Criminal Law – Remand Extension – Illegality – Petitioners were remanded in NDPS case and their remand was extended to 300 days by Special Judge – Accused not produced physically or virtually before court on date of extension – Held: Mandatory procedural safeguard violated – Such failure is not a mere irregularity but a gross illegality violating Article 21 of the Constitution – Order extending remand set aside – Petitioners entitled to default bail [Paras 5–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Failure to secure accused’s presence during remand extension hearing deprives them of fair procedure – Reference made to SC judgment in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 973 – Held: Extension of time without informing or producing the accused nullifies their right to seek default bail and infringes fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 6–8].

Bail – Conditions for Release – Petitioners granted bail in view of illegal remand – Conditions imposed include regular police attendance, restriction on travel, non-tampering with evidence, cooperation with investigation, and surrender of passports – Held: Petitioners shall comply with all directions until cognizance is taken [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Cases allowed – Impugned remand extension order dated 13.11.2025 set aside – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 granted bail on specified conditions – Trial court failed to follow due process by not producing or informing accused during remand extension hearing – No costs.

Criminal Law – Representation of Company – Section 305 CrPC – Trial court directed petitioner to represent company (Accused No. 23) despite his resignation from directorship prior to initiation of proceedings – Held: A company being a juristic person must appoint its own representative for trial under Section 305 CrPC – Neither the complainant nor the court can compel an unwilling individual, even a former director, to represent the company – Summons must be served at the company’s registered office – Petitioner cannot be forced to represent the company without valid authorization [Paras 1, 22, 26, 28–30].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Section 70 PMLA – Scope – Company and persons in charge at the time of offence may both be liable under Section 70 – However, representation under Section 305 CrPC is separate from liability under Section 70 – Subsequent resignation from company does not absolve individual from criminal liability under PMLA, but does relieve him of obligation to represent the company unless duly authorized [Paras 18–20, 28].

Special Law vs General Law – Harmonious Interpretation – Argument by ED that Section 70 of PMLA overrides Section 305 CrPC rejected – Held: PMLA does not conflict with CrPC provisions on representation of juristic persons – Prosecution under special statute does not allow bypassing procedural safeguards regarding company representation – Trial cannot proceed without proper representation of the company in accordance with Section 305 CrPC [Paras 14, 26–28].

Judicial Discretion – Improper Exercise – Trial court erred by postponing decision on company representation to later stage under Section 207 CrPC – Held: Representation issue must be settled prior to continuation of proceedings – Trial court failed to apply its mind to settled legal position – Order set aside and direction issued to summon company at its registered office and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if no representative is appointed [Paras 21, 26, 30].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order of trial court dated 03/11/2022 set aside – Magistrate directed to serve fresh summons on accused company (Accused No. 23) at its registered address and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if company fails to nominate representative – Entire process to be completed within 60 days from receipt of this order [Paras 29–30].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Decree – Refusal to Accept Summons – Presumption of Service – Summons sent to Appellant’s known addresses returned with endorsements of “refused” – Legal notices had also been previously served at same addresses – Appellant failed to rebut presumption of valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act – Held: Service was duly effected, and ex parte decree justified [Paras 23–34, 42–44, 49].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – Delay of 43 days in filing application to set aside ex parte decree not supported by sufficient cause – Conduct showed negligence and lack of bona fides – Court reiterates that “sufficient cause” must be proven with due diligence and not invoked casually [Paras 18, 46–50].

Civil Procedure – Refusal of Summons – Legal Presumption – Court reiterates legal principle that refusal to accept summons amounts to valid service – Relied on Parimal v. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545 and Vishwabandhu v. Sri Krishna, (2021) 19 SCC 549 – No evidence of impeccable character adduced by Appellant to rebut legal presumption of service [Paras 40–44, 48–49].

Civil Procedure – Bona Fides and Diligence – Appellant failed to appear or respond until execution commenced – Alleged lack of knowledge disproved by tracking reports and prior service – Plea of false address and lack of notice rejected as frivolous – Court held that appellant’s conduct reflected clear neglect [Paras 35, 37–39, 50].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Decree – Requisites under Order IX Rule 13 – Either improper service or sufficient cause must be established – Both not satisfied in present case – High Court upholds Trial Court’s rejection of application to set aside decree [Paras 12, 48, 51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC rightly rejected – Ex parte decree stands confirmed – Pending applications rendered infructuous

Civil Law – Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Non-consideration of Arguments – Context where the appellate court recorded submissions regarding the maintainability of a claim petition but failed to adjudicate them – Held: Non-consideration of arguments that are germane to the issue constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. If vital issues raised are not considered, it results in a miscarriage of justice, warranting review. [Paras 35, 37, 57].

Civil Procedure – Execution – Claim Petition – Wrong Provision of Law – Order 21 Rule 58 vs Rule 97/101 CPC – Context where the claim petition was dismissed for being filed under Rule 58 instead of Rule 97/101 – Held: The argument that quoting a wrong provision of law does not disentitle a party to relief if the court otherwise has jurisdiction was raised but not decided by the appellate court. This omission required correction via review. [Paras 45(vi), 49].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Review – "Any Other Sufficient Reason" – Held: The expression "any other sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court. Where the judgment under review suffers from non-consideration of material aspects raised to challenge the Executing Court's order, it falls within the scope of review. [Paras 30, 54].

