Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference Permissible – Miscarriage of Justice Avoided – Appellate court found trial court’s acquittal perverse due to misreading and omission of critical evidence – Held: Acquittal of accused 1 to 5 reversed, convictions recorded based on consistent and corroborated evidence [Paras 31-32, 58].

Eyewitnesses – Injured Witnesses Credible – Conviction Based – PWs 1 and 2, both injured in the attack, provided clear, consistent testimony identifying accused – Supported by medical and recovery evidence – Court found no ground to doubt reliability [Paras 9-11, 15-19, 39].

Test Identification Parade – Fair and Valid – Witnesses Identified Accused Repeatedly – PW53 conducted parades for accused 1 to 5 with PWs 1 and 2 identifying the accused in multiple rounds – Accused failed to discredit TIP process – Identification upheld [Para 24].

Forensic Evidence – Fingerprints, Hair, DNA, and Blood Match – Forensic reports linked accused 2, 4, and 5 to the crime scene vehicle and weapons – Blood on MO4 knife matched deceased’s blood group – DNA confirmed presence of accused in getaway van [Paras 26-28, 52].

Conspiracy – Charge Not Proved – Evidence Lacked Specificity – Witnesses PW7 and PW9 failed to establish a common design among all ten accused – Court found no cogent motive or agreement connecting all accused – Acquittal of accused 6 to 10 under Section 120B upheld [Paras 33-36, 49].

Section 109 IPC – No Instigation Established – Accused 6 Allegedly Procured Vehicle – Mere ownership insufficient to establish active instigation – Acquittal on this count confirmed [Paras 56].

Section 201 IPC – Suppression of Evidence Not Proved – Evidence against accused 8, 9, and 10 found unreliable or uncorroborated – Alleged concealment of swords not adequately linked – Acquittal sustained [Paras 50, 57].

Delay in FIR and FIR Forwarding – Explained and Acceptable – Court found delay justified due to injuries of witness PW1 – No deliberate suppression of facts or masking of accused identity – Trial court’s inference found flawed [Paras 40-42].

Identification of Assailants – No Masks Worn – Prosecution Rebutted Mask Theory – Despite initial medical reports suggesting masked assailants, eyewitnesses and corroborative testimonies confirmed clear identification of attackers – Trial court’s reliance on this theory overturned [Paras 43-44].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment Imposed – Accused 1 to 5 convicted under Section 302 IPC – Accused 2 and 4 also sentenced under Sections 324 and 326 IPC respectively – Court imposed minimum statutory sentence citing mitigating factors – Concurrent sentences awarded – Victim compensation ordered [Paras 4-8 of sentencing order].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing Of FIR - NDPS Act – Absence of Contraband in Forensic Report – FIR Quashed – Petition Allowed - Petitioners were booked under Sections 8/22 & 29 NDPS Act for alleged possession of 3.376 kg of Mephedrone (MD) – FSL reports (both initial and control sample recheck) confirmed the seized substance was a neutral material and did not contain any narcotic or psychotropic substance – Held: Since no contraband was found, continuation of criminal proceedings is abuse of process of law – FIR and proceedings quashed [Paras 2.1–3, 6].

NDPS Act – Re-Sampling and Retesting – Permissible Only in Exceptional Circumstances – Procedure Clarified - Court reiterated that retesting of narcotic samples is not a matter of routine and is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, as held in Thana Singh v. CBN – Application for retesting must be filed within 15 days of initial FSL report – No re-sampling/retesting to be entertained beyond that period unless justified by compelling circumstances [Paras 3–5].

Investigation Protocol – Mandate for Strict Adherence to NDPS Guidelines – Directions Issued - Directions issued to Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to circulate this judgment to all SHOs – Judicial Officers entrusted with NDPS cases to be guided by this ruling for future compliance [Paras 7–8].

Quashing – Criminal Proceedings Based on Misidentified Substance – Abuse of Process - FSL confirmed that substance was not a contraband – Prosecution under NDPS Act not sustainable – Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent miscarriage of justice – FIR and all related proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 6].

