Taxation Law - Customs Law – Confiscation of Imported Goods – Re-export Permitted – Appeals Dismissed - The appellant challenged the CESTAT's order permitting re-export of substandard Areca Nuts and reducing penalties – Court upheld CESTAT’s decision, noting that the goods were not fit for human consumption as per Indian standards but could serve industrial purposes – CESTAT acted within its authority under Section 125 of the Customs Act, balancing justice with public policy considerations – Held: Appeals dismissed; re-export allowed with compliance conditions [Paras 25–32, 55–62].

Food Safety and Standards – Regulatory Compliance – Confiscation Reassessed
Goods tested under FSSAI standards were found substandard and unsafe for human consumption – Court observed that the importer had not contested test results but sought re-export – CESTAT correctly permitted re-export as goods were deemed unsuitable for Indian standards but had potential industrial use abroad [Paras 28–35, 60–65].

Penalties and Redemption Fine – Discretion Exercised by Tribunal – Reduction Justified - CESTAT reduced the redemption fine and personal penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority, considering the lack of deliberate misrepresentation by the importers – Court found no basis to interfere, noting the reduction aligned with proportionality principles and public policy [Paras 45–50].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Re-export of substandard Areca Nuts permitted on payment of Rs. 25 lakhs fine and Rs. 10 lakhs penalty – Compliance conditions imposed to prevent re-import to India [Paras 65–70].
 

Divorce – Cruelty – False Complaints Against Spouse – Established as Mental Cruelty – The appellant-husband alleged cruelty due to false criminal cases filed by the wife, which resulted in his acquittal. The court held that malicious litigation causing mental and emotional distress constitutes cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. – Held: Filing false cases amounts to cruelty – Decision: Divorce decree granted [Paras 9, 13].

Divorce – Desertion – Prolonged Separation Without Reasonable Cause – Grounds Upheld – The wife left the matrimonial home shortly after marriage without lawful justification and failed to return for over a decade. The court ruled this as desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. – Held: Long separation without intent to reconcile constitutes desertion – Decision: Divorce decree granted [Paras 13, 14].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation and No Possibility of Reconciliation – Decree of Divorce Justified – The court noted that the parties lived apart for over ten years, with the marital relationship irreparably damaged. Citing irretrievable breakdown, the court emphasized the futility of continuing the marriage. – Held: Long separation reflects irreparable breakdown – Decision: Decree of divorce granted on these grounds [Paras 15, 16].

Alimony – No Permanent Alimony for Equally Placed Spouses in Government Jobs – Both parties were employed as primary school teachers and enjoyed equal financial status. The court held that the wife was not entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. – Held: No alimony granted due to equal earning capacity – Decision: Relief denied on this ground [Paras 17].
 

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Last-Seen Theory – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for murdering his wife, based on circumstantial evidence, including a history of domestic abuse, motive established by dowry demands, and the last-seen theory. The appellant was last seen with the deceased before her death, and no plausible explanation for her fatal injuries was offered – Held: The prosecution successfully established a consistent chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the appellant, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed [Paras 22–34].

Motive – Marital Discord and Dowry Demands – Evidence Substantiated – Evidence revealed continuous harassment of the deceased by the appellant, driven by demands for dowry, financial strain, and his erratic behavior – Held: The prosecution established a motive through the deceased's father's and brother's testimonies, corroborated by neighbors and other witnesses, proving escalating harassment and dowry demands [Paras 23].

Last-Seen Theory – Burden Under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act – The appellant was the last person seen with the deceased before her death – His subsequent behavior of locking himself in another room and failing to come to his wife’s aid was inconsistent with innocence – Held: The appellant failed to explain the circumstances surrounding his wife’s fatal injuries, thus triggering the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Silence and evasive behavior pointed to guilt [Paras 24–26].

Relevance of Conduct – Section 8 Indian Evidence Act – The appellant’s conduct after the crime, including avoiding the scene, isolating himself, and failing to raise an alarm, was deemed inconsistent with the behavior of an innocent person – Held: Such conduct was relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and added to the chain of circumstantial evidence [Paras 27–29].

Medical Evidence – Homicidal Death Established – The post-mortem revealed multiple penetrating injuries on vital organs caused by a hard, blunt object, consistent with the weapon (crowbar) recovered at the appellant’s instance – Held: The medical evidence, corroborated by the forensic report, confirmed the homicidal nature of the death and matched the prosecution’s case [Paras 18–19, 30].

Appellant’s Admission Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Limited Evidentiary Value – The appellant admitted during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had killed his wife – Held: Though not direct evidence, the admission was relevant when considered alongside other circumstances, bolstering the prosecution’s case [Paras 31–33].

Decision: The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC passed by the Sessions Judge, Jajpur, are upheld. The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.
 

NEET UG Counseling – Merit-based Allotment – Petitioners higher in merit than respondents were excluded from the Stray Vacancy Round due to non-submission of Class XI mark-sheets indicating Biology as a subject – Petitioners submitted the requisite certificates promptly after public holidays but were not considered – Court held that procedural technicalities cannot override the fundamental rights of meritorious candidates under Articles 14 and 21 – Petitioners entitled to merit-based allotment of medical colleges [Paras 13.5-14.10, 15].

