Criminal Law – Quashing - NDPS Act - Vicarious Liability of Property Owner - The petitioner was implicated under the NDPS Act for allegedly allowing his property to be used for a drug-related event without his knowledge. The court analyzed the applicability of Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which requires conscious knowledge for the owner to be held liable. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that the prosecution must prove that the owner had "knowingly permitted" the use of the property for illegal activities. In the absence of such evidence, vicarious liability under Section 25 cannot be imposed. [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Review - Quashing of Proceedings - Abuse of Process - The court underscored that continuing proceedings against the petitioner without prima facie evidence of his knowledge would result in an abuse of the legal process and a miscarriage of justice. The court quashed the FIR and related proceedings against the petitioner, noting that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts required to invoke Section 25 of the NDPS Act. [Paras 9-11].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the FIR registered in Crime No. 329 of 2024 at Hebbagodi Police Station was quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner. The court clarified that the observations made were limited to the petitioner's case and should not influence the ongoing investigation against other accused persons. [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appeal against conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Appellant, a storekeeper in the ESI Department, was accused of demanding ₹1000 as a bribe for supplying a Botex injection prescribed by NIMHANS hospital to the complainant – Prosecution relied on evidence from the complainant, shadow witnesses, and trap proceedings – Court held that the demand and acceptance of the bribe were proved beyond reasonable doubt based on corroborative evidence, including the recovery of tainted money and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act – Conviction confirmed [Paras 1-78].

Evidence Law – Reliability of Witness Testimony – Cross-examination of Shadow Witnesses – The appellant claimed that the money was forcibly put into his pocket by the complainant – Court rejected this argument, noting that the shadow witnesses consistently corroborated the demand and receipt of bribe during the trap – Minor contradictions in witness testimony did not shake the prosecution’s case, and the evidence from the trap operation was found to be reliable [Paras 32-55].

Sentencing – Modification of Sentence Due to Passage of Time – The trial court sentenced the appellant to six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and one year under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Considering the appellant’s superannuation and the time elapsed since the incident in 2007, the Court reduced the sentence to three months under Section 7 and six months under Section 13(2), maintaining the fine imposed by the trial court – Set-off allowed for the time already spent in custody [Paras 60-78].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act confirmed – Sentence reduced to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and six months under Section 13(2) – Fine imposed by the trial court remains unaltered – Set-off granted under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period of custody already undergone.

Service Law – Appointment and Qualification – Higher Qualification – Petitioner, with qualifications higher than those prescribed for the position of JBT Teacher, was not approved for appointment by the Chandigarh Administration. Despite serving continuously for 32 years and retiring, her pension was denied due to the lack of formal approval for her appointment. The court recognized that while higher qualifications cannot substitute prescribed ones, the petitioner's long service, regular appointment process, and unblemished record justify her claim for pension. The denial of pension was deemed unjust and the rejection of her appointment was quashed [Paras 1-13].

Pension – Right to Pension After Long Service – Despite not meeting the exact qualifications at the time of appointment, the petitioner's 32 years of continuous service and the fulfillment of her duties justified her right to pension. The court directed the respondents to consider her case for pension and treat her date of appointment as December 1, 1994, without interest on arrears [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Petition allowed – The impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's case for pension within three months [Para 13].
 

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Color – The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of damaging public property. The petitioners argued that the dispute was civil in nature and was being unjustly criminalized. The court found that custodial interrogation was not required, as the evidence could be obtained from government records. The court granted anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the civil nature of the dispute and the ongoing civil proceedings were relevant considerations [Paras 1-5].

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail – Compliance with Investigation – The court granted anticipatory bail subject to the petitioners joining the investigation within one week and complying with conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023. The conditions included making themselves available for interrogation, not influencing witnesses, not leaving India without court permission, and any other conditions deemed necessary [Para 5].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – The petitioners were directed to be released on anticipatory bail upon joining the investigation and furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. Failure to comply within the specified time would result in the cancellation of the bail order [Para 5].

Family Law – Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Application for transfer of Marriage Petition filed by the Respondent Husband from Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, by the Applicant Wife – Application allowed – High Court emphasized the convenience of the wife, especially considering her employment transfer to Pune and lack of accommodation in Mumbai – Dismissal of Respondent's objections, which included reference to Supreme Court judgments, on the grounds that the Applicant's situation and facts of the case warranted transfer under Section 24 of the CPC – Court held that the wife's convenience is of paramount importance in matrimonial matters [Paras 5-10].

Legal Principles – Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The High Court clarified that while considering transfer petitions in matrimonial matters, the court must focus on the ends of justice, considering various factors including the socio-economic context and the convenience of the wife – Supreme Court's general observations on the filing of transfer petitions by wives were distinguished as obiter dicta and not binding as ratio decidendi – Court relied on the precedent from N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha to justify the transfer in favor of the wife [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Application Allowed – Held – Marriage Petition No. 85 of 2024 is ordered to be transferred from Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, to Family Court, Pune – The Respondent's objections were dismissed, and the Application was allowed on the basis of the wife's convenience and the principles governing matrimonial transfers under CPC [Para 11].

Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings due to Delay in Drug Analysis Report – Violation of Statutory Rights – Right to Challenge the Government Analyst’s Report Nullified Due to Delay – Petitioners challenged the prosecution initiated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, alleging that the delay of more than 20 months in testing the drug sample deprived them of their right to challenge the Government Analyst's report. The court held that the statutory rights of the petitioners were violated as the shelf life of the drug had expired before the report was furnished, rendering the prosecution futile. The impugned proceedings were quashed. [Paras 56-106].

Legislative Intent and Procedural Requirements – Timely Conduct of Drug Tests Mandatory – The court emphasized the importance of prompt testing and reporting by Government Analysts to prevent harmful drugs from remaining in circulation. Rule 45 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (as amended in 2017) mandates that the Government Analyst must conduct tests and submit reports within 60 days of receiving the drug sample. Failure to comply with these timelines defeats the statutory purpose. Directions were issued to streamline the testing process to avoid undue delays. [Paras 107-121].

Vicarious Liability – Allegations Against Directors of Company Insufficient – The complaint against the Chairman, Managing Director, and Executive Director of the petitioner company was held unsustainable due to the lack of specific averments detailing their role in the manufacturing or distribution of the substandard drug. General allegations were insufficient to establish their vicarious liability. [Paras 72-97].

Prosecution of Company Officials – Inadequate Allegations – The complaint lacked the necessary details to establish how the company's senior officials were responsible for the manufacturing of the alleged substandard drug. The court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Brij Lal Mittal and Lalankumar Singh, quashing the proceedings against the company's higher management for failure to state specific facts. [Paras 77-97].

Delay in Drug Testing and Shelf Life Expiration – Prejudice to the Accused – The petitioners were deprived of their right to challenge the report due to the delayed analysis, which occurred after the shelf life of the drug had expired. The court held that this delay resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioners and vitiated the proceedings. [Paras 59-66, 98-105].

Compliance Directions – Prompt Drug Analysis and Reporting – The court directed the Drugs Controller General (India) to ensure that all drug samples are analyzed within the statutory 60-day period and that a real-time online system is developed for the monitoring of test reports to prevent unnecessary delays. [Paras 110-121].

Decision – Prosecution Quashed – The criminal petitions were allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed due to the statutory violation of their right to defend themselves. Directions were also issued for reforms in drug testing procedures to prevent future delays. [Paras 106-123].

Bail – Regular Bail – Conspiracy and Murder Charges – Petitioner sought regular bail, claiming false implication and lack of direct evidence. The petitioner was not named in the original FIR and was arrested based on the co-accused’s disclosure. The court noted the petitioner’s prolonged detention, absence of a direct role in the crime, and the bail granted to co-accused. Emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Bail granted subject to furnishing of surety bonds [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence – Right to Speedy Trial – Reaffirmed the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial as integral to criminal jurisprudence. The court stressed that pre-conviction detention should be limited and that bail should generally be granted unless there are compelling reasons for denial [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Regular bail granted – The petitioner is to be released upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The decision does not reflect on the merits of the case [Para 5].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC – Court directed the plaintiff to correct the valuation and deposit the requisite court fee – Held, objections regarding insufficiency of court fee must be decided before proceeding with other issues in the suit – Revision petition dismissed as court found no illegality in the order directing the payment of court fees [Paras 14-26].

Court Fees – Suit for Declaration of Will as Void – Court held that a Will, post the death of the testator, secures property of monetary value – As such, under Section 7 Sub-Section IV(a) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, appropriate court fees must be paid for a suit seeking to declare a Will void – Revisionist's claim that no court fee was necessary rejected [Paras 18-22].

Decision:

Civil Revision dismissed. The order of the lower court directing the revisionist to pay the court fee was upheld. The revisionist was instructed to deposit the requisite court fees within the prescribed time.

Criminal Law – Bail Cancellation upon Addition of Non-Bailable Offenses – Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. Application – High Court's Dismissal of Petition Challenging Bail Cancellation Order – The Rajasthan High Court upheld the cancellation of bail originally granted to the accused under Section 436 of Cr.P.C., after non-bailable offenses were added in the final charge-sheet. The court held that under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., bail can be canceled if the nature of the offense changes due to subsequent investigation, justifying the arrest of the accused. The court referred to established precedents, concluding that the petition challenging the bail cancellation lacked merit [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Judicial Authorities for Bail Cancellation – The High Court relied on the principles laid down in Myakala Dharamarajam v. State of Telangana, and Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand to support its decision to uphold the bail cancellation. The court emphasized that bail can be revoked when subsequent investigations reveal new, graver charges that justify taking the accused back into custody [Paras 12.4-13].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The petition is dismissed due to the lawful application of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. by the trial court, which rightly canceled bail and issued an arrest warrant based on newly added charges in the final report. The High Court found no irregularities or arbitrariness in the trial court's decision, affirming the correctness of the bail cancellation order [Paras 14-15].