Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted of murdering his elder brother based on circumstantial evidence – The prosecution failed to establish a continuous chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused – There were discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding the timeline and actions of the accused, which raised reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case – The appellant was acquitted due to failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 27-58]​.

Dying Declaration and Witness Testimonies – Reliability – Witness testimonies were inconsistent about the events leading up to the victim's death – Despite allegations that the victim had made a dying declaration implicating the appellant, there was no corroboration by neutral witnesses – The inconsistencies in key testimonies regarding the victim's condition and the actions of the accused weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 31-42]​.

Discovery of Weapons – Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – The recovery of a blood-stained iron pipe allegedly used in the crime was not forensically linked to the accused – The failure to establish a clear connection between the recovered weapon and the crime led the Court to dismiss the discovery as insufficient evidence for conviction under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act [Paras 47-55]​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in any other case [Para 58]​.

Merit List – Non-operation of Merit List Downwards – Petition Allowed – The petitioners, qualified candidates for Assistant Engineer (Electrical) posts, contended that despite the Supreme Court’s judgment, the Telangana State Power Generation Corporation did not operate the merit list downwards to fill 42 unfilled posts – The Court held that the corporation’s decision to not fill the vacancies was unjustified, especially since the same unfilled vacancies were carried forward in a fresh notification in 2023 – Directed the respondent corporation to consider the petitioners for appointment based on their merit and roster points [Paras 50-56].

Government Employment – Reasonable Expectation of Appointment – The Court noted that while inclusion in a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, the State cannot arbitrarily refuse to fill up vacancies – The corporation’s argument of surplus employees was found to be factually incorrect in light of subsequent recruitments [Paras 43-50].

Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The Court directed the respondent corporation to consider the petitioners for appointment to 42 unfilled Assistant Engineer (Electrical) posts based on merit and roster points within six weeks.

Refund of Stamp Duty – Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Refusal of Refund Upheld - The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 65,37,500 paid as stamp duty and transfer duty for a sale deed that was refused registration. The High Court held that once the stamp duty has been utilized for a presented document, it cannot be refunded merely because the registration was refused for non-compliance with the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner, having voluntarily withdrawn the registration proposal, could not seek a refund under Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which allows refunds only in limited situations, none of which applied in this case [Paras 12-13, 18-19].

Utilization of Stamp Duty – No Refund Upon Document Execution - The Court emphasized that once a document is executed and stamp duty is paid, the intended purpose of the stamp duty is considered served, even if registration is subsequently refused. As such, the petitioner’s claim for a refund was denied, and the Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the refund [Paras 17-18].

Distinction Between Stamp Duty and Registration Fee - The Court noted the distinction between stamp duty and registration fees under the Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908, holding that while registration fees may be refunded if registration is refused, stamp duty paid for an executed document cannot be refunded once the duty has been utilized [Paras 13-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the District Registrar's order refusing the refund of stamp duty. The petitioner’s arguments based on judgments from other cases were found inapplicable to the present facts [Paras 19-20].

Disproportionate Assets – Pre-Arrest Bail – Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act - The petitioner, a former Media Advisor to the Chief Minister, sought pre-arrest bail after being accused of accumulating disproportionate assets to his known sources of income during his tenure. The Court, after considering the serious nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s failure to cooperate in the investigation, held that pre-arrest bail could not be granted in such cases of economic offenses involving public trust [Paras 9-12, 16].

Economic Offenses – Public Interest and Abuse of Position – No Pre-Arrest Bail Granted - The Court emphasized that economic offenses, particularly those involving misuse of official position and large sums of public funds, require a different approach. It held that the petitioner’s case, involving substantial unexplained expenditures exceeding his income by 305%, justified his custodial interrogation. The plea of old age and health conditions were not considered sufficient to outweigh the need for a thorough investigation [Paras 17-18].

Failure to Cooperate with Investigation – Misuse of Interim Bail – Bail Application Dismissed - The petitioner had previously been granted interim protection but failed to cooperate with the investigating officers by not supplying crucial documents. The Court ruled that the petitioner had misused the interim concession and that his custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the true extent of his disproportionate assets [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Petition for Pre-Arrest Bail Dismissed - The High Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application, underscoring that the seriousness of the offense, the petitioner’s lack of cooperation, and the gravity of the allegations necessitated his arrest for further investigation. The petitioner’s argument of political vendetta and personal health issues were rejected as insufficient grounds for bail [Paras 19-20].

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Recovery of 602 gms Heroin – Bail Denied – The petitioner was found in possession of 602 gms of heroin, significantly above the commercial threshold – The Court held that compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was properly executed, and the delay in submitting the contraband to the FSL was not unreasonable [Paras 2-15].

