NDPS – Bail - Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Denial Despite Delayed Trial – Petitioners argued for bail due to delayed trials affecting their constitutional rights under Article 21 – Held: Despite the delay, the trial court demonstrated due despatch in recording witness depositions. The court rejected the bail application, upholding the balance between individual rights and national security considerations [Paras 12-13].

Inadmissibility of Confessions to Police Officers – Section 67 NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Evidence Act – The petitioners claimed that disclosure statements made to officers under Section 67 NDPS should be inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act – Held: Section 67 of the NDPS Act does not supersede Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows admissibility of discovered evidence based on such statements. Confessions made to police officers under custodial circumstances, which lead to factual discoveries, remain admissible [Paras 18-19].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Statutory Bail Bar for Commercial Quantities – Petitioners contended they should be granted bail as co-conspirators without direct recovery of narcotics – Held: The statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to commercial quantities, regardless of direct possession. Even if no contraband was directly seized from certain petitioners, evidence linking them to conspiracies and organized drug trafficking networks suffices to deny bail [Paras 14-16].

Admissibility of Disclosure Statements under Sections 27 and 29 of Evidence Act and NDPS Act – Disclosure statements leading to discovery are admissible as exceptions under Section 27, and conspirators linked by principal accused’s statements can be held liable – Held: The involvement of the petitioners as co-conspirators to supply and distribution links, demonstrated through disclosure statements and supporting evidence, establishes their prima facie liability, meeting the criteria for statutory bail restrictions [Paras 7-9, 21].

Decision – Bail applications and appeals dismissed due to the gravity of narcotics charges, established conspiratorial links, and applicability of statutory restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act [Para 22].

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – GST Registration Suspension – Requirement of Landlord Consent – Tenant Rights – Suspension and Cancellation – The petitioner, M/s Crystal Beverages, challenged the order-cum-show cause notice dated 10.07.2024, suspending its GST registration over alleged unauthorized use of additional premises due to a lack of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the property owner – The petitioner argued that GST rules do not mandate a landlord’s NOC for adding additional business premises [Paras 1-3, 16].

Alternative Remedy and Writ Petition Admissibility – The respondent contended the writ petition should not be entertained due to an alternative remedy – The court, referring to PHR Invest Educational Society v. UCO Bank and Others (2024), ruled that the immediate suspension affecting business operations justified judicial intervention under Article 226, despite alternate remedies [Paras 11-15].

Legal Requirement for Landlord’s Consent – The court found no provision under Rule 19 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requiring a landlord's NOC for adding additional places of business to an existing GST registration – Further, Rule 8 of the GST Rules, cited by the respondent, pertains only to the initial registration of the primary business location and cannot be extended to amendments or additional locations [Paras 4-5, 17-18].

Civil Dispute Impact on GST Registration – The court emphasized that landlord-tenant disputes should not influence GST registration – State authorities should not favor either party, as it could violate Article 14 of the Constitution – Court held that subsequent landlord disputes cannot justify suspension of GST registration, as it would compromise the business’s right to operate freely under Article 19(1)(g) [Paras 19-20].

Non-compliance and Grounds for Cancellation – Citing Section 29(2) of the GST Act, the court observed that no specific provision in GST rules mandated NOC submission for additional premises as a ground for cancellation – The petitioner’s full compliance with GST laws and timely tax payments further supported that the cancellation grounds were inapplicable here [Paras 6, 21-23].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – The order-cum-show cause notice dated 10.07.2024 was quashed, and the GST registration was reinstated – Petitioner permitted to continue business operations without further interruption [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Appeal Challenged – The appellant, a Food Inspector, challenged the acquittal of the accused by the trial court on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was improperly granted – Held: The trial court's finding that the sanctioning authority did not possess the required authority was upheld as the sanction was not in compliance with Section 20(1) of the Act – It was observed that the absence of valid sanction rendered the prosecution unsustainable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 8-13, 17].

Appellate Review of Acquittal – Scope of Section 378 Cr.P.C. – Principles Restated – The appellate court must refrain from interfering with an acquittal unless the findings are patently perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence – Held: The trial court's decision was reasonable, and the appeal did not disclose any significant legal or factual error justifying interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18-23].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. The trial court's order of acquittal is upheld. The records and proceedings are to be sent back to the trial court.

