Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide vs. Murder – Altercation over a mobile phone – Appellant hit the deceased on the head with a lathi, causing a fatal injury – Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC – Appellant contended lack of premeditation and intent, seeking modification of conviction – High Court observed that the incident occurred suddenly when the accused was called to the spot and struck a single blow – Held: While the accused lacked the specific intention to cause death, inflicting an injury on a vital part (head) demonstrates knowledge that the act was likely to cause death – The act falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and modified to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 27–29].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PW-2 accompanied the deceased to the spot and witnessed the appellant arriving and striking the deceased on the head with a lathi – Testimony corroborated by PW-1 (who arrived shortly after) and medical evidence (PW-15) confirming death due to hemorrhagic shock from a lacerated head injury – Held: The oral evidence of the eyewitness is natural, unrebutted, and inspires confidence, proving the appellant's act of assault beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 22–26].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Civil Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Waiver of Objection – Section 21 and Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Suit for recovery of Rs. 10 lacs where Trial Court allowed the respondent's application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to return the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction – Appellant contended that the respondent did not object to territorial jurisdiction in the written statement and no issue was framed on this aspect – Held: In terms of Section 21 CPC, an objection to territorial or local jurisdiction must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and in any case at or before the settlement of issues – If not taken at the earliest, the objection is deemed to be waived – Territorial jurisdiction can be assumed by the Court upon waiver, as it does not go to the root of the matter unlike inherent lack of subject-matter jurisdiction – Since the respondent raised no objection at the first instance or at the stage of framing issues, the objection stands waived – Impugned order returning the plaint is set aside and the suit is restored [Paras 3–10].

Decision: Appeal succeeds and is disposed of – Impugned order dated 23.07.2022 is set aside – Suit is restored to its original number and directed to be listed before the concerned Trial Court on 30.03.2026.

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability of direct approach to High Court – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Section 482 BNSS gives concurrent powers to the High Court and Sessions Court to entertain anticipatory bail applications – Normal rule requires approaching the Sessions Court first, but High Court can entertain directly in special or extra-ordinary circumstances – FIR was lodged on the direction of Special Judge (POCSO) under Section 173(4) BNSS – Special Judge acts in dual capacity as Magistrate and Sessions Court – Held: The present application comes within the purview of special/extra-ordinary circumstances; preliminary objection of the State against direct maintainability before the High Court is rejected [Paras 26–32].

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Section 29 Presumption of Guilt – Applicability at pre-arrest bail stage – State opposed anticipatory bail relying on the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act – Held: Presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act cannot be invoked at the stage of pre-arrest bail before the framing of charges – Requiring an accused to rebut the presumption of guilt before foundational facts are established and charges are framed would do violence to fundamental criminal jurisprudence and Article 21 of the Constitution – Grant or refusal of bail at this stage is to be decided on usual and ordinary settled principles [Paras 40–45].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Factual Matrix and Conduct of Parties – Delay in FIR and unnatural conduct – FIR lodged after 6 days delay by a stranger claiming to be the guardian of the victims – Victims did not inform their natural parents but confided in a stranger – Material improvements in victims' statements regarding date and place of incident – Victims were interviewed by media in violation of POCSO and Juvenile Justice Act protocols – Dispute regarding bathing rights in Magh Mela coincided with the date the informant allegedly received information of the offence – Medical report noted no external injuries and only stated sexual assault cannot be ruled out – Held: Considering the factual matrix, discrepancies, and unnatural course of human conduct, a case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out [Paras 33–39, 51–52].

