves the domestic relationship, negating claims under the Act – Held: As per Supreme Court rulings in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi and V. D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, a divorced wife is entitled to reliefs under the PWDV Act for acts of domestic violence committed during the domestic relationship – Appeal dismissed, and maintenance upheld [Paras 8-13].

Definition of Domestic Relationship – Divorce Irrelevant to Past Violence – The PWDV Act protects divorced women for acts of violence occurring during the marriage – Court emphasized that the absence of a subsisting domestic relationship at the time of filing the application does not bar claims under Section 12 of the PWDV Act – Relief granted if the violence is linked to the period of domestic relationship [Paras 11-13].

Maintenance Enhancement – Validity of Order – Trial court awarded maintenance of ₹1,500/month, later enhanced to ₹3,000/month by appellate court – High Court upheld the enhancement, finding no perversity in the orders and affirming the divorced wife's entitlement to monetary relief under the PWDV Act [Paras 2, 14].

Legal Principles – Wider Scope of PWDV Act – Observations in Prabha Tyagi clarified that the Act provides comprehensive protection to women, including divorced wives, for violence occurring during the marriage – Supreme Court jurisprudence supports maintenance for acts of domestic violence irrespective of marital status at the time of filing [Paras 8-13].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – Maintenance of ₹3,000/month upheld – No interference warranted in the appellate court’s judgment [Paras 13-14].

Pension Revision – UGC Pay Scale – Kerala Service Rules (Part III) – Respondents retired from Collegiate Education Department under UGC pay scale – Tribunal directed pension revision from 01/01/2006, citing Government Order stipulating pension calculation based on revised pay introduced retrospectively – Held: Pensioners entitled to revised pension from 01/01/2006 as per Kerala Service Rules and law laid down in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka – Government’s postponement of benefits to 01/07/2009 held unjustified [Paras 7-9].

Policy Decisions – Judicial Interference – Contention that courts should not interfere in policy decisions rejected where statutory provisions and established law mandate specific benefits – Tribunal's direction upheld as it aligns with KSR provisions and Supreme Court rulings [Paras 10-12].

Retrospective Pay Revision – Consequential Pension Benefits – Once pay is revised retrospectively, pension must reflect the revised pay, irrespective of retirement date within the effective period – Delay in granting benefits contravenes established rules and principles of equity [Paras 8, 9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s order upheld – State directed to disburse revised pension and arrears within four weeks [Paras 13, 15].
 

Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Interpretation of Ownership Rights and Possession – Appellant challenged the decree of mandatory injunction for recovery of possession without a declaration of title – Held: Under Section 100 of CPC, a second appeal lies only if substantial questions of law are involved – No substantial question arises in this case since the findings were based on evidence and principles of Mohammedan Law – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-16, 28-29].

Mohammedan Law – Oral Gift – Validity of Gift Without Writing – Under Mohammedan Law, oral gift is valid without a written instrument if three essentials are met: declaration of gift, acceptance by donee, and delivery of possession – Evidence including notices and testimony proved these essentials in this case – Gift upheld as valid despite absence of written documentation [Paras 21-27].

Possession Under Oral Gift – Constructive Delivery Sufficient – 1st Plaintiff established constructive possession of the gifted property, supported by notices and acknowledgment by the defendant – Defendant’s plea of joint family property dismissed, as the concept is inapplicable under Mohammedan Law – Possession and ownership rights upheld [Paras 24-27].

Injunction Without Declaration of Title – Exception Applied – Suit for mandatory injunction without declaration of title is maintainable when no genuine dispute regarding title arises – Courts below correctly granted injunction for recovery of possession based on valid oral gift [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts affirmed – No costs [Paras 28-29].

Maintainability of Public Interest Petition – Parallel Civil Litigation – Petitioners filed a PIL alleging encroachment of a historic public road while disputes over the same subject were pending in civil courts – Decision: PIL dismissed as the matter pertains to private rights and cannot be entertained under public interest jurisdiction [Paras 15-17].

Public Interest Jurisdiction – Misuse for Private Disputes – Court emphasized that PIL jurisdiction is reserved for genuine public causes – Found that the petitioners, being defendants in civil suits over the disputed road, sought to circumvent the civil court proceedings – Decision: Petition dismissed for lack of bona fides and misuse of PIL mechanism [Paras 18-20].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Exclusive Domain over Private Disputes – Court reiterated that PIL cannot be used to challenge or interfere with civil court orders in private disputes – Decision: Relief sought to set aside interim civil court orders was declined, upholding separation of judicial domains [Paras 22-23].

Road Development Allegations – Lack of Evidence – Petitioners alleged non-development of a 100-year-old mud road and encroachment by a private respondent – Court found no substantive proof of public utility status or wrongful encroachment – Decision: Petitioners failed to substantiate claims, leading to dismissal [Paras 25-27].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, citing the pending civil suits and the lack of bona fide public interest. The Court declined all reliefs, including setting aside civil court orders or issuing directions for road development.