Criminal Appeal – Conviction under NDPS Act – Non-compliance with legal provisions and guidelines – Doubts about the place of recovery – Non-examination of independent seizure witnesses – Prejudice caused to the appellant’s defense.

Section 42(2) of NDPS Act – Compliance – Obligation to report information received and send a copy to superior official – Special circumstances for postponement of compliance – Delay without satisfactory explanation.

Standing Order 1/88 – Compliance – Sampling, sealing, and dispatching seized samples to the laboratory – Obligation of adherence to guidelines – Non-compliance affecting prosecution’s case.

Place of Recovery – Doubtfulness – Lack of corroboration from independent evidence – Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ statements – Credibility and accuracy of place of recovery questioned.

Non-examination of Independent Seizure Witnesses – Serious prejudice caused to appellant’s defense – Inconsistencies in testimonies – Importance of independent witnesses’ presence and examination.

Conviction Not Sustainable – Failure to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Flaws in prosecution’s evidence and procedures – Appeal allowed – Appellant to be released from custody.

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction - Framing of Additional Charge - Accused charged under Sections 302, 498-A, 120-B of IPC - Prosecution alleges abetment of suicide - Additional charge framed under Section 306 IPC - Challenge to the framing of the additional charge. (Para No. 1, 4, 5, and 8)

Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Power to alter or add charges - Section 216 of Cr.P.C. - Additional charge framed at any stage before judgment is pronounced - Examination of evidence to ascertain if charge is supported by facts on record. (Para No. 19, 20, and 22)

Conviction for an offense not explicitly charged - Sections 222 and 464 of Cr.P.C. - Accused charged with different offenses including Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC - Conviction for an offense not specifically charged permissible if evidence supports it - Failure of justice to be considered before conviction not expressly charged. (Para No. 20, 22, and 23)

Evidence Supporting Charge - Abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC - Evidence indicating victim's ill-treatment and suspicious death - Accused's defense of victim's suicide - Framing of additional charge under Section 306 justified. (Para No. 19, 20, and 24)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Injunction – Mandatory Injunction – Withholding of documents and exercise of lien – Consignor’s liability for payment of charges to port authorities – Locus standi of the plaintiff consignor – Demurrage charges – Absence of a general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Inter-se rights and liabilities of parties in contract – Prima facie liability of defendant no.3 – Grant of mandatory injunction. (Para 78)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 39 – Mandatory Injunction – Withholding of documents and exercise of lien – Release of consignment – Demurrage charges – Prima facie liability of defendant no.3 – Grant of mandatory injunction in favor of plaintiff – Restraining defendant no.3 from obstructing release of consignment at port of discharge. (Para 95)

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 171 – Lien – Withholding of documents and exercise of lien – Absence of general lien – Specific categories with statutory right of lien – Lien can be exercised only with express contract. (Para 86)

Liability of Consignor – Bills of Lading – Responsibility for payment of charges to port authorities – Endorsed bill of lading in favor of consignee – Consignor not absolved of liability – Privity of contract between consignor and consignee. (Para 83)

Inter-se Rights and Liabilities – Privity of contract – Liabilities between parties in contract – non-transferability of appellant’s claim to other parties. (Para 91)

Release of Goods – Exercising lien in respect of charges referable to goods – Withholding of documents – Impermissibility under law – Mandatory injunction to release consignment - defendant no.3’s actions of withholding the requisite documents/bills of lading and exercising “lien” were impermissible under the law, and it warranted a mandatory injunction to protect the plaintiff’s interests. (Para 94).

Demurrage Charges – Liability – Prima facie liability on defendant no.3 for demurrage incurred – Plaintiff directed to bear demurrage charges in interest of early release of goods.- Suit Allowed .(Para 97)

Contempt of Court - Suo Motu Cognizance - Jurisdiction of High Court - Interpretation of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 10, and Proviso to Section 10 - Scope of Article 215 of the Constitution of India - Court's authority to punish for contempt of itself and its subordinate courts - Jurisdiction to take action against contempt of court - Distinction between IPC offenses and Contempt of Court - Exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by the High Court. (Para 9-12)

Procedural Safeguards - Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings - Requirements for initiating suo motu proceedings - Source of information - Discretion of the High Court to refuse or entertain petitions by private persons - Role of the Advocate-General - Advice and assistance in contempt matters - Application of procedural safeguards to avoid frivolous complaints. (Para 19-20)

Evidence and Proof - Standard of Proof in Contempt Proceedings - Stringent proof required in contempt proceedings against advocates - Examination of reports, judicial orders, video footage, circulars, and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. - No direct evidence linking damage to courtrooms with advocates' protest - Absence of substantial evidence to establish obstruction of justice, manhandling, or destruction of property. (Para 33)

Long-pending Proceedings - Delay in Contempt Proceedings - Proceedings pending for an extended period - Alleged contemnors expressing remorse and respect for the judiciary - Discharge of show-cause notices issued to alleged contemnors. (Para 34)

Right to Express Criticism - Freedom of Expression - Citizens' right to criticize court judgments - Limitations on imputing motives to judges, questioning their integrity, or casting doubts on their competence - Court's reluctance to invoke contempt laws for personal attacks, but concern for concerted assaults by groups affiliated with substantial support. (Para 29)

Disposal of Proceedings - Discharge of Show-Cause Notices - Conclusion of contempt proceedings - Discharge of show-cause notices issued to alleged contemnors - Disposal of both criminal contempt proceedings. (Para 36)

Appointment of Nambardar (Para 6 & 7): The prerogative of the District Collector. Such an appointment should not be disturbed unless a gross irregularity or error is established. 