Procedural Law – Filing of Affidavit – Defective Affidavit – State objected that the affidavit in support of the anticipatory bail application was not sworn by Applicant No.1 but by Applicant No.2 and a stranger (pairokar), allegedly violating Rule 18-A of Allahabad High Court Rules – Held: Procedural laws are handmaids of justice and not meant to defeat the ends of justice – Hyper-technical approach cannot be adopted to throw out the application when Applicant No.2 explicitly stated he is doing pairavi on behalf of Applicant No.1 [Para 46].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application allowed – In the event of arrest, applicants are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not leaving India without permission of the Court, and all parties refraining from giving media interviews regarding the present case during the pendency of the investigation/trial.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Rape – POCSO – Age of Prosecutrix – Proof – Charges under Sections 363/366/342/376/506 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act — prosecution's case that prosecutrix was aged 16½ years at time of incident in January 2013 — birth certificate not proved as original birth register lost during office shifting — parents (PW-4 and PW-5) could not tell date of birth of prosecutrix in cross-examination — Janam Patri and Jachcha Bachcha Raksha Card not admissible as proof of date of birth — Held: Prosecution failed to prove that prosecutrix was a minor at the time of incident; POCSO Act consequently not applicable [Paras 11–15].

Evidence – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Sterling Quality – Material Contradictions – Prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed she went to Amritsar under telephonic threats but no physical force was used and respondent was not present in Delhi — she travelled alone by bus without making any complaint to mother, relatives, employer or police — did not try to escape from Amritsar despite visits to Golden Temple and Sheetla Mandir — admitted to calling respondent "Babu" or "Husband" voluntarily — admitted to attending work throughout January 2013 and receiving full salary — video showed her looking happy — MLC showed no visible fresh external injury — Held: Testimony is marked by material contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies on core aspects; does not inspire confidence of sterling quality; version unreliable [Paras 17–24].

Investigation – Slip-shod Manner – CDR and Mobile Records – Customer Application Form for mobile number used to trace prosecutrix not proved — service provider not examined — CDR and location chart not duly proved — Ram Kumar, in whose name number was registered, not examined — place and manner of arrest of respondent contradicted between prosecution witnesses — Held: Slip-shod investigation makes prosecution case doubtful; benefit goes to accused [Paras 25–26].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption – Standard of Interference – Presumption of innocence stands reinforced by acquittal — appellate court may interfere only when trial court's findings are perverse, manifestly illegal, or grossly unjust or when there are very substantial and compelling reasons — if two reasonable views possible, one leading to acquittal must be preferred — Held: Trial court's view is plausible and reasonable; prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; no interference warranted [Paras 27–29].

Decision: State appeal dismissed — acquittal of respondent dated 20.07.2019 affirmed — bail bond and surety discharged.

Criminal Law – Interim Custody of Property – Freezing and Defreezing of Bank Accounts – Sections 451, 457 and 102 Cr.P.C. – The complainant transferred Rs. 1.17 crores, including amounts to the petitioner's account, for the procurement of a fluid which was never supplied – The Investigating Officer froze the petitioner's bank account containing Rs. 1,12,15,884/- – The Magistrate allowed the complainant's application for interim custody upon execution of an indemnity bond and rejected the petitioner's application to defreeze the account – The Revisional Court affirmed both orders – Held: The email communications placed on record indicate that the amount was transferred to the petitioner's account at the behest of the main accused – The petitioner being an associate of the main accused, the possibility of the deposited amount being proceeds of crime cannot be ruled out prior to a full-fledged trial – The Magistrate rightly released the amount in favour of the complainant who actually lost the money due to the alleged fraudulent act – Petitions rejected [Paras 4–10].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope of Interference with Concurrent Findings – The High Court was approached to undo the concurrent orders passed by the Magistrate and the Revisional Court – Held: In the exercise of inherent or revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court does not upset concurrent factual findings in the absence of perversity, nor does it re-analyse or re-interpret evidence on record – The lower courts validly safeguarded the funds by imposing a condition that the complainant shall re-deposit the entire amount if he loses the case – The complainant having prima facie shown entitlement to the amount, the impugned orders are based on cogent reasons and do not warrant interference – Petitions rejected [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Petitions rejected – The orders of the Magistrate and the Revisional Court allowing the complainant's application for interim custody and rejecting the petitioner's application for defreezing the bank account are affirmed.