Decision: Review Petition allowed. Judgment and Decree dated 05.01.2022 in A.S. No. 59 of 2020 set aside. Appeal restored to original number for fresh decision on merits.

NDPS Act – Consumption of Drugs – Section 27(a) & (b) – Quashing of Charge Sheet – Urine Samples Tested by Private Hospital – Invalidity of Evidence – Petitioners, arrayed as accused for alleged consumption of narcotic drugs at a rave party, sought quashing of charge sheet – Allegations based solely on urine test reports issued by a private hospital (Santosh Hospital) – Held: Reports of private laboratories are inherently unreliable, unsafe and cannot form the basis of prosecution in the absence of statutory authorization and corroboration by Government forensic laboratories – Mandatory confirmatory tests such as Gas Chromatography or Mass Spectrometry not conducted – No Government notification recognizing the private hospital as an authorised laboratory – Prosecution thus vitiated [Paras 1, 8–10, 18–22].

NDPS Act – Forensic Evidence – Standing Order No. 1 of 1988 – NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 – Non-compliance – Standing Orders and Rules mandate chemical analysis by authorised Government laboratories and confirmatory testing – Duplicate samples required to be sent to designated forensic laboratories – Complete departure from statutory procedure in sending urine samples to a private hospital without Magistrate’s authorization – Such deviation strikes at the root of the prosecution case [Paras 10–11].

Private Laboratory Reports – Evidentiary Value – Suspicion and Unreliability – Supreme Court and multiple High Court precedents consistently hold that reports from private laboratories are frail, untrustworthy and cannot be relied upon unless duly proved and corroborated – Paid or privately obtained reports do not enjoy statutory presumption under CrPC or Evidence Act – Charge sheet founded exclusively on such reports is unsustainable in law [Paras 13–17].

Consumption of Narcotic Drugs – Screening Test vs. Confirmatory Test – Urine screening tests are only presumptive in nature – Positive or non-negative screening results must mandatorily be confirmed by GC/MS or equivalent confirmatory methods – Absence of confirmatory testing renders allegation of consumption legally untenable – Prosecution based on presumptive tests alone amounts to abuse of process of law [Paras 11, 19–22].

Parity – Earlier Decision Covering Identically Placed Accused – Issue squarely covered by judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 31069 of 2024 decided on 29.04.2025 arising out of the very same Special Case – Petitioners identically placed and entitled to equal relief – Principle of parity applied [Paras 3–4].

Article 226 – Abuse of Process – Ends of Justice – Continuation of criminal proceedings based on legally inadmissible and unreliable evidence would amount to abuse of process of Court – Interference warranted to secure ends of justice [Paras 22–24].

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Charge sheet in Spl. Case No. 741 of 2024 quashed qua the petitioners – All consequential proceedings before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, set aside.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 126 – Unauthorized Use of Electricity – Change of User from Industrial to Commercial – Held: Usage of electricity for a purpose other than authorized (Industrial to Commercial Laboratory) constitutes unauthorized use under Section 126(6)(b)(i) – The fact that the user (lessee) did not change the name on the connection or obtain permission for commercial use renders the usage unauthorized – The dispute is not merely one of tariff classification but of unauthorized use – Assessment at twice the tariff rate is mandatory. [Paras 50-55]

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 2(15) – Definition of Consumer – Lessee/Occupant Status – Held: A lessee or occupant who uses electricity without the connection being in their name and without authorization from the licensee does not fall within the definition of "consumer" – Mere physical occupation does not confer consumer status – However, such an occupant, upon being served a provisional assessment order under Section 126(2), becomes a "person aggrieved" entitled to file an appeal under Section 127. [Paras 36-41, 49]

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 126(6) – Penalty/Assessment Rate – Mandatory Nature – Held: The provision assessing charges at "twice the tariff" is mandatory ("shall") – Neither the Assessing Officer nor the Appellate Authority has discretion to reduce, waive, or negotiate this rate based on sympathy or lack of knowledge of tariff orders – Ignorance of tariff orders published in the Official Gazette is no defense. [Paras 72-76]

Small Scale Industries (SSI) Registration – Premises Specificity – Held: SSI registration is location/unit-specific – A certificate granted for one premises cannot validate industrial activity in another premises (galas) without separate application and inspection – Reliance on a single SSI certificate for multiple units to justify industrial tariff is legally unsustainable. [Paras 65-69]

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed. Impugned order of Appellate Authority set aside. Final Assessment order restored.

