Criminal Law - Acquittal in Essential Commodities Act Violation – Prosecution’s Burden of Proof – The State challenged the trial court’s acquittal of the accused, arguing that the unlicensed possession of rapeseed oil contravened essential commodity regulations. The court noted that the prosecution failed to substantiate ownership and possession of the storage site, undermining their claim – Held: Prosecution evidence did not conclusively prove the accused’s possession of the godown, nor link them definitively to the contraband, justifying the acquittal [Paras 5-7].

Appellate Interference in Acquittal Orders – Double Presumption of Innocence – Citing Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and State of U.P. v. Banne, the court emphasized the need for restraint in overturning acquittals, especially where evidence is inconclusive or lacks corroboration – Held: The presumption of innocence is reinforced post-acquittal, and appellate interference is warranted only if findings are perverse or ignore substantial evidence, which was not established here [Paras 10-14].

Analyst’s Report and Evidence Reliability – The prosecution relied on an analyst’s report that identified adulteration in a sample of rapeseed oil, though only one of the fifteen tins was tested. The court found this insufficient to prove uniform contamination, further noting irregularities in evidence handling – Held: Evidence lacked the reliability to support the State’s claims, underscoring the trial court’s decision [Para 12].

Judgment – Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld. The court found no compelling reason to overturn the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment given the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Decision: Appeal G.A. 11 of 1986 dismissed. Trial court acquittal under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act is upheld.

Selection Process – Eligibility and Compliance with Control Order Requirements – The petitioners contested the selection of Respondent No. 6 for MR distributorship, asserting that his godown failed to meet key specifications, such as sufficient ventilation and an open veranda, required under the Control Order, 2013 – Held: The Directorate Level Selection Committee’s allocation of high marks to Respondent No. 6, despite non-compliance with essential godown specifications, was arbitrary and merited judicial review [Paras 6-9].

Sanction of Godown Plan by Gram Panchayat – Validity and Jurisdiction – Petitioners argued that the plan for Respondent No. 6’s godown was improperly sanctioned by a Gram Panchayat, which lacked the authority to approve structures over 6,000 sq. ft. – The court agreed, holding that only the Zilla Parishad could authorize such plans under the Panchayat Act, rendering the respondent's approval invalid and unsuitable for a public distribution purpose [Paras 10-13].

Final Score Adjustment and Procedural Irregularities – Despite Respondent No. 6 scoring lower than the petitioner on the initial inspection, he received higher final marks due to the committee’s 80% weighting – Court found that this manipulation lacked transparency and disregarded merit-based assessment, favoring Respondent No. 6 without clear justification [Paras 15-18].

Selection of Respondent No. 6 for MR distributorship quashed. Direction issued to grant distributorship license to the petitioner, provided he meets all eligibility criteria within six weeks [Para 25].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Selection of Respondent No. 6 for distributorship is quashed. State authority directed to issue license to the petitioner if found eligible.

Guardianship – Article 226 – Appointment of Guardian for Person in Comatose State – Petition filed under Article 226 seeking declaration of the petitioner as the guardian of her husband, who is in a persistent vegetative state due to a cerebrovascular stroke – Held: No existing legislation for appointing a guardian in such cases; Court invoked parens patriae jurisdiction to safeguard the interests of the comatose patient – Wife appointed as guardian to manage movable and immovable properties for the benefit of the husband and family – Strict conditions imposed for compliance and accountability [Paras 9–15].

Comatose Patient – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Lack of Legislation – In absence of specific statutory provisions addressing guardianship of persons in a vegetative state, the Court exercised parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 – Directive principles of state policy underscore the need for legislative intervention to address guardianship for individuals in such conditions [Paras 10–16].

Guidelines – Guardian Accountability – Court issued detailed guidelines ensuring accountability of the appointed guardian, including periodic reporting, restriction on misuse, and oversight by the Registrar and public officers – Permitted use of funds strictly for medical and welfare purposes [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Petitioner declared guardian of her husband, with authority to manage listed properties and accounts under prescribed conditions – Court emphasized legislative necessity to streamline guardianship procedures for comatose individuals.
 

Civil Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Medical Grounds and Lack of Notice from Counsel – Petitioners sought condonation of delay, citing medical complications following knee surgery of petitioner No. 1 and lack of communication from counsel – Court noted medical records substantiating the health issues and lack of timely notification as valid reasons for delay – Held: Technicalities should not hinder substantive justice; delay condoned, appeal to be decided on merits [Paras 5-8].

Compensation for Delay – Undertaking to Avoid Further Adjournments – Petitioners compensated respondent with ₹50,000 for the delay – They further undertook not to seek adjournments in the appellate proceedings, ensuring no further delay – Held: Compensation and undertaking considered sufficient; appeal remanded for expeditious disposal [Para 10].

