NDPS Act – Quashing - Admissibility of Statements under Section 67 – Reliance on Co-Accused’s Statement Quashed – The petitioner was implicated in the case solely based on the confessional statements of co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Held: Such statements, being inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act as per Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, cannot form the sole basis for proceeding against the petitioner [Paras 4, 6-12].

Prosecution’s Burden of Proof – Corroborative Evidence Required – In the absence of any recovery from the petitioner’s possession or corroborative evidence connecting him to the alleged offense, proceedings against him amount to an abuse of process of law [Paras 9, 15].

Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Section 482 CrPC Invoked – Permitting prosecution against the petitioner solely based on inadmissible statements of co-accused would result in grave injustice and violate due process. Held: Proceedings against the petitioner quashed [Paras 9, 15].

Decision: The Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 17532/2018, pending before the XXXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed.
 

Murder Trial – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Validity – Appellant Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha challenged his conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, alleging discrepancies in evidence and reliance on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution successfully established a strong chain of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen theory, recovery of weapon pursuant to disclosure statement, forensic analysis linking recovered weapon and footprints, and corroboration by medical evidence – Held: The prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 17-50, 63].

Last-Seen Theory – Credibility – Corroboration of Witness Testimonies – Prosecution witnesses (PWs 19 and 20) testified to last seeing the deceased in the company of the convict Sukhwinder Singh and co-accused near the crime scene – Witnesses’ testimonies remained unshaken during cross-examination – Held: The last-seen theory was established and corroborated by the accused’s disclosure statement and forensic evidence [Paras 19-23].

Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Recovery of Weapon of Offence – Recovery of a .12 bore gun and its broken parts, including the butt, was made pursuant to the disclosure statement of Sukhwinder Singh – Forensic analysis confirmed the weapon was used in the crime – Recovery held admissible and credible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Held: The recovery was a crucial corroborative link in the circumstantial evidence chain [Paras 25-31, 41-43].

Forensic and Medical Evidence – Role in Circumstantial Cases – Forensic examination of the weapon and ballistic reports corroborated the prosecution’s case – Medical evidence established the cause of death as injuries caused by the recovered weapon – Minor inconsistencies regarding the height of the deceased in the service record and inquest report were immaterial – Held: Forensic and medical evidence strengthened the prosecution’s case [Paras 44-50, 63].

Acquittal – Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – State's appeal against the acquittal of co-accused Rajdeep and Sukhwinder Singh (son of Jagdev Singh) – Witnesses failed to conclusively identify them in court, and no test identification parade was conducted – Recovery of clothes from Rajdeep was from an open area, and forensic analysis found no matching shoe molds for both acquitted persons – Held: Acquittal upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 66-68].

Decision

• Appeal by Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha (CRA-D-318-DB-2005) dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC affirmed.
• Appeal by the State (CRA-D-124-DBA-2006) dismissed – Acquittal of co-accused Rajdeep and Sukhwinder Singh (son of Jagdev Singh) upheld.

Execution Proceedings - Service of Judgment Debtor – Substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC was ordered without recording satisfaction that the appellant (JD No. 2) was evading service – Decree-holder failed to provide correct addresses available in official documents – Held: Service of JD No. 2 was invalid, rendering subsequent ex parte proceedings unsustainable [Paras 9-13].

Auction Sale - Proclamation and Munadi – Sale conducted without proper proclamation or compliance with mandatory provisions of Order XXI Rule 66 and Rule 67 CPC – Munadi (beat of drum) was not carried out, and no reliable valuation was recorded in the sale proclamation – Held: Provisions under Order XXI Rules 64, 66, and 67 CPC were violated, resulting in material irregularity in the auction process [Paras 31-34].

Extent of Sale - Mandatory Compliance with Order XXI Rule 64 CPC – The executing court failed to determine whether the sale of a portion of the attached property would suffice to satisfy the decree – Entire property sold despite the possibility of partial satisfaction – Held: Sale conducted without assessing the requisite extent of property is unlawful and violates Order XXI Rule 64 CPC [Paras 46-47].

Material Irregularity and Substantial Injury – Auction sale resulted in the undervaluation of the property, causing substantial injury to the appellant – No competitive bidding due to the absence of proper proclamation – Held: Sale is vitiated due to material irregularity and fraud, causing substantial injury to the judgment debtor [Paras 24, 35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Order confirming auction sale set aside – Executing court directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law after joining JD No. 2 in execution proceedings from the stage of 07/12/2019 onwards [Paras 50-51].