Criminal Procedure – Suspension of Sentence – Requirement of Pre-Deposit Under Section 148 NI Act – Petitioner challenged the Sessions Court’s order requiring a 20% pre-deposit of the fine for sentence suspension – Petitioner, a daily wage worker, claimed inability to comply due to financial constraints – Held: Courts have discretion to waive or modify the deposit condition if it unduly burdens the accused’s right to appeal, especially in cases of financial hardship; reliance placed on Supreme Court’s interpretation in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, allowing flexibility in exceptional cases [Paras 5-9].

Right to Appeal – Financial Constraints and Access to Justice – Petitioner argued inability to comply with pre-deposit conditions would bar her from pursuing her appeal, effectively denying her access to justice – Court agreed that requiring deposit from financially distressed appellants could prevent fair trial access and should be relaxed if undue hardship is proven – Held: Condition of 20% pre-deposit set aside in the interest of justice, allowing appeal to proceed without financial barrier [Paras 10-13].

Decision: The petition is allowed. The condition for a 20% pre-deposit of interim compensation is waived. The Sessions Judge is directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on the pre-deposit condition [Paras 14-15].
 

Right to Travel Abroad - Fundamental Right under Article 21 - Departmental Inquiry Not a Barrier – The petitioner, Neeraj Saxena, sought permission to travel abroad to visit his son in Singapore, despite a pending departmental inquiry. He argued that the right to travel is an inherent part of the "personal liberty" guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court agreed, holding that the pendency of departmental proceedings cannot infringe upon the petitioner’s right to travel unless restrictions are prescribed by law [Paras 12-13, 15].

Balance between Personal Liberty and Departmental Proceedings - Ensuring Compliance through Conditions – The Court found it essential to balance the petitioner’s right to travel abroad with the respondent’s interest in proceeding with the inquiry. To ensure compliance, the petitioner was granted permission to travel with conditions, such as returning by a specified date and resuming participation in the inquiry, thereby upholding both personal liberty and procedural compliance [Paras 16-18].

Reliance on Maneka Gandhi and Satish Chandra Verma Cases - Scope of Personal Liberty – Referencing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, the Court underscored that the right to travel abroad is encompassed within personal liberty. Restrictions on travel can only be imposed under legal procedure, and mere pendency of an inquiry does not justify curtailment of this right [Paras 14, 17].

Decision – Petition Allowed with Conditions – The Court directed the respondent to permit the petitioner’s travel from 30.10.2024 to 04.11.2024, subject to conditions: (i) submission of an undertaking to return to India by 06.11.2024, (ii) participation in the departmental inquiry upon return, and (iii) restriction against traveling to any country other than Singapore. Failure to comply would allow the department to pursue legal action [Para 20].
 

Abetment to Suicide – Prima Facie Evidence and Framing of Charges – Sustained - The petitioners contested the framing of charges under Sections 306 and 34 of IPC, arguing lack of evidence for abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC – Held: A prima facie case for abetment was established through the deceased’s suicide note and witness statements indicating sustained harassment and financial coercion by the petitioners – The Court, citing established judicial principles, reiterated that at the charge-framing stage, a detailed evidentiary examination is unwarranted, and a presumption of abetment can be inferred from circumstances that plausibly contributed to the deceased’s suicide [Paras 10-16].

Judicial Threshold for Framing Charges – Assessment of Material Evidence – High Court's Limited Interference - The Court noted that, per the Supreme Court’s guidelines, quashing charges at the initial stage should be an exception, not the rule, particularly when evidence presents a plausible link between the accused’s conduct and the alleged offense – Emphasized: Courts should permit prosecution to proceed if the foundational facts, taken at face value, suggest the offense, leaving a thorough assessment for the trial stage [Paras 18-19].

Role of High Court in Revisional Jurisdiction – Caution Against Quashing Proceedings - Reinforcing principles from State of M.P. v. Deepak and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the Court stressed that High Courts should avoid scrutinizing evidence intricately at the charge-framing stage, especially if doing so prematurely disrupts prosecution, as it risks dismissing cases where prima facie evidence exists – The Court thus upheld the trial court’s discretion in framing charges, highlighting that the trial was the proper forum for assessing credibility and determining guilt [Paras 25-27].

