Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Conviction and Sentence – Appeal – Non-compliance with Section 52A – Conviction and sentence of the appellant set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which requires the preparation of an inventory, and drawing of samples in the presence of a Magistrate – Held that the failure to comply with this mandatory provision vitiates the prosecution’s case – Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted. [Paras 1-15]

Compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act – Requirement – Analysis – Held – Section 52A of the NDPS Act mandates that an inventory of the seized narcotic substance must be prepared and certified by a Magistrate, and samples must be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate – Non-compliance results in the samples not being treated as primary evidence – Reference made to Union of India v. Mohanlal and Mohammed Khalid v. State of Telangana. [Paras 8-13]

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Court found significant procedural lapses in the investigation, particularly the non-compliance with Section 52A, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Trial Court set aside. [Para 15]

Property Law – Joint Hindu Family Property – Succession Rights under Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 – Applicability to Agricultural Land -  High Court examined the applicability of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, to the agricultural land. Upon the death of Kanhaiya in 1941, the Court found that his wife, Kala Bai, acquired the same rights in the joint family property under the Act, despite her husband’s death prior to the extension of the Act to agricultural lands in 1942. This extension was applied retrospectively, granting Kala Bai a half share in the property which she held in her own right until her death in 1960. Consequently, the plaintiffs, being the daughters of Kanhaiya and Kala Bai, inherited the property upon the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, affirming their right to partition and possession. [Paras 2, 11-12]

Property Acquisition – The High Court held that the land area of 1.14 acres, acquired by Harlal through a registered sale deed in 1954, was his self-acquired property and not part of the joint family estate. The trial court's finding of the sale deed as bogus was reversed by the first appellate court and upheld by the High Court, determining that this land should not be included in the decree for partition. The Court modified the trial court’s decree accordingly, excluding this specific land from the plaintiffs' share. [Paras 5, 14-15]

Decision – Appeal Partially Allowed – Held – The appeal is allowed to the extent of excluding the self-acquired property of Harlal (1.14 acres) from the partition decree. The judgment and decree of the lower courts are modified to this extent, confirming the plaintiffs’ entitlement to half of the remaining joint family property. No order as to costs. [Paras 15-17]

Criminal Law – Exemption from Appearance – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the rejection of an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. for exemption from personal appearance – Petitioner unable to appear in court due to attending uncle's funeral – Trial court rejected exemption due to lack of immediate proof of death – High Court sets aside trial court's order, granting exemption – Recognizes procedural leniency for unforeseen personal events – Importance of balancing judicial process with personal exigencies emphasized. [Paras 1-8]

Nonappearance Justification – Evaluation – Held – The nonappearance justified by petitioner’s presence at a funeral – Submission of necropolis receipt and affidavit suffices for immediate proof – Importance of procedural justice and consideration of humanitarian grounds reaffirmed. [Paras 3-4]

Decision – Setting Aside of Impugned Order – High Court sets aside the trial court's order rejecting the exemption application – Directs petitioner to continue regular appearances henceforth – Emphasizes balance between judicial rigor and personal circumstances. [Paras 6-8]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Revisional application under Sections 482 and 401 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner’s marriage dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406 IPC deemed abuse of process – High Court’s inherent powers invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice – FIR and charge-sheet quashed. [Paras 1-36]

Matrimonial Disputes – Settlement – High Court’s inherent powers – Analysis – Held – Parties resolved matrimonial disputes and obtained mutual consent divorce – Continuation of criminal proceedings counterproductive – Legal precedent supports quashing in cases of amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes. [Para 34-35]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Court quashes FIR and charge-sheet against petitioner, citing abuse of process and resolution of matrimonial issues through mutual consent divorce – Recognizes necessity of applying inherent powers to prevent injustice. [Para 36-40]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 80/2024 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi for offences under Sections 21, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act – Information received regarding drug peddlers leading to the arrest of co-accused and recovery of 1010 grams of heroin – Petitioner named during the interrogation of co-accused – Petitioner alleged to be involved in drug trafficking syndicate – Petitioner absconding and failed to respond to notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Application for anticipatory bail rejected. [Paras 3-13]

Evidence – Confessional Statements and Corroborative Material – Confessional statements of co-accused – WhatsApp conversations and Call Detail Records (CDRs) examined – Evidence indicating prima facie involvement of the petitioner – Court held that custodial interrogation necessary to uncover the entire drug syndicate. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Rejection of Anticipatory Bail – Court found no ground for granting anticipatory bail – Investigation at a nascent stage – Risk of tampering with evidence if bail granted – Application dismissed. [Para 13]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 44 – Rights of Co-owners and Transferees - Property Law – Second Appeal under Section 100 r/w Order XLII Rule 1 & 2 CPC dismissed – Challenge against the concurrent findings of trial court and 1st appellate court dismissing defendants’ claim over property by adverse possession and confirming mandatory injunction for eviction – High Court held that defendants were licensees and not co-owners, thus not entitled to protection under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act – Substantial question of law answered against appellants – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Paras 1-33]

