Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC for offences under Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act – Contention that petitioner was not directly involved in the contravention, merely being the owner of a drug license and a medicine shop – Alleged procedural lapses in seizure and inventory preparation – Prosecution's reliance on co-accused's statements inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act – Supreme Court precedent in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu applied – Court held that mobile call records and other prima facie evidence justified continuation of proceedings [Paras 1-29].

Evidence Law – Admissibility – Co-accused Statements – Statements made by co-accused to customs officers deemed inadmissible as confessions under Section 25 of the Evidence Act – However, such statements can be corroborative – Court upheld the prima facie establishment of conspiracy through call records and corroborative evidence [Paras 24-25].

Procedure – Seizure and Inventory – NDPS Act Compliance – Allegations of procedural non-compliance in seizure and inventory under Section 52 of the NDPS Act – Court observed such procedural issues to be decided during trial – Emphasized that prima facie evidence warranted trial [Paras 28-29].

Decision:

Criminal revision petition dismissed – Prima facie material sufficient to proceed with trial – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings without unnecessary adjournments [Paras 29-31].

Jurisdiction under Article 227 – High Court's scope – Petitioner challenged ESI Court's order rejecting waiver of mandatory 50% deposit for contesting ESI contribution – High Court noted jurisdiction under Article 227 should not correct mere factual errors unless findings are perverse or unjust – No such perversity found [Paras 1-19].

Assessment of Contributions – Assumed Wages – Petitioner, a small kindergarten school, disputed ESI’s computation based on assumed wages of Rs. 8250/- per employee rather than actual wages paid – ESI Court required 50% deposit of claimed amount to entertain dispute – Court below held petitioner failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for waiver of deposit [Paras 1-19].

Section 75(2-B) of ESI Act – Interpretation and Application – Mandates deposit of 50% of claimed amount to contest ESI contributions – Court’s discretion to waive/reduce deposit if justified – Court below found petitioner’s claimed wages implausible compared to market rates, thus upheld deposit requirement – High Court concurs, emphasizing statutory compliance [Paras 14-19].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – Order by ESI Court upheld – Petitioner required to deposit 50% of the claimed amount to proceed with the dispute on ESI contributions.
 

Senior Citizen Law – Voidance of Gift Deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – High Court quashes order of the Assistant Commissioner dismissing the mother’s petition – The Court held that the absence of a clause in the Gift Deed obligating the donee (son) to take care of the donor’s (mother’s) basic needs does not preclude the application of Section 23 of the Act. The petition was maintainable, and the son’s failure to provide for his aged mother, despite her having gifted him the property, warranted declaring the Gift Deed void [Paras 1-19].

Legal Principles – Interpretation of Section 23 of the Act – The Court rejected the argument that the donor must have been a senior citizen at the time of executing the Gift Deed for Section 23 to apply. The focus is on the donor’s status as a senior citizen at the time of filing the petition, not at the time of the property’s transfer. The Court emphasized that the Act aims to ensure the welfare of senior citizens, regardless of the specific terms of the Gift Deed [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Allowance of Writ Petition – Held – The Writ Petition was allowed, the Gift Deed declared void, and the son was directed to return the gifted property to his mother within sixty days. The Court upheld the legislative intent to protect senior citizens’ welfare, ensuring that adult children fulfill their obligations to their elderly parents [Paras 18-19].

Negligence – Electrocution Injury – Damages – Minor plaintiff electrocuted due to contact with live wire while checking water tank at neighbor's request – Plaintiff sustained burns, lost three toes – Trial court awarded Rs. 35,000 in damages – High Court affirmed the award, rejecting appellant’s contentions of procedural non-compliance and alternate injury causation – No permanent disability proven [Paras 1-18].

Evidence – Electric Burn Injuries – Photographic Proof – Plaintiff relied on photographs (Exs. A2-A6) and hospital records (Ex. A8) to substantiate injuries – Court accepted the evidence despite absence of timely accident notice to electricity board – Appellant failed to prove house construction violations or alternate injury cause [Paras 9-12].

Appellate Review – Upholding Trial Court Judgment – No substantial grounds for interference with trial court’s judgment – Damages awarded justified based on available evidence – No cross-appeal for higher compensation by plaintiff [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment and decree upheld – Damages of Rs. 35,000 awarded to the plaintiff confirmed [Para 18].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Lack of Jurisdiction – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR No.56 dated 18.04.2021 registered under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, alleging illegal sale of Remdesivir injections during Covid-19 pandemic – Police conducted raid, recovered sealed vials and documents from petitioners – Held: Police had no authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to register FIR, investigate, or seize drugs; powers exclusively conferred on Drug Inspectors under Sections 22 and 32 of the 1940 Act [Paras 10–12, 14].

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Sections 22 & 32 – Cognizance and Power of Investigation – Section 22 vests seizure and search powers in Drug Inspectors only; Section 32 bars initiation of prosecution except by authorised officers – Police investigation into offences under Chapter IV of the 1940 Act held illegal – Special statute overrides general provisions of the Cr.P.C. and Essential Commodities Act [Paras 10–12].