Decision: The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.09.2024 is set aside, and the First Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits, ensuring prompt disposal.

Criminal Law – Quashing of POCSO and Rape Charges – Settlement and Marriage with Victim – Application under Section 482 of CrPC – Petition by Accused Nos. 1 to 3 to quash charges under Sections 450, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 6(1), 5(j)(ii)(l), and 21 of the POCSO Act, asserting that the accused married the victim, and they are now living peacefully with their child – Held: Generally, charges of rape and POCSO Act offenses are serious crimes impacting public interest, and compromise is not permissible as such cases affect society – However, in this unique circumstance where the victim married the accused and settled with the family, the Court considered humanitarian grounds, prioritizing family harmony and child welfare over continuation of litigation – Quashment allowed exceptionally to ensure peaceful family life and child well-being [Paras 1, 8-9].

Public Policy Considerations – Limitations on Compromise in Serious Offenses – Exception for Family Welfare – Court examined the limits of compromise in heinous offenses, referencing precedent to affirm that cases involving rape, sexual assault, or POCSO Act charges cannot typically be quashed on settlement grounds, given their social impact – Held: While such offenses are generally non-compoundable and immune to settlement-based quashment, Court granted an exception for family welfare, underscoring the importance of stability for the minor child and marital harmony in the specific context [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Proceedings in S.C. No. 273 of 2021 quashed in light of marriage and family considerations – Case dismissed to preserve family unity and child welfare [Para 9].

Customs Act – Show Cause Notice – Limitation under Section 28(9) – The appellant argued that the adjudication proceedings initiated under Show Cause Notice dated 28/09/2022 were barred by limitation as per Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings had to be concluded by 27/09/2023, and the extension granted on 07/05/2024 was belated and invalid. – Held: The limitation period under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act can only be extended after the expiry of the initial limitation period. In this case, the extension was validly granted by a senior officer under the proviso to Section 28(9) before the final expiry. The proceedings were not barred by limitation. [Paras 24–28, 47–49].

Failure to Adjudicate within Time – Abatement of Proceedings – Under the second proviso to Section 28(9), if proceedings are not concluded within the extended period, the show cause notice is deemed to have abated. – Held: The time taken before various forums, including this Court, stands excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act. The adjudicating officer is now required to conclude proceedings within the remaining extended period. [Paras 58–59].

Customs – Procedural Irregularities – Disciplinary Action – The Customs Department initiated disciplinary proceedings against two officers for lapses that delayed adjudication. However, the Court observed signs of systemic fraud and complicity among senior officers. – Held: The Customs Department is directed to conduct a comprehensive vigilance probe and initiate disciplinary and anti-corruption proceedings against all officers involved. A status report is to be filed within six months. [Paras 57, 61–62].

Cross-Examination in Customs Proceedings – Premature Request – The appellant requested cross-examination of witnesses without submitting a reply to the show cause notice. – Held: Applications for cross-examination should only be entertained after submission of a reply on merits in customs proceedings. [Para 60].

Jurisdiction of CESTAT – Appeal Against Improper Officer’s Order – The appeal to CESTAT against the Deputy Commissioner of Customs’ rejection of cross-examination was entertained erroneously as the officer was not competent to adjudicate the show cause notice. – Held: The CESTAT’s interim order allowing cross-examination was without jurisdiction and a nullity. [Paras 39–41].

Decision: The High Court upheld the validity of the extended adjudication period under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act. It dismissed the appeal and emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural safeguards, including timely adjudication and proper oversight within the Customs Department. The Court also directed a vigilance probe to address systemic lapses and ensure accountability among officials.
 

Civil Law - Res Judicata – Applicability in Appellate Court – The appellants contended that the appellate court’s decree, allowing the plaintiffs’ cross-objection for Plots Nos. 544 and 545, violated res judicata since the prior ruling in RFA No.16/2004 dismissed claims over these plots without further challenge – Held: The issue had been conclusively determined, thus the appellate court lacked authority to re-adjudicate on these plots due to res judicata under Section 11 of CPC [Paras 18-24].

Cross-Objection Filing – Appellate Procedure – The respondents argued that a single appeal challenging both the main decree and cross-objection decrees was permissible under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC – Held: A combined challenge against both the primary and cross-objection decrees is legally permissible, negating the need for separate appeals in such cases [Paras 25-28].

Adverse Possession – Defendants' Claim Over Suit Property – Defendants asserted adverse possession over Plot No.369/2169 and disputed plaintiffs’ title based on long-standing possession – Held: Defendants failed to demonstrate continuous, hostile possession as required under law; concurrent findings of title and possession in favor of plaintiffs upheld as based on credible evidence and legal standards [Paras 31-35].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Appellate Review Limitations – Appellants sought re-evaluation of factual findings concerning Plot No.369/2169 – Held: Concurrent factual findings by trial and appellate courts are typically immune from second appellate scrutiny unless shown to be perverse or legally untenable, which was not established in this case [Paras 36-38].