COVID-19 Pandemic and Education Policies – Students promoted without detailed subject certificates due to pandemic disruptions – Court acknowledged policy limitations and ruled that Class XII mark-sheets indicating Biology were sufficient for eligibility – Rejection of candidatures for lack of specific Class XI certificates deemed arbitrary [Paras 13.7-14.2].

Exceptional Circumstances Warranting Judicial Intervention – Public holidays during Stray Vacancy Round created significant challenges in obtaining documents – Respondents failed to provide adequate time and notice for document submission – Court held that such circumstances justified judicial intervention under the “rarest of the rare” doctrine to prevent prejudice against higher-merit candidates [Paras 14.6-14.9, 15].

Fundamental Right to Equality in Admissions – Rule of merit reaffirmed as the core criterion for admissions – Allocation of seats to less meritorious candidates violates Articles 14 and 21 – Candidature and allotment of colleges for lower-ranked candidates canceled in favor of petitioners [Paras 14.5-15].

Decision – Petitions allowed – Respondents directed to reallocate seats strictly based on merit – Allotment of colleges to respondent candidates canceled – Applicable to all connected petitions on mutatis mutandis basis [Paras 16-17].
 

Money Laundering – Attachment of Property – Provisional Attachment Order Upheld - The petitioners challenged the PAO attaching properties allegedly linked to proceeds of crime under the PMLA, arguing non-compliance with mandatory provisions, including the absence of reasons to believe and the lack of connection between attached properties and proceeds of crime – The Court upheld the PAO, finding sufficient material and compliance with statutory provisions – Held: Attachment of property justified under PMLA; writ petitions dismissed [Paras 3.4–3.15].

Proceeds of Crime – Broad Interpretation – Applicability of 2019 Amendments - The Court reviewed the transformative amendments to Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA and held that both directly and indirectly acquired properties or equivalent value, whether in India or abroad, can be classified as proceeds of crime – Reliance on Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Axis Bank judgments clarified the applicability of amendments – Held: Provisional attachment includes equivalent value properties in compliance with legislative intent [Paras 3.6–3.10].

Reasons to Believe – Procedural Compliance – Validity of PAO - The petitioners alleged procedural defects, including failure to record reasons to believe – The Court examined the PAO and held that detailed and sufficient reasons were recorded based on materials seized, including financial discrepancies, e-Rawana bills, and evidence of illegal mining – Held: Procedural compliance under Section 5(1) established; argument of non-compliance rejected [Paras 3.11–3.15].

Efficacious Alternative Remedy – Adjudication Pending – Dismissal of Writ Petitions - The Court emphasized the availability of statutory remedies under Section 8 of the PMLA before the adjudicating authority and appellate forums, advising against interference at the provisional attachment stage – Held: Writ jurisdiction not appropriate; petitioners directed to pursue statutory remedies [Paras 3.25–3.27].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Provisional Attachment Order upheld – Petitioners to exhaust alternative remedies before adjudicating authority under Section 8 of PMLA – No costs imposed [Paras 4.1–4.2].
 

Criminal Law – Gang Rape – Acquittal – Appellants (Accused Nos. 1 to 4) convicted under Sections 120B, 366 r/w Section 34, 366A, 376(2)(n), and 376D IPC, Sections 5(l) and 5(g) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fines – Trial court relied primarily on the survivor’s testimony (PW1), supported by medical evidence and presumptions under Section 29 of POCSO Act – Defense argued the testimony lacked credibility, was inconsistent, and contradicted by forensic and circumstantial evidence – Appeal allowed due to substantial doubt in the prosecution’s case [Paras 2, 5, 38, 40].

Evidence – Survivor's Credibility – Legal Threshold – Testimony Rejected – Conviction in sexual offence cases can rest solely on the prosecutrix's testimony if it is of "sterling quality" – Held: The testimony of the survivor lacked corroboration, was inconsistent, and did not meet the threshold of a sterling witness – Not reliable for sustaining a conviction [Paras 25-29, 33-34].

Investigation – Lapses in Prosecution – Non-Presentation of Critical Evidence – Adverse Inference – Non-production of call data records, tower dump details, and absence of corroborative forensic evidence weaken the prosecution's case – Such lapses deemed fatal, as they cast doubt on the prosecution’s narrative and the accused’s alleged involvement [Paras 23, 38].

Medical Evidence – Inadequacy to Support Gang Rape Allegation – Vaginal injuries consistent with penetration were present, but absence of bodily fluids and minimal external injuries inconsistent with allegations of gang rape – Medical evidence found insufficient to corroborate prosecution's version [Paras 20, 38C].

Scene of Crime – Plausibility and Proof – Unsubstantiated Allegations – Alleged assault near a public area and in a building corridor in a high-traffic commercial area lacked evidentiary substantiation – No eyewitness accounts, CCTV evidence, or trace evidence linking the accused to the scene – Raises significant doubts [Paras 38A-B].

