Criminal Law – Quashing - Food Safety Standards – Non-Accredited Laboratory Report – Prosecution Quashed – The petitioners, including Nestle India Limited and its officers, challenged a criminal complaint regarding the sale of "Maggi Instant Noodles with Tastemaker" – The Court found that the food samples were tested at the Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, which was not accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) at the relevant time – Held: Since food testing under the FSS Act must be conducted in NABL-accredited laboratories, the prosecution was legally unsustainable and was quashed [Paras 14-16].

Procedural Non-Compliance – Violation of Section 43 FSS Act – The Court observed that Section 43 of the FSS Act mandates that food testing must be done in laboratories recognized by the Food Authority – The Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, had not received NABL accreditation when it conducted the tests – Held: The test results lacked legal validity, and the prosecution could not rely on them to establish violations [Paras 17-19].

Initial Food Analysis Report Contradicting Referral Lab Report – Unjustified Reliance on Second Report – The first test conducted by the State Public Health Laboratory, Pune, found the product to be compliant with food safety standards – However, without justifying its dissatisfaction, the Food Safety Officer referred the sample for reanalysis – Held: Selective reliance on an unaccredited laboratory’s adverse report while disregarding the initial favorable report was legally untenable [Paras 20-21].

Right to Fair Trial – Prosecution Cannot Be Based on Unreliable Evidence – The Court reiterated that a criminal prosecution must be based on legally admissible and credible evidence – Since the referral lab’s report lacked procedural validity, continuing prosecution would violate principles of fair trial and due process – Held: Prosecution quashed to prevent abuse of legal process [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Application Allowed – The complaint against Nestle India Limited and its officers in Summary Criminal Case No. 5325/2016 was quashed – The Court directed that no further action be taken based on the impugned food test report [Para 22].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Appeal Dismissed – Decree Affirmed – The appellant-wife challenged the decree of divorce granted to the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Respondent had alleged physical abuse, defamatory complaints to employer and mental harassment – Appellant in turn alleged desertion and false allegations – Both parties accused each other of adultery but failed to prove the same – Family Court accepted the respondent's claims of cruelty based on audio recordings, medical evidence and uncontested complaints – Held: Repeated defamatory complaints, especially to the respondent’s employer, amounted to cruelty – Long separation and irretrievable breakdown of marriage further justified dissolution – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5–6, 27–34, 38–45].

Mental Cruelty – Complaints to Employer – Defamatory Allegations – Cruelty Established – Appellant made multiple complaints against the respondent to his employer and various public authorities including false allegations of adultery – Held: Such conduct intended to damage reputation and professional standing constitutes cruelty – The Family Court rightly relied on Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar and other precedents to hold that complaints made with malicious intent or reckless disregard for truth amount to mental cruelty [Paras 31–34, 36–37].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of CDs – Family Court Procedure – Appellant contested admissibility of CDs on grounds of non-compliance with Section 65-B(4) of Evidence Act – Held: Under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, strict rules of evidence not mandatory – CDs supported by corroborative oral and medical evidence – Evidence rightly relied upon by the Family Court [Paras 20, 39].

Allegations of Adultery – Mutual – Not Proved – Appellant and respondent both accused each other of extramarital affairs – Neither side produced credible evidence to prove such claims – Held: Family Court correctly concluded that adultery allegations remained unsubstantiated and irrelevant to cruelty findings [Paras 28–30].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation Considered – Parties have been living separately for over 15 years – Court held that prolonged acrimonious litigation and absence of cohabitation supported the finding of cruelty and justified decree of divorce – Cited Rakesh Raman v. Kavita and Shankar Routh v. Soma Dutta in support [Paras 40–44].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – The Court upheld the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court – Held that the respondent had established cruelty by way of sustained defamatory conduct by the appellant – The Family Court rightly exercised jurisdiction and appreciated evidence – Separation of over 15 years showed irretrievable breakdown – Appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 44–46].

Civil Law - Trust Property – Reversionary Rights of the Trust – Section 19(b) of the Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940 – Land granted by the Sansthan to Sangli State for running a public hospital – Public hospital shifted to an alternate location – Held: The Sansthan retained ownership of the land, and upon cessation of the public purpose, the land must revert to the Sansthan under Section 19(b) – Directions issued to the State to return the land or acquire it in accordance with law [Paras 13-16].

Pre-Constitutional Enactments – Continuance of Existing Laws – Article 372 of the Constitution – Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940, recognized as “law in force” – Held: The rights of the Sansthan under Section 19(b) are enforceable under Article 372, as the Act remains valid and binding [Paras 10-11].

Land Appropriation – Purpose of Appropriation Ceasing – Interpretation of Section 19(b) – Appropriation for a specific public purpose does not divest the grantor of ownership rights – Held: Once the original purpose ceases, the land reverts to the grantor unless acquired under law – Municipality or State cannot claim perpetual appropriation without formal acquisition [Paras 12-14].