Final Decision – The appeal was partially allowed – The appellate decree in favor of plaintiffs over Plots Nos. 544 and 545 was set aside, while the decree over Plot No.369/2169 was confirmed [Conclusion].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce - Cruelty – False Allegations and Prolonged Harassment – Divorce Granted – The appellant-husband alleged that the respondent-wife engaged in false criminal complaints, harassment at his workplace, and multiple accusations involving his family members. The allegations were corroborated through evidence, including cross-examinations and documentary proof, demonstrating mental cruelty inflicted on the husband. – Held: Filing baseless complaints and attempting to tarnish the spouse's professional and personal life constitutes mental cruelty. The marriage was irretrievably broken, and the divorce was granted. [Paras 12-18].

Desertion – Leaving Matrimonial Home Without Reasonable Cause – Divorce Justified – The respondent-wife deserted the husband on 29th July 2015 without justifiable cause. She failed to establish any immediate or reasonable justification for leaving the matrimonial home. Her subsequent conduct, including refusal to resume cohabitation, further proved desertion. – Held: Desertion for more than two years without reasonable cause is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. [Paras 16-18].

Compromise Agreement – Waiver of Past Cruelty – Failure to Reunite – The respondent-wife contended that prior instances of cruelty were waived during a compromise agreement filed in a criminal case. However, the husband provided evidence that the wife continued her hostile behavior post-compromise, including filing additional criminal cases. – Held: A compromise agreement cannot absolve subsequent instances of cruelty. The compromise was ineffective as the parties failed to resume cohabitation. [Paras 10, 15-17].

Dowry Allegations – Lack of Proof – No Ground for Restitution – The respondent-wife made unsubstantiated allegations of dowry demand and improper conduct by the husband’s family. These allegations were vague, unproved, and appeared to have been made to support her case for restitution. – Held: Baseless and unsupported allegations against the husband and his family amount to cruelty and negate the wife’s claim for restitution of conjugal rights. [Paras 13-14].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Divorce Allowed – The marriage lasted only two years and was fraught with disputes, criminal cases, and hostile behavior. Both parties admitted the breakdown of their marital relationship. – Held: While irretrievable breakdown is not an explicit ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Supreme Court has recognized it as a valid consideration. Divorce was granted in light of the prolonged hostility and lack of mutual affection. [Paras 8, 19-21].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Denied – The Family Court decreed restitution in favor of the wife despite evidence showing her refusal to cooperate in reconciliation efforts and her hostile actions against the husband. – Held: Restitution cannot be decreed where one party’s conduct demonstrates an intention to disrupt the marital relationship. The decree for restitution was set aside. [Paras 20-21].

Decision: The Orissa High Court reversed the Family Court's decision and granted divorce to the husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the wife was set aside as her conduct was inconsistent with her claim for reconciliation. Both appeals were disposed of with no orders as to costs.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Cruelty – Mental Illness and Suppression of Facts – Divorce Granted – The appellant-husband sought divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty caused by the respondent-wife’s erratic and unsound behavior, which was allegedly suppressed at the time of marriage – Evidence presented by the appellant, including his testimony and that of his neighbor, remained unrebutted by the respondent, who failed to appear before the Family Court or High Court – Held: Mental cruelty was established due to the respondent’s mental state, which caused harassment, humiliation, and societal insult to the appellant – Divorce was granted in favor of the appellant [Paras 9, 13].

Desertion – Factum of Separation and Animus Deserendi – Divorce Granted – The Court referred to the principles of desertion as explained by the Supreme Court in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah vs. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176 – The respondent had been living separately since 2012 without justifiable reason, satisfying the conditions of factum of separation and animus deserendi – Held: The respondent’s desertion was established, and the decree of divorce was granted in favor of the appellant [Paras 10, 12].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation and Absence of Cohabitation – Divorce Granted – The Court noted that the parties had been living separately for 12 years, with no possibility of reconciliation – Citing Supreme Court judgments in R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha, 2019 (4) SCC 409 and Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 (4) SCC 511, the Court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and its continuation would constitute cruelty – Held: Divorce was granted as the marriage had broken down irretrievably [Paras 11-13].

Permanent Alimony – Economic Condition of Parties Considered – Alimony Directed – The Court directed the appellant-husband, a laborer, to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 as permanent alimony for the respondent-wife within two months – Held: The decree of divorce was made conditional upon payment of alimony to ensure financial support for the respondent [Para 14].