Criminal Law – Corruption – Proof of Demand – Demand Not Established – The respondent, a clerk in SRP Group 11, was acquitted by the Trial Court of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded ₹200 from the complainant to process his pay and leave records – The Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification – Held: Mere acceptance of money without clear proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act – The acquittal was upheld [Paras 10-11].

Competence of Accused to Process Salary – The prosecution alleged that the respondent, being a clerk, could influence the processing of salary bills – Held: The respondent had no authority to process or fix the salary of the complainant – The prosecution’s case failed as the respondent was not in a position to fulfill the alleged promise in exchange for the bribe [Para 10].

Prosecution Failure – No Clear Evidence of Demand – The prosecution relied on the complainant's testimony, which was inconsistent and lacked corroboration – The Panch witness did not hear any demand, and the trap laying officer could not directly witness the transaction – Held: The prosecution failed to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt, a sine qua non for establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal confirmed – The respondent was acquitted of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act [Paras 12-13].
 

Parole – Grounds for Granting – Convict sought parole to arrange finances and bid farewell to his son departing for higher studies abroad – Authorities rejected application citing pendency of appeal – High Court held pendency of appeal not a valid ground to deny parole – Rule 18 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, interpreted to allow parole for significant family events, including happy occasions [Paras 1-10].

Parole – Emotional Well-being – Court recognized parole’s role in maintaining family ties and mental well-being of inmates – Emphasized humanistic approach to allow convicts temporary release for significant family moments – Criticized rigid interpretation of parole rules limiting to emergencies [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner granted parole for 10 days from 12^th July 2024 to 22^nd July 2024 – Required to execute personal bond and one local surety of Rs.25,000/- – Ordered to report to local police station on alternate days [Paras 10-12].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 of the Constitution – Petitioners sought writs for annual grade increments and pension revision – Rajasthan High Court directed compliance with earlier decision in Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan – Similar petitions addressed as judgment treated as in rem rather than in personam – Repeated identical petitions termed misuse of judicial process – Token cost imposed on petitioners for filing repetitive claims – Held: Respondents to comply with previous orders, representations to be considered within three weeks [Paras 1-25].

Doctrine of Finality – Vijay Singh case judgment established as final – Petitioners not required to re-approach the court for similar claims – Judicial decorum mandates that final judgments be adhered to by authorities – Frivolous and repetitive litigation burdens the judicial system – Court imposed token costs to deter abuse of process – Held: Departments to act on representations without further litigation, token costs imposed [Paras 16-20].

Costs Imposed for Frivolous Litigation – Repeated petitions unnecessarily occupying court time – Symbolic costs of Rs. 1000/- imposed on each petitioner – Petitioners directed to deposit costs in the Litigants Welfare Fund – Non-compliance with court orders would amount to contempt – Held: Token costs necessary to ensure genuine grievances are prioritized, unnecessary litigation discouraged [Paras 18-23].

Decision – Petitions dismissed – Court reiterated previous decisions and imposed costs on repetitive petitions – Ordered respondents to comply with earlier judgments and address representations within three weeks – Petitioners given liberty to approach court only if their representation is decided adversely [Paras 21-25].

Criminal Law – Bail application – Accused allegedly caused fatal injuries to his mother during a quarrel – Accusations based on circumstantial evidence – Petitioner in judicial custody for over a year – Investigation complete but trial delayed – Petitioner's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution considered – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 2-12].

Right to Life and Liberty – Article 21 – Court noted the petitioner’s prolonged detention without charge framing – Held that extended custody violates the petitioner's right to life under Article 21 – Bail not to be withheld as punishment, reaffirming that bail is the rule and jail is the exception [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Delay – Sessions Court report indicated delay due to pending murder cases – Despite assurances, charge not framed even after six months – Court emphasizes prompt trial proceedings [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Bail granted with conditions including regular appearances before the Investigating Officer, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and surrendering of passport [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Appeal against Conviction – Reliability of Child Witnesses – Appellant convicted for the murder of his mother-in-law and grievously injuring his wife. The trial court convicted based on the testimony of two child witnesses (sons of the appellant) and corroborative forensic evidence – Held, the testimony of child witnesses can be relied upon when consistent and corroborated by other evidence – Child witness testimony is valid under close scrutiny – Appellant’s argument that the child witnesses were tutored was rejected – No grounds to interfere with the trial court's findings – [Paras 19-22, 27].

Dying Declaration – Infirmities in Signature – Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act – The deceased’s dying declaration did not have a signature on the final narration, though her signature was present during preliminary questioning – Held, the court accepted that the absence of signature raises suspicion but found that other corroborative evidence sufficiently proved the appellant’s guilt – Dying declaration not solely relied upon to convict the accused – [Paras 15-16].