Commercial Law – Contracts – Suit for Recovery of Money – Breach of Contract – Demurrage and Excess Freight Charges – The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,18,70,115/- (principal and interest) against the defendant/respondent regarding a contract for transportation services – Defendant contended that plaintiff breached the contract by failing to place trailers at the designated time, forcing the defendant to hire alternate transporters and incur demurrage charges imposed by port authorities – Defendant recovered Rs. 29,61,000/- by encashing bank guarantee, retaining EMD, and from pending bills – Held: Trial Court correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to prove the basis of its claim, having produced no supporting documents like invoices – Defendant produced adequate material, including bills from port authorities, to justify deductions made strictly in accordance with the contract terms – Dismissal of suit upheld [Paras 15, 20, 23, 30–34].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Claim for outstanding dues – Plaintiff claimed a specific sum but failed to enumerate details or produce any material/invoices to substantiate the claim other than a statement of accounts and a demand letter – PW1 admitted no separate bills were raised – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the amount due and payable – Defendant justified its deductions with documentary evidence (Ex. D28) which went unimpeached in cross-examination – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20, 26, 32–34].

Decision: Appeal dismissed as being devoid of merit with costs. All pending applications disposed of.

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action – Privity of Contract – Appellant, a logistics provider, executed approximately 30 consignments for transportation of grapes from cold storage facilities to ports for export to Russia during COVID-19 lockdown between 11.03.2020 and 09.05.2020 and raised invoices totalling Rs. 9,13,087/- — Commercial Court identified thirteen anomalies in the plaint suo motu before issuance of notice and rejected the plaint on the ground that export documentation featured appellant's sister concern M/s SPJ Cargo Private Limited and therefore no privity of contract existed between appellant and respondent — Held: Court under Order VII Rule 11 must restrict scrutiny to the four corners of the plaint read with documents and take them to be true; cause of action is a bundle of facts which if proved would entitle relief; by pleading direct solicitation of services, delivery of cargo and issuance of invoices accepted without protest, appellant met the threshold — premature adjudication of a mixed question of fact and law impermissible at admission stage [Paras 15–16].

Privity of Contract – Course of Dealing – Implied Contract – Segmented Logistics Arrangements – Respondent had historical course of dealing with appellant evidenced by prior direct payments into appellant's bank account — appellant's role limited to road transportation from warehouse to port while sister concern handled ocean freight and customs clearance — Commercial Court erroneously concluded from mate's receipts and ocean freight documents that appellant was an interloper — whether appellant acted as principal or agent is a matter of evidence requiring trial — privity can be inferred from conduct of parties and implied contracts — modern logistics frequently involves segmented contracts among affiliated entities — Held: Commercial Court embarked on a mini-trial and its inference is fundamentally flawed [Paras 16–17].

Procedural Law – Technical Defects – Curable Irregularities – Thirteen anomalies cited by Commercial Court including lack of registration under Carriage by Road Act and errors in Statement of Truth are largely procedural and do not go to the root of cause of action — procedural laws are handmaids of justice and should not be used as tripwires to defeat substantive claims — defects curable by amendment — rejection while amendment application pending constitutes grave procedural irregularity — Held: Summary rejection for technical defects unsustainable [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed — impugned order/deemed decree dated 09.12.2023 set aside — suit restored to original number — parties directed to appear before Commercial Court on 07.04.2026.

Criminal Law – Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Property Dispute – Mediation Meeting – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for stabbing his brother Titu Miah Khadim at a mediation meeting convened to settle a property dispute on 01.10.2021 – PW-2, whose presence at the place of occurrence was not disputed, gave a direct eyewitness account of the stabbing and the appellant's conduct of cleaning the blood-stained knife with a gamcha thereafter – PW-4 corroborated the account and saw the deceased lying with bleeding injuries while the appellant was cleaning the knife – PW-8 also witnessed the attack – Held: The evidence of PW-2 was corroborated by PW-4, PW-8 and to some extent PW-3 – The witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined and the defence failed to shake their credibility – Inconsistencies in testimony of witnesses do not automatically render evidence inadmissible or unreliable – Appeal dismissed and conviction affirmed [Paras 27–55].