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 7 – Overlapping with Drugs Act – Where allegations relate to drugs, the 1940 Act being a special law prevails over the general provisions of the Essential Commodities Act – Police action in seizing injections under the E.C. Act held without jurisdiction [Paras 8–11].

Indian Penal Code – Section 420 – Cheating – No material on record showing inducement, delivery of property, or dishonest intention to deceive – Essential ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC absent – Allegations do not constitute offence of cheating [Paras 6–7].

Precedents Relied Upon – Atul Garg v. State of Punjab, 2012 (3) R.C.R. (Crl.) 936 – Specific provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act override general provisions of Essential Commodities Act – Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Criminal Appeal No.200 of 2020 (SC) decided on 28.08.2020 – Police cannot register FIR or investigate offences under Chapter IV of the 1940 Act [Paras 13–14].

Held: Police exceeded jurisdiction in registering FIR, conducting raid, and seizure under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Proceedings vitiated – FIR No.56 dated 18.04.2021 and all consequential proceedings quashed qua petitioners [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Petition allowed – FIR No.56 dated 18.04.2021 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act quashed qua petitioners – Police action declared ultra vires [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Accused-appellants convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Vijay Bahadur Singh alias Aangnu – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by the High Court – Appeals challenged the reliability of witness testimonies and alleged major contradictions in evidence – High Court found significant contradictions and procedural errors leading to the acquittal of the appellants [Paras 1-50].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Contradictions – High Court scrutinized witness testimonies, finding discrepancies in their statements regarding the incident – Notable contradictions between eye witnesses and investigating officers raised doubts about the prosecution’s case – Witnesses were related to the deceased, requiring careful scrutiny which led to finding the testimonies unreliable [Paras 26-33, 34-40].

Motive – Enmity – High Court assessed the alleged motive of enmity – Found insufficient and weak motive for committing the crime – Witness testimonies did not convincingly establish a strong motive against the appellants [Paras 49-50].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of charges – Directed to not surrender, bail bonds canceled, and sureties discharged [Para 51].

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction: The appellant was convicted of rape and penetrative sexual assault of his minor cousin, resulting in pregnancy. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376 IPC and 7 years under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction due to serious doubts about the prosecution’s story, unexplained delay in FIR, and conflicting evidence regarding the biological father of the victim’s child [Paras 1-38].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Delay in FIR: The victim’s testimony was scrutinized for inconsistencies and unexplained delay in reporting the incident. The court emphasized the need for the victim’s testimony to be of high quality and consistent to be accepted without corroboration. The nine-month delay in lodging the FIR raised suspicions of fabrication, particularly given the strained relations between the victim’s and appellant’s families [Paras 13-16, 24-27].

DNA Evidence: DNA profiling revealed that the appellant’s younger brother, not the appellant, was the biological father of the victim’s child. This crucial evidence undermined the prosecution’s case and supported the appellant’s claim of innocence [Paras 22, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, with directions for the preparation of a release warrant and provision for personal bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. [Paras 38-39].

Impleadment of Additional Defendants – Criteria – Plaintiff's failure to substantiate claims of proposed defendants' rights over the property – Mere information without supporting evidence insufficient – Impleadment application rightly dismissed by Munsiff's Court [Paras 2-4].

Removal of Advocate Commissioner – Grounds – Plaintiff’s objections regarding Commissioner's conduct during property measurement found to be trivial – Proper procedure for land measurement highlighted – Trial court's rejection of removal application upheld [Paras 5-6].

Article 227 Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – High Court's supervisory role not to re-appreciate evidence or correct all errors – Intervention warranted only in cases of serious dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law – Orders of Munsiff's Court found to be within jurisdiction and free from patent illegality [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of Munsiff's Court upheld – Emphasis on due process and proper legal procedure in land measurement and boundary fixation disputes.

Bail – Grounds for Granting – Petitioner, a 22-year-old female student, sought bail after being in judicial custody for over seven months – Alleged involvement in a conspiracy with parents to kidnap a minor child for ransom – Prosecution claimed petitioner was the mastermind, but evidence primarily implicated parents – Supreme Court precedents emphasize bail as rule, detention as exception, especially for women – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-18].

Conspiracy and Kidnapping – Allegations of financial crisis leading to kidnapping for ransom – Prosecution's claim of petitioner's role as key planner – Evidence includes notebook with detailed plan, CCTV footage, and victim's statement – Court noted petitioner's educational pursuits and lack of criminal antecedents as factors favoring bail [Paras 2-10].

Judicial Principles – Reference to Supreme Court rulings on bail principles, particularly for women – Cited cases emphasizing presumption of innocence, right to speedy trial, and balancing societal impact – Court followed guidelines to ensure fair application of law [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail with conditions including regular reporting to the Investigating Officer, prohibition from entering Kollam District, and surrender of passport – Bail granted considering petitioner's age, educational status, and absence of prior criminal record [Paras 16-19].