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – Assessment of Husband's Financial Capacity – The husband challenged the trial court's award of ₹10 lakhs to the wife and ₹5 lakhs to the minor daughter as permanent alimony, while the wife sought enhancement of the amount – Evidence established that the husband had adequate financial means, including agricultural land, a petrol pump, and business income – Held: Husband is liable to pay the awarded alimony – Appeal by the husband dismissed, and no enhancement granted to the wife as no infirmity was found in the trial court's judgment.

Husband's Financial Status – Evidence Supporting Adequate Means – The trial court relied on documentary evidence, including LIC policies, partnership deeds, and land ownership records, to conclude that the husband had sufficient financial resources – Held: The husband's bare denial without contradictory evidence is insufficient – The family court’s finding of adequate means is affirmed.

Wife's Dependency and Custody of Minor Child – The wife, living with her mother and caring for the minor daughter, was found to be unemployed and dependent – Husband’s assertion that the wife ran a coaching center and owned a four-wheeler was unsupported by evidence – Held: Permanent alimony awarded to wife and daughter upheld as reasonable and just.

Procedural Fairness – No Fresh Opportunity to Lead Evidence – Husband’s failure to lead evidence during the trial cannot justify granting another opportunity at the appellate stage – Held: Family court proceedings were fair, and the trial court's decision was based on cogent evidence – No procedural infirmity found.

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – The husband's appeal challenging the family court’s order fails, and the wife’s appeal for enhancement of alimony is also rejected – Permanent alimony of ₹10 lakhs to the wife and ₹5 lakhs to the minor daughter upheld as reasonable.
 

Registration of Documents – Non-production of Parent Deed – Rule 55A of Tamil Nadu Registration Rules – Refusal by the Sub-Registrar to register a settlement deed on the ground of non-production of the original parent deed – Held: Insistence on producing the original parent document is arbitrary when certified copies are available and the title is verifiable through the Sub-Registrar’s own records – Rule 55A cannot override the substantive provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 – Impugned refusal quashed, and Sub-Registrar directed to register the settlement deed [Paras 7-10].

Rule-making Power – Consistency with Parent Act – Rule 55A and Its Proviso – Rule 55A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, requiring production of the original parent document, is subordinate legislation and cannot override the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 – Registration cannot be denied based solely on non-production of originals, especially where certified copies and verification options exist – Rule declared arbitrary when used to deny registration [Paras 7-9].

Fundamental Right to Property – Article 300A of the Constitution – The right to property includes the right to deal with the property, and citizens cannot be deprived of this right arbitrarily without due process – Insistence on impractical requirements, such as obtaining non-traceability certificates, violates constitutional protections [Para 9].

Transfer of Property – Successive Transfers Permissible – Sections 54, 48, and 53 of Transfer of Property Act – Subsequent transfers of immovable property are permissible under the Transfer of Property Act and do not require voiding earlier agreements, unless legally set aside – Refusal to register a settlement deed merely because of the existence of an earlier agreement is legally unsustainable [Paras 6-7].

Decision Impugned refusal check slip dated 23.12.2024 quashed – Sub-Registrar directed to register the settlement deed within one week from re-presentation without insisting on production of the original parent document, provided it is otherwise in order.

Bail - Money Laundering – Double Jeopardy – Applicant contended that he cannot be prosecuted in India after conviction in the United States—Held: Prosecution in India is permissible if the offences are distinct—Foreign conviction does not create an absolute bar on domestic prosecution—Bail denied [Paras 7, 20].

Money Laundering – Admissibility of Foreign Conviction – US authorities prosecuted the applicant for laundering proceeds from drug trafficking—He surrendered Bitcoin holdings in a plea agreement—Held: Indian courts may recognize foreign convictions but are not bound by them—Effect of foreign conviction must be determined based on case-specific factors—Prosecution in India stands independently [Paras 16-21].

Confessional Statements – Section 50 of PMLA – Applicant alleged coercion in recording his statement under Section 50—Held: Such statements are not substantive evidence unless corroborated—Merely retracting a statement does not invalidate it—Evidentiary value to be determined at trial—Bail denied [Paras 8, 22].

Possession of Proceeds of Crime – Burden of Proof under Section 23 of PMLA – Applicant argued that he is not in possession of unaccounted Bitcoin—Held: PMLA presumes that unexplained foreign transactions related to illicit activities are proceeds of crime—Burden is on the applicant to prove otherwise—Bail denied [Paras 24-25].

Jurisdiction of Indian Courts – Cryptocurrency and Money Laundering – Applicant transferred Bitcoin proceeds from his illegal activities—Held: Cryptocurrency transactions fall under territorial jurisdiction where the owner is domiciled—Indian authorities have jurisdiction if Bitcoin holdings are linked to the applicant—Bail denied [Para 11].