Referenced: Sukhjinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2016(2) L.A.R. 447.

Age (Para 8): A relevant factor in the appointment of Nambardar. 

Referenced: Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others, 2009(1) L.A.R. 571.

Land Ownership (Para 9): While an important consideration, land ownership cannot be the sole ground for rejection or selection. The Collector’s discretion in assessing overall merit and suitability of a candidate for Nambardar is paramount.

The court, after deliberation, found no merit in the petitioner’s claims (Para 9) and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding Harmesh Lal’s appointment as Nambardar.

Appointment of Lambardar - Petitioner's challenge to multiple orders and decisions - Eligibility dispute - COVID-19 pandemic impact on application process - Alleged undue influence - Dismissal of earlier Lambardar - Fresh procedure initiated - Orders of Collector, Divisional Commissioner, and Revisional Authority upheld - Quashing of decisions sought by petitioner - Application of proper procedures and factual considerations - Reinitiation of appointment process deemed justified - Appeals dismissed.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Conflict between Statutory Provisions and Standing Orders – Sections 52A, 15-61-85 of NDPS Act – Representative samples of seized contraband – Section 52A(2)(c) requires samples in presence of a Magistrate – Standing Orders require samples on the spot – Held, statutory provisions prevail over Standing Orders – Representative samples must be drawn in presence of a Magistrate – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. [Para 18-19]

Procedural Safeguards – Analysis – Conflict between Section 52A of NDPS Act and Standing Orders – Section 52A mandates samples in presence of Magistrate – Standing Orders supplement Act but cannot override it – Compliance with Section 52A necessary – Standing Orders mandatorily followed unless in conflict with NDPS Act – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. [Para 19]

Chain of Custody – Discrepancies and Delays – Discrepancies in testimonies of witnesses regarding time of information and sample handling – Delays in depositing samples with Chemical Examiner – No independent witnesses – FIR number mentioned on memos before FIR registration – Serious flaws in investigation – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. [Para 19-21]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted of charges – Bail bonds discharged – Case property to be dealt with as per rules after appeal period – Appeal allowed. [Para 21-22]

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Purpose and Objectives – [Para 26-28]

The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted to establish family courts for the speedy settlement of family disputes, specifically related to marriage, divorce, custody, guardianship, maintenance, and other familial issues. The Act aimed to simplify and expedite resolution, promote conciliation, protect women’s rights, ensure the welfare of children, provide accessibility and affordability, and enable quick and effective disposal of cases.

Statutory Interpretation – Pragmatic and Harmonious Construction – [Para 40]

Courts should adopt a pragmatic and harmonious interpretation of statutes, considering the aims and objectives of the relevant Acts. This approach allows the law to adapt and evolve to address the changing needs and complexities of modern society while upholding the fundamental principles of the legislation.

Contextual Interpretation – Understanding Phrases – [Para 34, 36, 37]

While interpreting statutory terms, the court should consider the surrounding text and context, as words derive their meaning from their context. The phrase “either party thereto” should be understood in harmony with “against the other party” to provide a clear and purposeful understanding of the section’s scope.

Beneficial Construction – Ensuring Justice – [Para 46]

In cases where the meaning of a phrase is unclear or ambiguous, the principle of beneficial construction should be applied. The court should interpret the provision in a way that serves the interests of justice and aligns with the broader objectives of the law.

Upholding Rights – Equal Protection – [Para 44, 45]

Restrictive interpretations of provisions in social welfare legislation may negatively impact the principle of equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Upholding the rights of the first wife is crucial, as granted under Article 14 and the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to effectively address marital disputes.

Upholding Family Court’s Decision – Ensuring Fair Resolution – [Para 48]

The court upheld the family court’s decision, granting the first wife the right to file an application under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking the declaration of the second marriage as illegal and void. The court affirmed the validity of the impugned ruling, promoting equitable and just outcomes for all parties involved.

Recovery of excess payments made to employees – Whether permissible in law – Guidelines provided by Supreme Court – Court emphasized equitable consideration in cases of recovery, taking into account employee hardship and employer’s right.

Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes – Intended to provide financial benefits to employees with limited promotional opportunities – Monetary benefits without actual promotion – Objective of relieving frustration on account of stagnation.

Issuance of subsequent notification modifying earlier notifications and directing recovery – Without proper approval and authentication – Held to be without jurisdiction and unwarranted. Benefit granted to employees through the original notification cannot be taken away by executive order after several years of retirement. Court directed respondents to rectify the original notification if necessary, after giving a proper opportunity to individual petitioners. (Para 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 37, 40, 41, 45, 48)