NDPS  – Bail Application for Intermediate Quantity Offense – Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 – Sole accused in Crime No. 578/2024 sought bail after five months in custody, with contraband recovery already made and investigation completed – Prosecution alleged prior criminal involvement and argued against bail, citing risk of reoffending – Court considered the intermediate nature of contraband quantity, completion of investigation, and time in custody – Held: Intermediate quantity does not invoke the stringent Section 37 NDPS Act requirements; bail granted due to investigation completion and no compelling reason for continued detention [Paras 1, 5, 6, 8].

Prior Criminal Record – Insufficient to Deny Bail in Intermediate Quantity NDPS Cases – Prosecution cited petitioner’s antecedents to oppose bail, but Court emphasized that previous accusations alone cannot justify denial without concrete evidence of risk to public safety – Held: Previous record insufficient for denying bail in absence of aggravating factors, with conditions imposed to mitigate potential risks [Paras 7, 8].

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner to be released on bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions: regular court appearances, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, prohibition from committing any offense, passport surrender, and compliance with all bail conditions – Jurisdictional court authorized to revoke bail upon condition violation [Para 8].

Matrimonial Law – D.V. Act - Interim Maintenance – Modification by Appellate Court – Quantum Justified Under Beneficial Legislation – The petitioner challenged the award of ₹5,000 per month as interim maintenance to his estranged spouse under Section 23 of the D.V. Act, arguing that the couple had been separated since 2003, and no recent domestic violence had occurred. The appellate court, however, modified the original order to include this maintenance amount, recognizing the relief as essential under the beneficial nature of the D.V. Act – Held: The award of interim maintenance is within the discretion of the appellate court to provide interim relief in alignment with the Act’s protective intent, warranting no interference [Paras 5-8].

Separation Period and Eligibility for Relief – Applicability of D.V. Act Provisions – Despite the prolonged separation, the appellate court’s provision of interim maintenance reflects the ongoing protective scope of the D.V. Act, ensuring minimal sustenance for the aggrieved party until final resolution. The court noted that the statute’s objective extends to providing interim relief for financial security, regardless of the period of separation [Paras 7-9].

Expedited Trial Directive – Conclusion Within 6 Months – In disposing of the revision, the court directed that the trial court expedite the conclusion of Misc. Case No. 65 of 2018 within six months from this order, thereby ensuring timely finality in line with the D.V. Act’s objective [Para 10].

Revision petition disposed of; interim maintenance upheld. Trial court instructed to expedite case resolution within six months, uninfluenced by appellate findings.

Decision: CRR 38 of 2022 dismissed, upholding interim maintenance of ₹5,000 as ordered by the appellate court.

Civil Law - Res Judicata – Applicability in Appellate Court – The appellants contended that the appellate court’s decree, allowing the plaintiffs’ cross-objection for Plots Nos. 544 and 545, violated res judicata since the prior ruling in RFA No.16/2004 dismissed claims over these plots without further challenge – Held: The issue had been conclusively determined, thus the appellate court lacked authority to re-adjudicate on these plots due to res judicata under Section 11 of CPC [Paras 18-24].

Cross-Objection Filing – Appellate Procedure – The respondents argued that a single appeal challenging both the main decree and cross-objection decrees was permissible under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC – Held: A combined challenge against both the primary and cross-objection decrees is legally permissible, negating the need for separate appeals in such cases [Paras 25-28].

Adverse Possession – Defendants' Claim Over Suit Property – Defendants asserted adverse possession over Plot No.369/2169 and disputed plaintiffs’ title based on long-standing possession – Held: Defendants failed to demonstrate continuous, hostile possession as required under law; concurrent findings of title and possession in favor of plaintiffs upheld as based on credible evidence and legal standards [Paras 31-35].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Appellate Review Limitations – Appellants sought re-evaluation of factual findings concerning Plot No.369/2169 – Held: Concurrent factual findings by trial and appellate courts are typically immune from second appellate scrutiny unless shown to be perverse or legally untenable, which was not established in this case [Paras 36-38].

Final Decision – The appeal was partially allowed – The appellate decree in favor of plaintiffs over Plots Nos. 544 and 545 was set aside, while the decree over Plot No.369/2169 was confirmed [Conclusion].

Criminal Law - Acquittal in Essential Commodities Act Violation – Prosecution’s Burden of Proof – The State challenged the trial court’s acquittal of the accused, arguing that the unlicensed possession of rapeseed oil contravened essential commodity regulations. The court noted that the prosecution failed to substantiate ownership and possession of the storage site, undermining their claim – Held: Prosecution evidence did not conclusively prove the accused’s possession of the godown, nor link them definitively to the contraband, justifying the acquittal [Paras 5-7].

Appellate Interference in Acquittal Orders – Double Presumption of Innocence – Citing Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and State of U.P. v. Banne, the court emphasized the need for restraint in overturning acquittals, especially where evidence is inconclusive or lacks corroboration – Held: The presumption of innocence is reinforced post-acquittal, and appellate interference is warranted only if findings are perverse or ignore substantial evidence, which was not established here [Paras 10-14].

Analyst’s Report and Evidence Reliability – The prosecution relied on an analyst’s report that identified adulteration in a sample of rapeseed oil, though only one of the fifteen tins was tested. The court found this insufficient to prove uniform contamination, further noting irregularities in evidence handling – Held: Evidence lacked the reliability to support the State’s claims, underscoring the trial court’s decision [Para 12].

Judgment – Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld. The court found no compelling reason to overturn the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment given the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Decision: Appeal G.A. 11 of 1986 dismissed. Trial court acquittal under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act is upheld.