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy – State argued that the petitioner could seek compensation or approach a civil court – Held: Availability of compensation or an alternative remedy does not bar the Sansthan’s right to seek reversion under Section 19(b) – Relief granted [Paras 6, 16].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Land from City Survey Nos. 4, 5, 5/1 to 5/18 directed to be returned to the Sansthan within three months – State permitted to acquire the land if required for a public purpose – Alternate accommodation to be arranged for hospital staff occupying part of the land [Paras 16-17].

Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Maintainability of Application Under Section 28A – Petitioners sought parity in compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court in a first appeal – Application rejected by the Collector on the ground that Section 28A applies only to awards passed by the reference court under Section 18, and not by appellate courts – High Court held: The provisions of Section 28A, being beneficial in nature, must be interpreted to advance their purpose – Application under Section 28A maintainable on the basis of enhanced compensation awarded in appeal by the High Court [Paras 20–22].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Court observed: Section 28A aims to address inequality in compensation by providing relief to landowners who were unable to file references under Section 18 – Interpretation must favor extending the benefit, not curtailing it – Rejection of the petitioners’ application was contrary to the legislative intent of Section 28A [Paras 11–12, 20].

Limitation Under Section 28A – Trigger Date – Petitioners filed their application within three months of the High Court’s judgment enhancing compensation – High Court held: Limitation under Section 28A begins from the date of the award or judgment with which parity is sought – Application filed within the prescribed period was valid [Paras 13, 22].

Contrary Precedents – Clarification – High Court clarified: Judgments limiting Section 28A applications to awards passed by the reference court (e.g., Bhagti v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 473) are not applicable in cases where the enhancement was first made in appeal – Judgments in Pradeep Kumari v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCC 736, and Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., (2024), correctly reflect the law and were relied upon [Paras 13–19].

Decision:

Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 29/07/2022 rejecting the application under Section 28A quashed – Respondent-Collector directed to reconsider the application for redetermination of compensation and pass a fresh order in terms of the High Court’s judgment in First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 [Para 22–23].

Criminal Law - Dying Declaration – Reliability and Fit Mental Condition – The conviction was based solely on the dying declaration recorded by a medical officer and Dehati Nalishi, both allegedly made by the deceased. However, there was no certification of the deceased’s mental fitness by a medical professional, and prosecution witnesses stated the deceased was not in a condition to make a statement – Held: The dying declaration was unreliable, and the lack of corroboration further weakened its evidentiary value [Paras 14-18].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Location and Time of Incident – The dying declaration (Ex. P/10) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/12) provided conflicting accounts regarding the location of the incident and time of occurrence – Held: The inconsistencies created serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case and rendered the evidence unreliable [Paras 17-18].

Plea of Alibi – Proof Through Evidence – The appellant claimed he was in Guna at the time of the incident and presented call records, tower locations, and testimonies of witnesses to prove his presence elsewhere – Held: The defence proved the plea of alibi to the court’s satisfaction, and the trial court erred in discarding this evidence without cogent reasons [Paras 24-27].

Credibility of Defence Witnesses – Equal Weight to Defence Evidence – Defence witnesses, including public servants, corroborated the appellant’s alibi. Their testimony could not be discarded without valid reasons – Held: Defence evidence should be given equal treatment and weight as that of the prosecution if free from infirmities [Paras 28-29].

Conviction and Sentence – Doubts About Guilt – The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court erred in holding the appellant guilty without credible evidence – Held: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 449 IPC set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 30-32].

Arbitration – Interim Relief – Security for Disputed Amount – Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Petitioner sought interim relief to secure Rs. 156.75 crores against Make-Up Gas owed under GSPA, alleging respondents’ inability to supply due to reduced gas production – Respondents claimed non-performance due to Force Majeure (FM) and expiration of GSPA and Production Sharing Contract (PSC) – Held: A strong prima facie case existed as GSPA’s restoration period was nearing expiration, and petitioner had paid Rs. 197.13 crores without full adjustment – Respondents directed to provide solvent security to secure the disputed amount [Paras 41-62].

Force Majeure – Validity and Invocation – Non-Compliance with Procedural Clauses – Respondents invoked FM under GSPA due to adverse reservoir behavior – Petitioner challenged FM citing lack of timely notice and failure to meet conditions under Clauses 7.5 and 7.7 of GSPA – Held: FM claim requires proof of adherence to procedural requirements, which is to be evaluated by the arbitral tribunal – Court refrained from delving into substantive merits at interim stage [Paras 54-56].

Attachment of Assets – Applicability of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Foreign Respondents – Risk of Enforcement Challenges – Court noted respondents’ assets were inadequately detailed and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were foreign entities – Risk of irrecoverable arbitral award recognized – Held: Ingredients of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC satisfied – Respondents directed to provide solvent security to prevent dissipation of assets [Paras 60-62].