FIR – Multiple FIR – Cryptic Telephonic Information in GDE – Not FIR – The defence contended that telephonic information entered in GDE No. 29 dated 01.10.2021 was the first FIR and the subsequent written complaint Exhibit P-1 by PW-1 was a second FIR hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. – Held: A cryptic telephonic information cannot be treated as an FIR – PW-14, the IO, admitted that after receipt of the telephonic information in GDE No. 29, he proceeded to the spot and only after observing commission of cognizable offence did he commence investigation – The written FIR Exhibit P-1 lodged by PW-1 was thus validly the first FIR in the case – Nothing on record shows that more than one FIR was lodged in respect of the same murder – Plea that Exhibit P-1 would be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. falls flat [Paras 38, 47].

Delay in Examination of Witnesses – Not Fatal Unless Prejudice Caused – Investigation – The defence urged that delay in examination of prosecution witnesses by the IO provided scope for manipulation of evidence – Held: Delay in examination of witnesses by the IO can raise questions about fairness of investigation but does not automatically vitiate the investigation unless it has caused actual prejudice to the accused or the integrity of the investigation is compromised – Non-disclosure of information received by PW-1 to the IO immediately was not fatal to prosecution as PW-1 was under mental shock and agony upon learning of his father's death [Paras 49, 48].

Non-Recovery of Weapon – Not Fatal When Direct Eyewitness Evidence Available – The defence contended that non-recovery of the knife used for the assault was fatal to the prosecution case – Held: Recovery of the weapon of offence is not a sine qua non for conviction – When there is direct evidence of eyewitnesses whose testimony is found reliable and corroborated by medical evidence, absence of recovery of the weapon cannot be a ground to acquit the accused [Paras 43–46].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed — Conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life confirmed — Pending miscellaneous applications closed — Lower court record to be sent down forthwith.

Trademark Law - Infringement and Passing Off - Deceptive Similarity - 'TULASI' vs 'TULSI' - Appeals against temporary injunction restraining defendant from using 'TULSI' for incense sticks - Plaintiff using registered word and device mark 'TULASI' since 1950; defendant using 'TULSI' alongside mark 'JALLAN' since 2023 - Held: Plaintiff established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off based on long, continuous, and exclusive use of its registered mark. Defendant's use of 'TULSI' in large font masking its trademark 'JALLAN' was prominent and acted as a trademark/source identifier rather than a mere descriptor of fragrance. Phonetic similarity between the marks creates a likelihood of confusion. Temporary injunction correctly granted by Trial Court [Paras 32-45, 62-67].

Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 - Defense of Descriptive Use - Defendant claimed 'TULSI' merely described the fragrance/ingredient of incense sticks - Held: Statutory protection under Section 30(2)(a) is available only for bona fide and purely descriptive use. Prominent display of the word 'TULSI' on packaging in a significantly larger font than the house mark 'JALLAN' negated the defense of descriptive use at the interlocutory stage. Trial Court justified in concluding the word functioned as a source identifier, limiting the monopoly exception for descriptive common words [Paras 34-36, 42-45, 63-65].

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLIII Rule 1(r) - Scope of Interference with Discretionary Orders - Held: The Appellate Court's power to interfere with discretionary interlocutory orders granting temporary injunctions is limited. An Appellate Court will not substitute its own view merely because another conclusion is possible, unless the Trial Court's exercise of discretion is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or in disregard of settled legal principles. The Trial Court properly evaluated prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. No grounds for interference [Paras 18, 61, 68].

Decision: Appeals dismissed. The common order passed by the Trial Court allowing the temporary injunction applications filed by the plaintiff is upheld.