Passport Application – Rejection on Grounds of Family’s Criminal Antecedents – Fundamental Rights Violated - The Court examined the rejection of passport applications on the ground of criminal records of the petitioner’s husband and father-in-law – Held: Criminal antecedents of family members cannot influence assessment of the petitioner’s character or eligibility for issuance of a passport. Respondents directed to reassess the applications based solely on the petitioner’s character [Paras 13-14].

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Fresh Application Ordered in W.P. No. 10154/2021 – Repeated Rejection on Same Grounds - Respondents were previously directed to disregard grounds of earlier rejection in fresh assessments. Non-compliance with this direction led to rejection on identical grounds – Held: Such non-compliance amounts to a cavalier approach, warranting quashing of the impugned orders [Paras 12-13].

Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad – Fundamental Rights – The petitioner enjoys the same fundamental rights as other citizens, and extraneous considerations based on family connections infringe upon her constitutional rights – Held: Reassessment ordered, and if eligible, the passport must be issued without delay [Para 14].

Decision:

The petitions are allowed. The impugned orders rejecting the passport applications are quashed. Respondents are directed to reassess the applications within four weeks, solely on the petitioner’s character, and issue the passport within six weeks if found eligible.

Guardianship – Article 226 – Appointment of Guardian for Person in Comatose State – Petition filed under Article 226 seeking declaration of the petitioner as the guardian of her husband, who is in a persistent vegetative state due to a cerebrovascular stroke – Held: No existing legislation for appointing a guardian in such cases; Court invoked parens patriae jurisdiction to safeguard the interests of the comatose patient – Wife appointed as guardian to manage movable and immovable properties for the benefit of the husband and family – Strict conditions imposed for compliance and accountability [Paras 9–15].

Comatose Patient – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Lack of Legislation – In absence of specific statutory provisions addressing guardianship of persons in a vegetative state, the Court exercised parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 – Directive principles of state policy underscore the need for legislative intervention to address guardianship for individuals in such conditions [Paras 10–16].

Guidelines – Guardian Accountability – Court issued detailed guidelines ensuring accountability of the appointed guardian, including periodic reporting, restriction on misuse, and oversight by the Registrar and public officers – Permitted use of funds strictly for medical and welfare purposes [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Petitioner declared guardian of her husband, with authority to manage listed properties and accounts under prescribed conditions – Court emphasized legislative necessity to streamline guardianship procedures for comatose individuals.
 

Selection Process – Eligibility and Compliance with Control Order Requirements – The petitioners contested the selection of Respondent No. 6 for MR distributorship, asserting that his godown failed to meet key specifications, such as sufficient ventilation and an open veranda, required under the Control Order, 2013 – Held: The Directorate Level Selection Committee’s allocation of high marks to Respondent No. 6, despite non-compliance with essential godown specifications, was arbitrary and merited judicial review [Paras 6-9].

Sanction of Godown Plan by Gram Panchayat – Validity and Jurisdiction – Petitioners argued that the plan for Respondent No. 6’s godown was improperly sanctioned by a Gram Panchayat, which lacked the authority to approve structures over 6,000 sq. ft. – The court agreed, holding that only the Zilla Parishad could authorize such plans under the Panchayat Act, rendering the respondent's approval invalid and unsuitable for a public distribution purpose [Paras 10-13].

Final Score Adjustment and Procedural Irregularities – Despite Respondent No. 6 scoring lower than the petitioner on the initial inspection, he received higher final marks due to the committee’s 80% weighting – Court found that this manipulation lacked transparency and disregarded merit-based assessment, favoring Respondent No. 6 without clear justification [Paras 15-18].

Selection of Respondent No. 6 for MR distributorship quashed. Direction issued to grant distributorship license to the petitioner, provided he meets all eligibility criteria within six weeks [Para 25].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Selection of Respondent No. 6 for distributorship is quashed. State authority directed to issue license to the petitioner if found eligible.

Passport Application – Rejection on Grounds of Family’s Criminal Antecedents – Fundamental Rights Violated - The Court examined the rejection of passport applications on the ground of criminal records of the petitioner’s husband and father-in-law – Held: Criminal antecedents of family members cannot influence assessment of the petitioner’s character or eligibility for issuance of a passport. Respondents directed to reassess the applications based solely on the petitioner’s character [Paras 13-14].

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Fresh Application Ordered in W.P. No. 10154/2021 – Repeated Rejection on Same Grounds - Respondents were previously directed to disregard grounds of earlier rejection in fresh assessments. Non-compliance with this direction led to rejection on identical grounds – Held: Such non-compliance amounts to a cavalier approach, warranting quashing of the impugned orders [Paras 12-13].

Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad – Fundamental Rights – The petitioner enjoys the same fundamental rights as other citizens, and extraneous considerations based on family connections infringe upon her constitutional rights – Held: Reassessment ordered, and if eligible, the passport must be issued without delay [Para 14].

Decision: The petitions are allowed. The impugned orders rejecting the passport applications are quashed. Respondents are directed to reassess the applications within four weeks, solely on the petitioner’s character, and issue the passport within six weeks if found eligible.

Civil Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Medical Grounds and Lack of Notice from Counsel – Petitioners sought condonation of delay, citing medical complications following knee surgery of petitioner No. 1 and lack of communication from counsel – Court noted medical records substantiating the health issues and lack of timely notification as valid reasons for delay – Held: Technicalities should not hinder substantive justice; delay condoned, appeal to be decided on merits [Paras 5-8].

Compensation for Delay – Undertaking to Avoid Further Adjournments – Petitioners compensated respondent with ₹50,000 for the delay – They further undertook not to seek adjournments in the appellate proceedings, ensuring no further delay – Held: Compensation and undertaking considered sufficient; appeal remanded for expeditious disposal [Para 10].

Decision: The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.09.2024 is set aside, and the First Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits, ensuring prompt disposal.