Co-ownership and Licensee Rights – High Court evaluated defendants' claim of adverse possession and exchange of properties – Found defendants to be licensees under the original co-owner without any exchange of properties as claimed – Defendants not entitled to protection as co-owners under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act or Section 4 of the Partition Act – Suit for mandatory injunction held valid for eviction after termination of license – Previous decisions supporting co-owner’s right to sue for possession without involving other co-owners upheld. [Paras 9-20, 22-24, 30-32]

Procedural Aspects – High Court analyzed appropriateness of mandatory injunction vs. suit for recovery of possession – Upheld mandatory injunction based on prompt action by plaintiffs following termination of license – Distinguished from trespasser scenario due to immediate suit filing – Relied on precedents establishing that delay and necessity for a suit for possession are context-dependent – Avoidance of multiplicity of suits emphasized. [Paras 25-29]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The second appeal is dismissed with costs due to lack of merit in the defendants' contentions, confirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the defendants are mere licensees and not co-owners, and thus liable to vacate the property as decreed. [Para 33]

Motor Vehicles Act – Enhancement of Compensation – Appeal – Appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal for death in a motor vehicle accident – Tribunal had awarded Rs. 9,40,000 with interest – Appellants claimed deceased’s income was Rs. 30,000 per month as a transporter and contractor, not Rs. 6,000 as assessed by Tribunal – Tribunal’s assessment based on lack of documentary evidence and unproven ownership of truck – High Court considered deceased a skilled labourer and adjusted monthly income to Rs. 10,000 – Recalculated total compensation to Rs. 17,15,500 with interest. [Paras 1-20]

Assessment of Income – Evidence – Tribunal’s income assessment – Held – Tribunal erred in assessing monthly income as Rs. 6,000 based on insufficient evidence – High Court adjusted income to Rs. 10,000, recognizing deceased as a skilled labourer based on driving license for heavy transport vehicle. [Paras 11-12]

Dependency and Multipliers – Personal Expenses – Held – Tribunal incorrectly deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses – High Court corrected deduction to 1/4th considering number of dependents – Multiplier of 13 applied correctly. [Paras 13-14]

Conventional Heads – Consortium and Funeral Expenses – Held – Tribunal awarded consortium and funeral expenses lower than statutory guidelines – High Court enhanced awards under these heads per Supreme Court guidelines. [Paras 16-18]

Decision – Enhancement of Compensation – High Court enhanced total compensation from Rs. 9,40,000 to Rs. 17,15,500 – Directed equitable distribution among dependents and specified terms for fixed deposits for minor dependents – Interest on enhanced amount at 6% per annum from claim petition filing date to actual payment. [Paras 19-22]

Passport Law – Renewal of Passport – Special Criminal Application seeking renewal of passport – Applicant’s passport renewal denied by passport authority due to pending criminal case and untraceable court records – Court held that the pendency of a criminal complaint which culminated into a criminal case does not justify refusal of passport renewal under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 – Direction issued to passport authority to process renewal application within a month. [Paras 1-9]

Untraceable Court Records – Impact on Administrative Decisions – Analysis – Held – Applicant’s criminal case records untraceable despite multiple efforts – Court found that such administrative lapses should not impede the renewal process – Authorities directed to base their decision on available documents rather than pending criminal case. [Para 5-9]

Decision – Renewal of Passport Directed – Court directed the passport authority to renew the petitioner’s passport within one month – Emphasized that mere registration of an FIR, which culminated into a criminal case, cannot be grounds for denial of passport renewal – Authorities instructed to consider documents provided by the petitioner. [Para 9]

Criminal Law – Dying Declaration – Appellants convicted based on dying declarations of deceased – Two dying declarations recorded, first by police in presence of doctor, second under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate – Court scrutinized consistency and voluntariness of statements – Found statements reliable and made in fit state of mind – Deceased consistently named Amir Mallick in both declarations but omitted Gudia @ Guria in second statement before Magistrate – Conviction of Amir Mallick upheld, Gudia @ Guria acquitted on benefit of doubt [Paras 1-33].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – P.W. 1 (husband of deceased) declared hostile, did not support prosecution’s case – Defense witnesses attempted to challenge credibility of dying declarations – Court emphasized consistency of deceased’s statements and presence of doctors during recording – Minor discrepancies in witness statements deemed immaterial [Paras 10-22].

Motive – Property Dispute – Evidence showed consistent motive related to property dispute between deceased and in-laws – Deceased demanded joint ownership in property registered solely in husband’s name – Step-relationship among family members contributed to motive [Paras 27-30].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of Amir Mallick for life imprisonment affirmed – Gudia @ Guria acquitted and ordered to be released [Paras 34-36].