Delay in Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – No Bail – Despite the petitioner being in custody for over two years and four months, the Court denied bail, citing the large quantity of contraband involved and the seriousness of the offense – Held: In cases involving commercial quantities, prolonged incarceration does not automatically justify bail [Paras 14-18].

Decision: The bail petition was dismissed. However, the Court stated that the petitioner could move a fresh bail application if the trial experiences further delays or prolonged custody without progress.

Waqf Property – Appointment of Mutawalli – Hereditary Succession – The petitioners challenged the Waqf Tribunal's order that set aside the Waqf Board’s resolution appointing a committee of Mutawallis – The Tribunal incorrectly focused on hereditary succession when the Waqfnama explicitly excluded any intention for such succession – Held: The order of the Tribunal was unsustainable as it failed to consider the Wakif’s express intention to not appoint descendants as Mutawalli – The resolution of the Waqf Board appointing the Mutawalli committee was time-barred but legally justified – The Board was directed to re-evaluate the matter and appoint a new Mutawalli committee after giving all interested parties a hearing [Paras 12-15]​.

Waqf Board’s Role – Fresh Consideration of Mutawalliship – The Court held that since the original resolution had expired, the Waqf Board should dispose of the issue of Mutawalliship afresh within eight weeks, ensuring due process and opportunity for all parties to be heard [Paras 16-18]​.

Decision – Civil revision allowed – Tribunal’s order set aside – Waqf Board to reconsider the appointment of Mutawalli – Case disposed of​.

Patent Law – Revocation of Patent – Lack of Novelty and Inventive Step – Section 64 of the Patents Act – Petitioner sought revocation of Patent No. 249376 for the process of preparing chiral beta-amino alcohols, claiming it lacked novelty and inventive step – Petitioner relied on prior arts, including European and US patents, alleging that the process steps, reactants, and catalysts were already known – Court held: Respondent's patent showed technical advancement with a higher yield (60-70%) and optical purity (close to 100%) over the prior arts – Novelty and inventive step established – Petition dismissed [Paras 32-38].

Patent Law – Interested Person – Section 2(t) of the Patents Act – Petitioner claimed to be an interested person as a competitor in the same pharmaceutical field – Court held: Petitioner qualifies as an interested person under Section 2(t) – However, the burden to establish grounds for revocation, including lack of novelty and inventive step, was not discharged by the Petitioner – Petition dismissed [Paras 28-31, 43].

Patent Law – Burden of Proof in Post-Grant Challenge – The burden of proving the invalidity of a patent in post-grant challenges lies with the Petitioner – The Respondent overcame all objections raised by the Patent Controller, and the patent was granted after due examination and amendments – Court held: Mere citation of prior arts without establishing lack of novelty or inventive step is insufficient to revoke a granted patent [Paras 42-44].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Offence – The petitioners, former directors of a company, were accused of non-payment of outstanding salary and performance bonus to an ex-employee. The Court held that the allegations, even if true, constituted a civil dispute over payment of dues and did not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 IPC – No dishonest or fraudulent intention was shown at the time of engagement – Non-payment of salary alone does not amount to criminal offence [Paras 16-25]​.

Jurisdiction – Mandatory Enquiry under Section 202 CrPC – The Court noted that the petitioners resided outside the jurisdiction of the trial court. As per Section 202 of CrPC, a mandatory enquiry must be conducted before issuing summons to accused persons residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction – Since the enquiry was not conducted, the proceedings were quashed [Paras 30-40]​.

Decision – Criminal revision allowed – Proceedings quashed – Issuance of summons to the petitioners set aside​.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Section 188 IPC – Absence of Written Complaint by Public Servant – Proceedings Quashed - The petitioners were charged under Section 188 IPC for allegedly obstructing a police officer’s duty. The Court held that cognizance under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint from the public servant as per Section 195(1)(a) CrPC. Since no such written complaint was filed, the Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the charge sheet and FIR were without jurisdiction [Paras 8-10].

Section 195 CrPC – Bar on Cognizance Without Written Complaint – Application of Law - The Court reiterated the bar under Section 195 CrPC, which requires a written complaint by the public servant for offences under Section 188 IPC. The absence of such a complaint vitiates the entire proceedings, even if other charges, like Section 323 and Section 353 IPC, are involved, as these charges arise from the same transaction [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed - The Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners under Sections 188, 323, and 353 read with Section 149 IPC, in light of the lack of a valid written complaint from the public servant, as required by law [Paras 12-13].