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Double Homicide of Couple – Acquittal Granted - Accused convicted of killing a man (Sharafat) and a woman (Soni) due to alleged illicit relationship – High Court found prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Alleged eyewitnesses turned hostile; motive insufficient – Held: Prosecution case not established, benefit of doubt given [Paras 1–5, 23–29, 44–45].

Eyewitness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – No Corroboration - Key witnesses including the informant and others initially supported prosecution but turned hostile after de novo trial ordered on framing of additional charges – Court held that testimony after contradiction lacks credibility without corroborative support – No reliance could be placed on their statements [Paras 22–27, 33–34].

Post-Mortem Findings – Cause of Death Not Sufficiently Linked – Independent Medical Evidence Inconclusive - Though injuries and cause of death (asphyxia and hemorrhage) were established, no direct nexus with accused proved – Court held medical evidence alone insufficient in absence of cogent eyewitness account [Paras 14–17, 30–32].

Investigation – Defective and One-Sided – Recovery and Arrest Doubtful – Police failed to provide independent witnesses for recovery; procedural irregularities noted in recording statements and recovery memos – Held: Investigation tainted with doubt, cannot form sole basis of conviction [Paras 18–21].

Decision – All Appeals Allowed – Convictions Set Aside – Accused Ibrahim, Sannaur, Mussarat and others acquitted of charges under Sections 147, 302 read with 149 IPC – Bail bonds cancelled; fine amounts directed to be refunded [Paras 44–45].
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax Settlement – Grant of Immunity – Scope under Section 245H – Immunity Upheld – The Revenue assailed the Settlement Commission’s order only to the extent it granted immunity from prosecution and penalty to the assessee company and its directors – Held: The Settlement Commission’s satisfaction on full and true disclosure, manner of deriving the income, and cooperation of the assessee was not challenged by the Revenue – Without such challenge, the Commission’s grant of immunity stands legally sound – Writ petition seeking interference with immunity granted is not maintainable [Paras 1, 12-16]. 
 
Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission – Full and True Disclosure – Conditions for Valid Application – Commission Empowered – The Court observed that once the Commission admits an application under Section 245D(1) and finds it valid under Section 245D(2C), it implies compliance with Section 245C(1) requirements – Held: Where the Revenue did not dispute the Settlement Order itself, the grounds for interfering with the immunity portion do not survive – Application was valid, and jurisdiction was properly exercised [Paras 611, 13-15]. 
 
Judicial Review – Scope and Limitation – No Error in Exercise of Power by Commission – 
Held: The Commission recorded satisfaction that all statutory conditions under Section 245H were fulfilled – In absence of any plea disputing this satisfaction, no case for interference is made out – Petition dismissed as no jurisdictional error or perversity shown [Paras 16-17]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Commission’s order granting immunity from prosecution and penalty sustained – No merit found in Revenue’s challenge [Para 17]. 
 

Criminal Law – Summoning CDRs under Section 91 CrPC – Protection of Accused's Right to Fair Trial – Petition Allowed – Petitioner, a taxi driver accused in an NDPS case, filed for preservation of call detail records and tower location of his phone and that of the raiding party to establish his location and alleged illegal arrest – Trial Court dismissed the application citing privacy and security of investigating officials – Held: As per Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar v. UOI, electronic records are admissible, and location data can be summoned with caller details redacted to balance privacy and justice – Order rejecting the application set aside [Paras 1–6].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of Tower Location – Right to Present Defence – Supreme Court Precedent Applied – Reiterated that Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act permit electronic data such as CDRs and tower logs, provided procedural requirements are met – Court directed only relevant tower location data to be provided to avoid compromising investigation or privacy – Fair trial rights take precedence in permitting limited access to digital evidence [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Trial Court Order Set Aside – CDRs to be Produced with Restrictions – High Court allowed the criminal revision, quashed the impugned order dated 08.05.2024, and directed limited production of mobile data for tower location without revealing full call records – Rights of accused to prove innocence must be preserved while maintaining safeguards on investigator privacy [Para 6].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal Against Conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof Not Met – Acquittal Granted - Appellant convicted for murder of his partner based on last seen evidence and bloodstains on clothing – High Court held prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstances linking appellant to crime – Evidence of last seen was found shaky and inconclusive; no reliable motive established [Paras 1–3, 12–13, 16–22].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Inapplicability Where Chain Incomplete – Failure to Explain Not Sufficient - Conviction was primarily based on appellant’s failure to explain circumstances under Section 106 – Court clarified that where prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden does not shift to the accused – Section 106 can only serve as an additional link, not primary basis [Paras 13–16, 21].