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondent No. 1 directed to secure Rs. 157.75 crores through bank guarantee or unencumbered immovable assets within two weeks – Observations limited to interim relief without prejudice to arbitral tribunal’s findings [Paras 62-64].
 

Limitation - Delay Condonation – COVID-19 Limitation Extensions – GRT Refused Condonation – High Court Upholds – The petitioner sought condonation of 365 days' delay in filing a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, citing lack of legal awareness and the COVID-19 pandemic – Held: The petitioner was legally aware, having filed a civil suit in 2019 challenging the same Deputy Collector’s order – The Supreme Court's COVID-19-related limitation extensions do not apply to cases where the limitation period expired before the pandemic – GRT’s rejection of delay condonation upheld [Paras 6.1-6.8].

Sufficient Cause for Delay – No Liberal Interpretation When Bona Fides in Question – Lack of Vigilance by the Petitioner – The petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in filing the revision application – Courts emphasized that sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence or lack of diligence is apparent – High Court upheld GRT’s reasoning that the petitioner, despite being aware of his legal remedies, failed to act in time [Paras 6.6-6.8].

COVID-19 Limitation Extensions – Applicability – Held: Supreme Court's limitation extensions for COVID-19-related delays benefit vigilant litigants whose limitation period fell during the pandemic – In this case, the delay predated the pandemic, and the petitioner could not claim benefit under the Supreme Court's orders [Para 6.6].

Procedural Rigour of Limitation – Equitable Grounds Insufficient Without Legal Justification – The petitioner cited equitable grounds for delay condonation but failed to justify the inordinate delay legally – High Court reiterated that rules of limitation are based on sound public policy and must be applied rigorously [Paras 6.7-6.8].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay in filing the revision application was upheld. No interference warranted as the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay.

Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 366A IPC – Assessment of Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Prosecution relied on inconsistent statements by witnesses and failed to present corroborative evidence from independent witnesses or reliable medical findings – Held: Inconsistencies in testimony of the victim (PW-1) and informant (PW-2) undermine the prosecution’s case. No injuries were reported on the victim’s body, and the victim's age was determined to be on the borderline of adulthood, further complicating the charge of procuration of a minor girl [Paras 17-19].

Credibility of Prosecution Case – Eyewitnesses Not Examined – The prosecution failed to examine critical eyewitnesses, including school staff and students, despite the alleged abduction occurring in broad daylight outside a school – Held: Non-examination of key witnesses raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case [Para 19].

Ante-Dated FIR and Informant's Knowledge – Question of Reliability – FIR appeared ante-dated as the informant (PW-2) claimed to file the report based on details shared by the victim the day after the alleged incident. Further, the informant admitted he did not know the accused personally before filing the complaint – Held: Such discrepancies render the prosecution’s case untrustworthy [Para 18].

Age Determination of the Victim – Borderline Case – The medical board opined the victim’s age to be between 17 and 18 years, with no evidence conclusively establishing her as a minor – Held: Lack of clarity on age undermines the applicability of Section 366A IPC [Paras 8, 19].

Outcome: Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges [Para 20].

Decision: Judgment and Sentence Set Aside. Conviction under Section 366A IPC quashed. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of ₹1,000/- annulled. Acquittal and Discharge of Bail Bonds. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. Appeal Allowed:
 

Employment Law – Back Wages – Gainful Employment Not Proved – Full Back Wages Granted – Respondent was suspended and dismissed from service on allegations of misconduct. The Co-operative Arbitration Court found the suspension and dismissal to be illegal, awarding full back wages for the period of suspension and dismissal. Appellants failed to prove that the respondent was gainfully employed during the said period. Held: A workman whose termination is found to be illegal is ordinarily entitled to full back wages unless the employer proves gainful employment during the period of dismissal – Award upheld; writ appeal dismissed [Paras 10-14].

Burden of Proof – Employer's Duty to Prove Gainful Employment – Respondent submitted evidence before the Arbitration Court affirming lack of employment during the period of suspension-dismissal. Appellants, despite being provided opportunities, failed to produce evidence to prove gainful employment. Held: The burden lies on the employer to establish that the dismissed employee was gainfully employed during the period of absence – No such evidence presented; award upheld [Paras 13-14].

Reinstatement with Back Wages – Precedents Applied – Citing Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees [(1979) 2 SCC 80] and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [(2013) 10 SCC 324], the Court held that reinstatement is ordinarily accompanied by full back wages unless the employer proves otherwise. The employer’s failure to substantiate claims of gainful employment entitles the employee to full back wages [Paras 10-11].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Limited Scope of Interference – High Court reiterated that the scope of appellate interference in writ matters is confined to jurisdictional errors or patent legal infirmities. Finding none in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal was dismissed [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Writ appeal dismissed – Award of Co-operative Arbitration Court granting full back wages and other monetary benefits upheld – Appellants failed to establish gainful employment of the respondent during the suspension-dismissal period [Paras 14-16].