Bail Considerations – Section 45 of PMLA – Severity of Allegations – Applicant accused of laundering proceeds from international drug trade—Held: Bail to be denied if reasonable grounds exist for believing in prima facie guilt—Given the gravity of charges and potential risk of tampering with evidence, bail rejected [Paras 9-10, 26].

Decision: Bail application rejected—Applicant’s prosecution in India deemed valid despite foreign conviction—Indian authorities directed to continue investigation into unaccounted Bitcoin holdings—Case to proceed to trial.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Food Safety Standards – Non-Accredited Laboratory Report – Prosecution Quashed – The petitioners, including Nestle India Limited and its officers, challenged a criminal complaint regarding the sale of "Maggi Instant Noodles with Tastemaker" – The Court found that the food samples were tested at the Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, which was not accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) at the relevant time – Held: Since food testing under the FSS Act must be conducted in NABL-accredited laboratories, the prosecution was legally unsustainable and was quashed [Paras 14-16].

Procedural Non-Compliance – Violation of Section 43 FSS Act – The Court observed that Section 43 of the FSS Act mandates that food testing must be done in laboratories recognized by the Food Authority – The Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, had not received NABL accreditation when it conducted the tests – Held: The test results lacked legal validity, and the prosecution could not rely on them to establish violations [Paras 17-19].

Initial Food Analysis Report Contradicting Referral Lab Report – Unjustified Reliance on Second Report – The first test conducted by the State Public Health Laboratory, Pune, found the product to be compliant with food safety standards – However, without justifying its dissatisfaction, the Food Safety Officer referred the sample for reanalysis – Held: Selective reliance on an unaccredited laboratory’s adverse report while disregarding the initial favorable report was legally untenable [Paras 20-21].

Right to Fair Trial – Prosecution Cannot Be Based on Unreliable Evidence – The Court reiterated that a criminal prosecution must be based on legally admissible and credible evidence – Since the referral lab’s report lacked procedural validity, continuing prosecution would violate principles of fair trial and due process – Held: Prosecution quashed to prevent abuse of legal process [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Application Allowed – The complaint against Nestle India Limited and its officers in Summary Criminal Case No. 5325/2016 was quashed – The Court directed that no further action be taken based on the impugned food test report [Para 22].

Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope and Applicability – Dismissal of plaint inappropriate – Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit based on additional parties and revised pleadings under the guise of formal defects – Held: Pleas of respondents required adjudication through evidence, not summary rejection of the plaint [Paras 33-35].

Liberty to File Fresh Suit – Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC – Formal Defect – Revision of parties and pleadings permissible – Pune Court granted unequivocal liberty to file a fresh suit due to lack of jurisdiction – Liberty extends to addressing formal defects without altering the subject matter or cause of action [Paras 28-30].

Misjoinder and Non-Joinder of Parties – Not Grounds for Rejection – New parties added to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Courts must prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities – Held: Addition of parties did not change the fundamental nature or subject matter of the suit [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Impugned order rejecting plaint set aside – Parties directed to appear before District Judge for further proceedings – Suit to be examined for placement before Commercial Division [Para 36].
 

Criminal Law - Dying Declaration – Reliability and Fit Mental Condition – The conviction was based solely on the dying declaration recorded by a medical officer and Dehati Nalishi, both allegedly made by the deceased. However, there was no certification of the deceased’s mental fitness by a medical professional, and prosecution witnesses stated the deceased was not in a condition to make a statement – Held: The dying declaration was unreliable, and the lack of corroboration further weakened its evidentiary value [Paras 14-18].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Location and Time of Incident – The dying declaration (Ex. P/10) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/12) provided conflicting accounts regarding the location of the incident and time of occurrence – Held: The inconsistencies created serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case and rendered the evidence unreliable [Paras 17-18].

Plea of Alibi – Proof Through Evidence – The appellant claimed he was in Guna at the time of the incident and presented call records, tower locations, and testimonies of witnesses to prove his presence elsewhere – Held: The defence proved the plea of alibi to the court’s satisfaction, and the trial court erred in discarding this evidence without cogent reasons [Paras 24-27].

Credibility of Defence Witnesses – Equal Weight to Defence Evidence – Defence witnesses, including public servants, corroborated the appellant’s alibi. Their testimony could not be discarded without valid reasons – Held: Defence evidence should be given equal treatment and weight as that of the prosecution if free from infirmities [Paras 28-29].

Conviction and Sentence – Doubts About Guilt – The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court erred in holding the appellant guilty without credible evidence – Held: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 449 IPC set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 30-32].