Presumption under POCSO Act – Limits and Application – While Section 29 of the POCSO Act allows presumptions against the accused, the prosecution must establish foundational facts of the crime – Here, foundational facts found lacking due to investigative and evidentiary gaps [Paras 36-37].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Doubts on Prosecution Case – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Defendants acquitted due to inconsistencies in the survivor’s testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and significant lapses in the investigation [Paras 39-40].
 

NDPS Act – Recovery of Contraband – Procedural Lapses and Compliance Issues – Acquittal Ordered – Appellant convicted for transporting poppy husk without adherence to NDPS Act's procedural safeguards – Evidence showed recovery of 50 bags of poppy husk weighing 40 kg each, concealed under other goods – Court found non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, absence of homogeneous mixing of seized contraband, and lapses in handling and sealing procedures – Conviction quashed and appeal allowed [Paras 27-34].

Prosecution Evidence – Discrepancies and Lack of Corroboration – Benefit of Doubt Given – Contradictions in testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the number and weight of seized bags, and mishandling of seals and sample parcels – Court noted absence of proper link evidence to establish the integrity of the contraband samples sent for chemical examination – Benefit of doubt extended to the appellant [Paras 29-34].

Section 313 CrPC – Examination of Accused – Procedural Fairness Considered – Appellant pleaded innocence and alleged false implication due to enmity – Court highlighted deficiencies in evidence production, including non-examination of an independent witness and discrepancies in witness testimonies – Held, procedural lapses rendered prosecution's case unreliable [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Appeal allowed, and appellant acquitted – Court directed release of the appellant if not required in any other case – Ordered refund of any fine amount deposited, subject to law [Para 36].

Service Law – Recruitment for Lecturer Posts – Advertisement Challenged – Advertisement by State Selection Board prescribing qualification of Master’s degree with 55% marks without NET/Ph.D. for Lecturer posts in Non-Government Aided Colleges – Held: Prescribed qualifications not in consonance with UGC Regulations (2018) or State Government Resolution (1999) which mandate NET/Ph.D. as eligibility criteria – Advertisement for Physics discipline upheld on equitable grounds, but with directive for future compliance with UGC norms – Advertisements in other disciplines quashed with liberty for reissuance adhering to proper qualifications [Paras 12.1–12.6].

UGC Regulations – Applicability to State Institutions – Post of Lecturer Re-designated as Assistant Professor – UGC Regulations prescribing NET/Ph.D. qualifications deemed mandatory – Board’s reliance on outdated 1989 Resolution held unjustified – State Government’s Resolution of 1999 and subsequent notifications adopting UGC qualifications applicable to all teaching staff, including in aided colleges – Non-compliance by Board invalidates selection process [Paras 12.1–12.4].

Equity in Appointments – Completed Selections in Other Disciplines – High Court allows completion of selection in Physics discipline under impugned advertisement due to equity considerations – Future advertisements must adhere to UGC norms and State’s revised qualification standards – Other ongoing selection processes under similar advertisements quashed [Paras 12.5–12.6].

Precedents – UGC Regulations as Binding – Reliance on Supreme Court rulings in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi, Anindya Sundar Das, and Kalyani Mathivanan – UGC Regulations have statutory force and prevail over conflicting State laws under Article 254 of the Constitution – Any State deviation must align with UGC standards or risk invalidity [Paras 6.8, 8, 12].

Decision: The writ petition W.P.(C) No. 36125 of 2023 was partially allowed, permitting the completion of the selection process for the post of Lecturer in Physics based on equitable considerations. However, the advertisements challenged in W.P.(C) Nos. 8115 and 8155 of 2024 were quashed, with directions to issue fresh advertisements adhering to UGC guidelines and the state government’s resolutions. Future recruitment processes must comply with UGC norms.

Execution of Will – Proof and Attestation – Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act – Will Upheld – The appellant challenged the Will (Ext.B2), alleging irregularities and suspicious circumstances – Held: The Will’s execution and attestation were duly proved by the attestor, satisfying legal requirements – The registration of the Will lends credence, though not conclusive proof – No material discrediting the attestor’s testimony was presented [Paras 9-14].

Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Genuineness Established – The appellant argued that the Will excluded certain heirs without justifiable reasons and was fabricated – Held: Evidence confirmed the testator’s sound mind and deliberate exclusion of certain branches due to proximity and care received from other heirs – Appellant failed to substantiate claims of fabrication or undue influence [Paras 12-15].

Handwriting Expert and Fingerprint Analysis – Limited Weight – The appellant relied on expert opinions to dispute the testator’s signature – Held: Variations in signature over decades are natural and not conclusive; contemporaneous evidence was lacking – Fingerprint analysis affirmed the authenticity of the Will, bolstering its validity [Paras 16-17].

Exclusion of Heirs – Testamentary Intent – Not Suspicious – The exclusion of the appellant and her branch was contested as unjustifiable – Held: A Will’s purpose is to alter natural succession; exclusion of certain heirs, when supported by credible reasons, does not make the Will suspicious [Paras 18-19].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The trial court’s decision upholding the validity of the Will (Ext.B2) and dismissing the partition suit was affirmed.