Criminal Law – Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for cruelty to wife based on letters and testimony of her family members – Prosecution relied on letters Exhs.13, 15, 16 to allege mental and physical harassment and financial demands – Defence produced 17 letters and medical documents evidencing cordial relations and longstanding illness of the deceased – Daughter (P.W.4) of deceased denied any cruelty and stated mother was mentally and physically ill – Held: Letters fail to establish cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC – Matrimonial life lasted 13 years with no proximate cause for suicide linked to accused – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1, 6, 15–16, 19–24]

Evidence – Suicide – Abetment under Section 306 IPC – Presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act not attracted – Trial court acquitted accused of abetment to suicide and Dowry Prohibition Act offences – High Court found no proximate or immediate instigation or harassment leading to suicide – Suicide occurred nine years after letter relied upon by prosecution – Letters and oral testimonies lacked direct connection to incident – Held: No evidence of abetment – Presumption under Section 113A not triggered due to marriage exceeding 7 years and lack of cruelty [Paras 4.5, 16.4, 21–22]

Dowry Prohibition Act – Charges under Sections 4 and 5 – No proof of dowry demand or unlawful financial coercion – Letters by deceased herself sought money voluntarily for personal reasons – Trial court rightly acquitted under Dowry Prohibition Act – Appellate Court concurred [Paras 3.1, 15.1–15.2]

Witness Testimony – Family Members and Neighbours – Allegations general and uncorroborated – Complainant and brother gave vague assertions of harassment without specifying nature, dates, or amounts – Independent witnesses either hostile or did not support prosecution – Daughter's testimony exculpatory – Held: Witnesses failed to substantiate charge beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 6–11]

Circumstantial Evidence – Letters and Communications – Letters written between parties spanned over a decade – Prosecution’s key exhibits showed marital discord but not cruelty as defined under law – Defence letters demonstrated husband’s concern and efforts at reconciliation – Communication about scooter showed no dishonest intent – Held: Circumstances do not satisfy standard for conviction under 498A [Paras 8, 15–16]

Standard of Proof – Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Court emphasized settled principle that charges under Section 498A and related presumptions must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Cited multiple Supreme Court decisions clarifying limitations of Section 113A and importance of proximate causation in suicide cases [Paras 18–22]

Appeal – Maintainability after Death of Accused – Appeal validly continued by legal heirs under Section 394(2) CrPC – Heirs included as per definition of "near relatives" – No procedural infirmity [Para 25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC set aside – Deceased accused acquitted – Letters and testimonies insufficient to prove cruelty or abetment of suicide – Trial court’s reliance on documents and assumptions held erroneous – Record and proceedings remanded to trial court [Para 26]

Hindu Law – Widow’s Right – Coparcenary Property – Agricultural Land – Injunction Granted – Trial Court wrongly held that widow (Veeramma) had no right over agricultural land under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 – High Court held that such land is included within "property" in light of later Supreme Court decisions – Vendors had prima facie title – Plaintiffs held entitled to injunction based on de jure possession – Trial Court’s dismissal of suit reversed [Paras 33–41, 46–51].

Civil Procedure – Execution Sale Deed – Validity – Title Not Conferred – Defendant No.3 relied on sale deed obtained through execution of decree in earlier specific performance suit – High Court found sale deed (Ex.B.14) was not in conformity with appellate decree – No proper compliance with Order 21 Rule 34 CPC – Held: Sale deed invalid and ineffective in conferring title – Defendant No.3 failed to establish lawful possession [Paras 53–64].

Land Records – Sub-Division and Mutation – Lack of Notice – Unreliable Evidence – Mutation proceedings that created new survey numbers were post-suit and conducted without notice to plaintiffs – Testimony of D.W.2 (Survey Official) found inconsistent and unreliable – Documents (Exs. B28–B30) not credible – No proof of possession or title in favour of Defendant No.3 [Paras 65–68].

Appeal – Maintainability – Findings vs. Decree – No Adverse Decree Against Appellants in A.S. No. 372/2009 – Defendants 5 to 7 filed appeal without adverse decree – Mere findings do not confer right to appeal – No independent right shown over disputed property – Appeal not maintainable – Dismissed with no relief granted [Paras 70–83].

Decision: A.S. No. 156 of 2009 allowed – Decree and judgment of the Trial Court dated 26.02.2009 set aside – Suit decreed in favour of plaintiffs with permanent injunction granted restraining interference with their peaceful possession.

A.S. No. 372 of 2009 dismissed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Identification of Accused – Dock Identification vs. TIP – Held: Dock identification of an accused, who is a stranger to the witness, without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP), is a weak piece of evidence. Where the complainant failed to identify the appellant in the TIP proceedings but identified him in Court after a gap of more than 3 years, such identification casts a shadow of doubt. The failure to identify in TIP and subsequent identification in Court renders the evidence unreliable. – [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Law – Section 397 IPC – Proof of Use of Weapon – Specific Context: Allegation of using a knife during robbery – Held: The complainant’s testimony regarding the role of the appellant was inconsistent. While the complainant attributed the use of a knife to the appellant in Court, he had failed to identify him earlier. Furthermore, no recovery of the weapon or robbed articles was effected from the appellant. In the absence of reliable identification and corroborative recovery, the conviction under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained. – [Paras 12-14]

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Inconsistent Testimony – Held: The complainant made improvements in his testimony regarding the role of co-accused, leading to the co-accused's acquittal. Similar inconsistencies and the failure of identification in TIP regarding the appellant entitle him to the benefit of doubt. – [Paras 13-14]

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. [Para 15]