Last Seen Theory – Witness Testimony Unreliable – Witness could not confirm when appellant and deceased returned from market prior to death – Evidence did not establish proximity of accused with deceased at time of incident – Held: No safe conviction can rest on this evidence [Paras 9–13].

Forensic Evidence – CA Report Not Conclusive – Prosecution Failed to Establish Chain - Blood stains on appellant’s clothes matched deceased’s blood group, but chain of custody and time of seizure not clearly proved – Report failed to conclusively link appellant to murder [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted of Offence Under Section 302 IPC – Released forthwith if not required in any other case – Fine to be refunded [Paras 23–24].

Service Tax – Exemption for Legal Practitioners – Demand Raised Based on Third-Party Disclosure – Notice Quashed - Petitioner, an individual practicing advocate, was issued a service tax demand notice and recovery order based on third-party income disclosure – Court reiterated settled law that legal services provided by individual lawyers are exempt under the negative list – Held: Issuance of such notices violates prior judicial orders and binding departmental instructions; notices quashed with liberty to assess non-professional income, if any, under applicable law [Paras 5–8].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Copyright Infringement – Section 63 of Copyright Act – Mens Rea Essential – Proceedings Quashed - Accused were directors of a publishing company that printed a book allegedly plagiarizing respondent's blog – Held: To constitute offence under Section 63, publication must be done “knowingly” – No material in complaint indicating petitioners were aware of plagiarism at time of publication – Hence, no criminal liability made out [Paras 6–9].
Mens Rea – Knowledge of Infringement Required – Conduct Shows Bona Fide - Petitioners withdrew book from public domain promptly upon learning about issue and informed complainant – This conduct negates “culpable mental state” – Allegations of deliberate infringement considered perfunctory and unsupported by specific facts [Paras 7–9].
Criminal vs Civil Remedy – Parallel Suit Maintained – No Bar to Civil Proceedings - Court clarified that quashing of criminal case does not impact civil suit pending before District Court for the same copyright violation – Observations limited to criminal liability [Para 9].
Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers to Prevent Abuse – Petition Allowed - High Court exercised power under Section 482 to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Proceedings in C.C. No. 625/2018 quashed against petitioners [Paras 9–10].
Decision – Petition Allowed – Criminal proceedings against Petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 to 5, 7 & 8) in C.C. No. 625/2018 quashed – Civil suit proceedings to continue unaffected [Para 10].
 

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Discretion Properly Exercised - Petitioner challenged trial court’s appointment of Commissioner in a suit for declaration and injunction—Trial Court limited commissioner’s mandate to noting physical features only—Held: Commissioner’s appointment does not amount to illegal collection of evidence; Court below exercised discretion judiciously [Paras 5, 10–13].

Possession Dispute – Preliminary Recording of Site Features Permissible – Evidence Not Yet Led – Dispute over nature of land use (agricultural vs non-agricultural) and possession justified early local investigation – Held: Preserving state of property at early stage aids fair adjudication, especially when physical features may change over time [Paras 4, 7–9, 12–13].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – No Material Irregularity – Article 227 - High Court found no jurisdictional error or material illegality in trial court’s decision – Petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Order appointing Advocate Commissioner affirmed – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications also closed [Paras 14].