Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Applicant convicted for abetment of suicide and cruelty towards his wife – Trial Court sentenced him to imprisonment, and the conviction was upheld by the appellate court – Applicant argued that contradictory medical opinions (postmortem and chemical analysis) undermined the prosecution’s case and that there was no evidence of abetment – Held: Medical evidence favored the postmortem findings over the chemical analysis, but the prosecution failed to establish abetment or cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-12, 13-31].

Medical Evidence – Postmortem vs. Chemical Analysis – The postmortem indicated poisoning, while the chemical analysis found no poison – Court relied on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence to conclude that poison might not always be detected after death due to various factors – Held: Postmortem findings prevail over chemical analysis, but this does not conclusively establish abetment or cruelty [Paras 7-12].

Abetment of Suicide – Insufficient Proof – Applicant argued that no evidence of provocation or incitement was provided to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC – The Court referred to Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that abetment requires proof of instigation or active encouragement – The prosecution failed to prove any proximate incitement leading to the deceased's suicide [Paras 13-22].

Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Lack of Continuous Harassment – No evidence of continuous harassment or unlawful demands for dowry was established – The deceased’s complaint about harassment was vague and not corroborated by credible witnesses – The general allegations surfaced only after her death, which were insufficient to convict under Section 498A IPC [Paras 23-29].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC quashed – Applicant acquitted and fine to be refunded – Bail bonds canceled and surety discharged [Paras 31].

Contract Law – Specific Performance – Temporary Injunction – Appellant sought to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell – Trial court dismissed appellant’s application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – High Court, on appeal, found that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for interim relief – Respondents had entered into another Agreement to Sell with a third party, which risked causing irreparable loss to the appellant – Held: Appeal allowed and interim injunction granted [Paras 2, 28, 64, 65].

Limitation – Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether suit barred by limitation – Respondents contended that the suit was time-barred as it was filed more than 9 years after the Agreement to Sell – High Court held that the question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law, and the endorsement extending the time for execution of the Sale Deed prima facie extended the limitation period – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 12, 31, 55, 61].

Reciprocal Obligations – Agreement to Sell – Appellant alleged that the respondents failed to perform their part of the contract by not obtaining government permission for sale and clearing liabilities on the property – Respondents contended that the appellant did not pay the full balance consideration – High Court found that the obligations were reciprocal and the appellant could not be expected to pay the balance amount without the respondents fulfilling their duties – Held: Appellant had not failed in his obligations under the Agreement [Paras 4, 5, 50, 56].

Extension of Time – Endorsement Dated 16.12.2014 – Agreement to Sell initially stipulated that the balance consideration was due by 31.12.2014 – Endorsement made on the Agreement extended the date for registration of the Sale Deed to 01.01.2020 – High Court held that this endorsement was prima facie binding on the respondents and negated their claim that the appellant had defaulted by not paying the balance amount by 31.12.2014 – Held: Endorsement valid and enforceable [Paras 34, 52, 62].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondents from alienating, transferring, or creating encumbrances on the suit property pending final disposal of the suit – Impugned order of the trial court set aside [Paras 65].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Legality of Arrest under PMLA – The petitioner, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly, was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with illegal mining activities, alleging that he benefited from the proceeds of crime – The petitioner contended that the arrest was politically motivated ahead of state elections and challenged the remand orders, asserting that no direct evidence linked him to the crime syndicate after he ceased to be a director of the implicated company – Held: The arrest and remand orders were quashed as the grounds for arrest and reasons to believe were found unsustainable – The court noted procedural lapses in complying with Section 19 of the PMLA, including the absence of concrete evidence directly implicating the petitioner in money laundering [Paras 1-15].

Illegal Mining – Non-scheduled Offence under PMLA – The case against the petitioner primarily rested on allegations of illegal mining, which is not a scheduled offence under the PMLA – The court held that without a scheduled offence, prosecution under the PMLA was untenable – Further, the petitioner had ceased to be a director of the implicated company years before the alleged illegal activities occurred, weakening the link between the petitioner and the proceeds of crime [Paras 12-14].

Political Vendetta – Timing of Arrest – The petitioner argued that his arrest was timed to prevent his participation in upcoming elections, as he had fully cooperated with the investigation prior to his arrest – The court observed that the arrest coincided with the election schedule and that there was no substantial new evidence to justify the arrest at that time – Held: The arrest appeared to be politically motivated and unwarranted under the circumstances [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Quashing of Arrest and Remand Orders – The court quashed the arrest order dated 20/07/2024 and remand orders dated 20/07/2024 and 29/07/2024, directing the petitioner’s immediate release unless required in any other case – The court emphasized that compliance with procedural safeguards under the PMLA is paramount, and violations cannot be justified on political grounds [Paras 16-17].

Contract Law – Liquidated Damages – Delayed Supply of Goods – The plaintiff supplied electrical insulators to the defendant under three purchase orders, but deliveries were delayed – Defendant withheld payment citing liquidated damages – Plaintiff argued the delay was due to force majeure events (floods and labour issues), but failed to provide timely notice as required by the contract – Held: The force majeure defense was not valid as the plaintiff did not provide notice within the stipulated period, and the pattern of supply remained consistent during the alleged force majeure period – Liquidated damages levied by the defendant were upheld [Paras 14, 16].

Interest on Delayed Payments – No Contractual Stipulation for Interest – Plaintiff sought interest for delayed payment based on the alleged 30-day practice – Defendant argued there was no clause in the purchase order specifying a time frame for payment or interest on delayed payment – Held: The claim for interest is not sustainable as the contract did not stipulate any provision for interest, and the payment was made as per the terms of the purchase orders [Paras 11, 15].