Forensic Evidence – Corroboration of Bloodstains – Section 45 of the Evidence Act – The forensic report matched the bloodstains on the accused’s clothes with those found on the deceased’s saree, confirming his presence at the crime scene – Evidence corroborated with the testimonies of child witnesses and other prosecution witnesses – [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC confirmed by the High Court.

Taxation Law - Customs Law – Duty Drawback – Recovery Proceedings Against Deceased Sole Proprietor – Recovery proceedings initiated against a deceased person under the Customs Act, 1962, for non-realization of export proceeds – Petitioner, the wife of the deceased, challenged the recovery notice on the grounds that no recovery can be made from legal heirs without legal steps to bring them on record – Court held that a show cause notice issued against a dead person is void and recovery proceedings based on such notice cannot be sustained – Reference made to Supreme Court rulings, including Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs [2015 (10) SCC 770] [Paras 9, 12-16].

Legal Heirs – Liability for Deceased Sole Proprietor's Dues – Legal heirs cannot be held liable for recovery of government dues in the absence of a statutory provision allowing such recovery – The Customs Act does not provide for continuing recovery proceedings against the legal heirs of a deceased sole proprietor – Notices and orders passed against a dead person are null and void [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Show cause notice issued against the deceased set aside – Recovery proceedings quashed as they were initiated against a dead person without bringing the legal heirs on record [Paras 15-17].

Industrial Dispute – Termination of Workman – Validity of Domestic Inquiry – Petitioner challenged the termination order and the Labour Court's decision – Workman dismissed for misconduct, including physical assault on a superior and a co-worker – Domestic inquiry upheld by the Labour Court – Petitioner failed to challenge the inquiry's fairness earlier – High Court affirmed the Labour Court's decision, holding that the inquiry was fair and the dismissal justified – No jurisdictional error found warranting interference [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court under Article 226 does not function as an appellate body – It corrects jurisdictional errors and acts contrary to natural justice, not errors of fact – High Court found no procedural errors or jurisdictional overreach in the Labour Court's decision – Petition dismissed on these grounds [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Petition dismissed – High Court upheld the validity of the domestic inquiry and dismissal of the petitioner for proven misconduct – No relief granted to the petitioner .

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Acquittal - Section 52A compliance – Whether the procedure for sampling under Section 52A was followed. Held, the samples were drawn on the spot without the presence of a Magistrate, which contravenes the NDPS Act. As per the Supreme Court's decisions in Mohanlal and Yusuf, samples must be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, and the inventory must be certified by the Magistrate. Failure to comply invalidates the primary evidence – [Paras 15-17, 26].

Criminal Procedure – FIR Mention on Search Memos – Whether FIR number on documents before registration renders the prosecution's case doubtful. Held, the inclusion of FIR number in memos prepared prior to FIR registration casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case. This violates procedural fairness as established in Manjit Singh v. State – [Paras 20-26].

Constitutional Law – Presumption of Innocence – The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when procedural lapses affect the integrity of the prosecution’s case – [Paras 34-38].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The judgment and conviction order dated 05 July 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Solan, was set aside. The appellant, Sachin Sharma, was acquitted of charges under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act. The appellant was directed to furnish a bond under Section 437-A of CrPC to the satisfaction of the Trial Court – [Paras 44-47].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Section 22(c) – Bail under Section 439 CrPC – Prolonged incarceration considered for granting bail – Petitioner apprehended with 295 grams of heroin under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act – Prosecution failed to present significant progress in the trial despite the charges being framed on 30.11.2023 and only one witness being examined out of 16 listed witnesses – Custody certificate showed petitioner behind bars for more than one year and two months – Supreme Court's rulings in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha and Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh v. State of Gujarat cited to argue that prolonged incarceration justifies bail even in cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act – Bail granted on the condition of compliance with standard legal requirements and certain additional conditions – [Paras 1-17].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Conditional Liberty under Section 439 CrPC – Prolonged detention beyond reasonable time violates the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – The court emphasized that conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the prolonged custody of the petitioner and minimal progress in the trial – [Paras 5-12].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court Rulings – Relevance of Custodial Period – Court followed precedents established by the Supreme Court, including cases like Chitta Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Nitish Adhikary v. State of West Bengal, where prolonged custody and slow progress in trials were key factors for granting bail under the NDPS Act – Court concluded that continued incarceration of the petitioner in this case would be unjustified – [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition for bail allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail, subject to standard bail conditions and additional restrictions like surrendering the passport, maintaining good behavior, and ensuring timely appearance in court – [Paras 13-17].