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].
 

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 Law - Review – Maintainability by Non-Party – Review Application Allowed - Deputy Registrar of CAT, though not a party to the original writ petition, was held entitled to maintain review application as the order affected the statutory powers of the CAT Chairman under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Held: "Any person aggrieved" includes non-party if substantive right is affected [Paras 2, 13, 16–17, 42].

Administrative Tribunal – Jurisdiction of Single Member – CAT Chairman Empowered - Notifications of 2016 and 2021 issued under Section 5(6) authorized Single Member Benches, including Administrative Members, to decide cases involving minor penalties – Held: Order under review failed to consider these valid statutory instruments and misapplied precedent [Paras 23–27, 36–37].

L. Chandra Kumar – Interpretation Clarified – Bench Constitution Must Reflect Nature of Case - Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar upheld Section 5(6) and permitted Single Member Benches except when constitutional interpretation is involved – Calcutta HC recognized it had incorrectly applied coordinate Bench decisions inconsistent with this precedent [Paras 30–33, 39].

Error Apparent – Grounds for Review – Principles from BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club Applied - Held: Review lies not only for patent error but also for correction of misconception of fact or law – Misunderstanding of legal provisions and non-consideration of binding precedent warranted recall [Paras 40–41].

Decision – Review Allowed – Judgment dated 11/11/2024 Recalled – W.P.C.T 221 of 2024 restored to file and listed for final hearing in April 2025 – Review Application disposed without costs [Paras 41–43].
 

Taxation Law – Income Tax Act - Bogus Purchases – Full Disallowance Justified – Tribunal’s 3% Estimation Set Aside - Tribunal had restricted disallowance on bogus purchases to 3% despite finding that purchases were unverified and books not produced – High Court held: Once Tribunal concluded purchases were bogus, restricting disallowance to 3% based on speculative grey market theory unsupported by record was erroneous – Full disallowance of ₹6.15 crore restored [Paras 1–2, 18–21, 29–30, 34].

Failure to Prove Genuineness – Books, Suppliers, and Stock Records Not Produced – Adverse Inference Warranted - Respondent-Assessee failed to produce books, stock registers, or confirmatory evidence—suppliers untraceable and summons returned unserved—held: absence of transactional evidence and inability to establish source made case fit for full disallowance [Paras 6–8, 21–27].

Speculative Grey Market Justification – Rejected as Perversity – Not Pleaded by Assessee - ITAT’s conclusion that goods were bought from grey market was not the case of the assessee before lower authorities—High Court ruled this line of reasoning perverse and unsustainable [Paras 18–20].

No Requirement to Invoke Section 69C Specifically – Substance Over Form - Respondent argued Section 69C not explicitly invoked—Held: Section 69C is enabling and its omission does not affect legality of addition where unexplained expenditure is otherwise proven—Substance of findings prevails [Paras 25–26].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Orders of CIT(A) and ITAT Reversed – Assessment Officer’s Addition Restored – Substantial questions of law answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 34–35].
 

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].

Bail - Dowry Death – Suicide at Parental Home – Section 304B IPC – Bail Denied - Accused sought bail on grounds that the deceased committed suicide at her parental home and not matrimonial home, and that no harassment occurred “soon before” her death – Court held: Location of suicide irrelevant for Section 304B IPC—what matters is ongoing matrimonial relationship and harassment – Prima facie material exists for trial to proceed [Paras 6–8, 9].

Interpretation of “Soon Before Death” – Not Synonymous with “Immediately Before” – Relative Expression - Court cited Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Kans Raj v. State of Punjab to emphasize that “soon before” is a flexible term depending on context – Continued telephonic contact, judicial separation proceedings, and a final long call days before suicide suggested a live link between harassment and death [Paras 8.1–8.3].

Case Law Distinguished – Bail Jurisprudence – Delay in Trial Not Sole Ground - Cited SC ruling in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra was held inapplicable, as trial had already commenced and six of forty witnesses examined – Bail in dowry death cases demands stricter scrutiny due to grave societal impact [Paras 4–5].

Judicial Caution in Dowry Deaths – Strong Message from Judiciary – Citing Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., Supreme Court - Court reiterated that judicial approach in dowry death cases must be sensitive to societal impact and reflect seriousness of the crime – Releasing prime accused on bail at early stage may undermine justice and public trust [Paras 5, 8.3].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court held it is not a fit case for grant of bail considering nature of allegations, ongoing trial, and societal implications – Trial court directed to continue independently [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].
 

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Delay in Raising Dispute – Reinstatement Set Aside – Compensation Granted – Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity and back wages after delay of 13 years in reference – Held: Though termination violated Section 25(F), unexplained inordinate delay in raising the dispute cannot be ignored – Labour Court should have granted monetary compensation instead – Reinstatement order modified to lump sum compensation [Paras 1-13].

Labour Remedy – No Limitation under Section 10 – Delay Still Material – Even though no statutory limitation applies for raising an industrial dispute, unexplained delay must be considered during adjudication – Courts cannot ignore the prejudice caused to the employer by prolonged delay in seeking remedy [Paras 6-8].

Reinstatement – Temporary Employees – No Right to Post – Workmen were not appointed against permanent posts – Held: Reinstatement cannot be ordered after 19 years when no vacancy exists and workmen held no statutory right to reinstatement – Replaced with compensation [Paras 11-12].

Compensation – Quantum Based on Years of Service – Benchmark of ₹50,000 per Year Applied – Court followed precedents and awarded ₹50,000 per completed year of service to workmen – Directed compensation to be paid within 8 weeks, failing which 8% interest per annum shall apply [Paras 14-15].

*Decision – Reinstatement Orders Modified – Compensation Directed – Reinstatement and back wages set aside – Workmen awarded compensation between ₹1,00,000 to ₹3,00,000 depending on service duration – Payment to be made within 8 weeks with 8% p.a. interest on delay [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Criminal Proceedings in Matrimonial Disputes – General Omnibus Allegations – Proceedings Quashed in Part – Supreme Court precedents reiterated that vague, sweeping allegations lacking specifics against distant relatives cannot sustain criminal charges – FIR and charge sheet quashed against Petitioner No.4 (a distant relative) for lack of necessary ingredients under Sections 504 and 506 IPC – Proceedings to continue against husband (Petitioner No.1) and sister-in-law (Petitioner No.3) based on detailed factual narrative [Paras 22–27, 30–33, 37].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process Prevention – Petition Partially Allowed – High Court invoked its inherent powers to prevent abuse of judicial process – Emphasized that courts should not allow criminal trials to continue on vague and unsubstantiated claims, particularly where specific criminal intent or intimidation is not alleged or evident [Paras 7–21, 26–28].

Role of Trial Court – Appreciation of Evidence – Left Open – Observed that once the charge sheet is filed, the trial court should be allowed to consider discharge under Section 227 CrPC based on full materials—High Court limited its scrutiny to maintainability of proceedings qua each petitioner [Paras 35–36].

Final Decision – FIR Quashed as Against Petitioner No.4 – Proceedings Against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 to Continue – Petition partly allowed – No opinion expressed on merits of pending trial [Paras 37–39].