Limitation – Suit Barred by Limitation – The suit was filed by the plaintiff beyond the three-year limitation period for recovery of withheld amounts – The cause of action arose in 2009 when the defendant informed the plaintiff of the recovery towards liquidated damages, but the suit was filed in 2012 – Held: The suit is barred by limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Plaintiff’s claims dismissed [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Suit dismissed – No costs [Para 17].

Taxation Law - Entry Tax – Use or Consumption – Refining of Crude Oil – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners, including Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (now known as Patanjali Foods Ltd.), challenged the imposition of Entry Tax on crude soya oil brought into Madhya Pradesh for refining, arguing that the refining process does not amount to manufacture, and no new product emerged – Held: The refining of crude oil, which undergoes processes like degumming and deodorization, constitutes "use" of the crude oil as it leads to the production of refined oil, which is a different commercial commodity from crude oil – Entry Tax was correctly imposed [Paras 21-22, 33].

Definition of Manufacture – Exclusion of Refining Process – Petitioners argued that the process of refining crude soya oil had been excluded from the definition of "manufacture" under Notification No. 18 dated 01-04-1995 issued under Section 2(o) of the MPCT Act – Held: Even though refining does not constitute manufacture, the Entry Tax is applicable under Section 3(1) of the Entry Tax Act as it covers "use" or "consumption," both of which apply in this case, given that refined oil is a new marketable product [Paras 23, 27].

Supreme Court Precedents – Relevance to the Entry Tax Act – The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Mamta Surgical Cotton Industries vs Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Rajasthan (2014) and Commissioner of Trade Tax vs M/s Mishra Tea Blending (2023), which clarified that processes transforming a raw material into a commercially different product amount to "use" under entry tax laws, irrespective of whether the process constitutes "manufacture" – Applied the same principle to the refining of crude soya oil [Paras 26, 29].

Decision:

The writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the imposition of Entry Tax on the crude soya oil brought into Madhya Pradesh and refined into a new marketable product – No order as to costs [Para 34].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his neighbor following an altercation over a disputed will – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and a dying declaration made by the deceased – The trial court convicted the appellant, despite acquitting the co-accused on the same evidence – Held: The conviction was overturned on appeal due to contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, inconsistencies between the dying declaration and initial medical history provided by the deceased, and lack of independent corroboration – The court ruled that the dying declaration could not be relied upon exclusively to convict the appellant, especially in light of conflicting evidence [Paras 30-55].

Dying Declaration – Reliability and Contradictions – The deceased initially told doctors that his injuries were accidental, caused by a fall, but later implicated the appellant in a dying declaration – The court emphasized that a dying declaration, if contradictory or delayed, requires corroboration – Here, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case, and the dying declaration was deemed unreliable [Paras 40-45].

Inconsistent Testimonies – Eyewitness Reliability – The prosecution’s key witnesses were family members of the deceased, and their accounts contained material contradictions, particularly concerning the sequence of events and the timing of the complaint – The court held that their testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and their status as interested witnesses [Paras 50-60].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges – The court emphasized that when evidence is circumstantial and inconsistent, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

Consumer Law – Award of Interest – Execution of Forum's Order – The respondent was awarded 15% interest on the deposited amount by the Consumer Forum, with a recovery certificate issued for further interest on the interest amount – Held: Interest is payable only on the principal sum adjudged, not on the interest component, as per Section 34 of the CPC and Section 3(3) of The Interest Act, 1978 – The Forum's order awarding interest on interest was set aside as illegal [Paras 17-23]​.

Judicial Review – Interest on Principal vs. Interest on Interest – The Court clarified that interest on interest cannot be awarded unless expressly provided by statute or contractual terms – Reiterated that courts ordinarily award interest only on the principal sum – The impugned orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed [Paras 23-24]​.

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders of 01/01/2020 and 15/03/2021 set aside – No order as to costs [Para 24]​.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Scope Expanded – The applicants filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with accusations under Sections 451, 394/34 of IPC – Held: The scope of anticipatory bail has been expanded compared to the earlier provision under Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973, removing guiding factors like the gravity of accusations and criminal antecedents, thus widening judicial discretion – The Court found no intention to commit the alleged offenses based on the facts and granted anticipatory bail on conditions of cooperation with the investigation and ensuring no interference with evidence [Paras 4-7].

Service Law - ACP Scheme – Benefit of Past Service for Grant of 2nd ACP – Past Service Must Be Counted – The petitioner, a clerk, sought the 2nd ACP on completion of 9 years of service after being transferred from one Sessions Division to another – The Court held that the petitioner’s past service must be counted for the benefit of the ACP scheme since the rule restricting this benefit (Rule 4.8(b)) was introduced after the petitioner’s transfer, and cannot be applied retrospectively [Paras 7.2, 7.3].

Discrimination – Similarly Situated Employees Granted ACP Benefit – Petitioner Entitled to Equal Treatment – The Court found that other similarly situated employees were granted the benefit of ACP, but the petitioner was denied the same – This was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory, warranting relief [Paras 7.4, 7.6].

Precedent – Court Denies “Wrong Cannot Be Perpetuated” Argument – The respondents argued that a prior wrong decision could not be a precedent, but the Court held that the petitioner’s claim was lawful and justified based on prior service and existing rules [Para 7.5].

Decision: The petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the petitioner by respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The impugned order dated 09.01.2020 is set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the 2nd ACP.