Decision - The petition was dismissed, affirming that the trial court’s order to frame charges under Sections 306 and 34 IPC was legally sound, with sufficient prima facie evidence justifying prosecution [Para 19].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction under NDPS Act – Procedural lapses – Sealing and Chain of Custody – Acquittal Ordered – The appellants were convicted under Sections 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The court found significant procedural lapses, including the failure of the chemical examiner to re-enclose examined substances in sealed cloth parcels with FSL seals. This breach in the chain of custody created doubt about the integrity of the evidence and led to the acquittal under Sections 15 and 25 of the Act – Conviction under Section 483 IPC Upheld – The court upheld the conviction for counterfeiting a property mark due to conclusive evidence [Paras 16-23, 25].

Standard for Acquittal in Appeals – Scope of Appellate Review – The appellate court reiterated that when substantial procedural lapses or gaps in the chain of evidence exist, the benefit must go to the accused. The absence of homogenous mixing of the seized substance further weakened the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal on NDPS charges [Paras 20-24].

Decision: The appeals are partly allowed. The convictions and sentences under Sections 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act are set aside, and the appellants are acquitted of these charges. The conviction under Section 483 IPC is upheld. Any fines deposited are to be refunded in accordance with the law. Appellants in custody should be released if not required in other cases after serving the sentence for the IPC charge.

Criminal Law – Writ of Mandamus – Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution – Petitioner, a voter from the Samalkha constituency, sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus for the arrest of respondent No. 5 (Dharam Singh Chhoker), a member of the Haryana Legislative Assembly and candidate, citing multiple FIRs and non-bailable warrants issued against him – High Court noted that despite warrants and ongoing investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act), the respondent had not been arrested and continued campaigning openly – Held: Respondent No. 5 must be arrested unless an order of stay or quashing of prior court orders is issued by the Supreme Court – Mandamus issued to the Enforcement Directorate [Paras 1, 2, 22, 25, 30, 31, 35].

Election Law – Disclosure Obligations – Petitioner argued that respondent No. 5's affidavit was incomplete and violated Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by omitting necessary criminal antecedents – Court referenced Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India and other precedents, affirming voters' right to complete information about candidates as integral to Article 19(1)(a) – However, interference in the election process under Article 226 was deemed restricted once elections commenced as per Sukhdev Singh Patwari v. State Election Commissioner [Paras 7, 19, 20].

Criminal Procedure – Issuance of Warrants – Respondent No. 5 had non-bailable warrants issued multiple times for evading arrest – The court highlighted Section 73 Cr.P.C. empowering Magistrates to issue warrants for arrest if the accused evades law enforcement – Noted failures by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to act despite sufficient material and judicial orders [Paras 18, 27, 28, 33].

Constitutional Law – Judicial Review – High Court exercised its power under Article 226 to direct enforcement actions despite arguments for judicial restraint during elections – Emphasized the necessity to uphold fundamental rights and public interest in ensuring adherence to the legal process [Paras 16, 32, 35].

Decision: Petition allowed – Enforcement Directorate directed to arrest respondent No. 5 unless intervening orders by the Supreme Court state otherwise – Emphasized adherence to prior judicial orders for law enforcement [Para 35].
 

Taxation Law - Admissibility of Additional Evidence – Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Tribunal's Action Justified – The appellant challenged the ITAT's refusal to admit additional evidence regarding a Will that was not presented during the assessment or CIT(A) stages – Held: Rule 46A conditions were not met, as no application for admitting new evidence was filed, rendering the Tribunal's refusal valid [Paras 9-14].

Family Settlement and Registration – Not Compulsorily Required – The court affirmed that family settlements intended to resolve disputes within a family do not require compulsory registration if they merely record an already reached oral agreement – Held: The memorandum of family settlement, even if unregistered, remains valid for determining ownership and rights in property [Paras 27-31].

Indexed Cost of Acquisition – Section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Relating Back to Original Acquisition Date – The appellant's claim that the cost of acquisition should relate back to the date when the previous owner acquired the property was upheld – Held: The cost indexation should be calculated from the date of the original acquisition by the previous owner (01/04/1981), not the date of the family settlement (02/09/2003), in accordance with Supreme Court and High Court precedents [Paras 16-25, 32-37].

Capital Gains Calculation – Transfer Under Will or Family Settlement – The court reiterated that transfers under a Will or a family settlement do not constitute a "transfer" under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, negating the imposition of capital gains tax at the time of settlement – Held: The indexed cost must be computed using the original acquisition date as per Section 49(1) [Paras 20-26].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The ITAT's order dated 30/03/2013 was set aside, and the CIT(A)'s order dated 01/09/2011 was restored, upholding the appellant's calculation method for indexed cost based on the original acquisition date [Paras 39-40].