Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50(1) - Compliance - Mandatory requirement - Failure to adhere vitiates conviction - Right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate - Individual communication of right - Joint communication may create confusion and dilute significance of the right - Accused must be made aware of their right to exercise it effectively. [Para 22]

Non-compliance with Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act - Accused not properly informed of their right - Recovery of contraband narcotics becomes suspect - Prosecution case doubtful - Doubts cast on the veracity of charges. [Para 26]

Seized materials - Failure to produce during trial - No reasonable explanation - Weakens prosecution case - Raises doubt on charges - Testimony of police personnel alone may be insufficient without corroborating evidence and production of seized materials. [Para 24]

Compliance with mandatory provisions of NDPS Act, including Section 50(1), essential - Upholding integrity and credibility of legal proceedings - Protecting rights of the accused. [Para 23]

Failure to establish seizure of contraband from accused - Conviction cannot be sustained - Accused entitled to acquittal. [Para 26]

Passport Act, 1967 – Section 6(2)(f) – Applicability – Post Conviction or Acquittal Proceedings – Scope and Interpretation – High Court not a Criminal Court – Constitutional Rights – Denial of Passport. [Para 24]

Interpretation of Statute – Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act – Not Applicable to Post-Conviction or Post-Acquittal Proceedings – Scope and Applicability of Clauses (e) and (f) distinguished. [Para 27(i), 27(ii)]

Delegated Legislation – Notification dated 25.08.1993 – Exemption of Citizens – Limited to Criminal Proceedings pending before Trial Court – Inapplicable to Pending Appeals – 2019 Instructions clarifying FIR registration insufficient – Case registration before Court with Cognizance required. [Para 25, Para 27(iii)]

Constitutional Rights – Right to Travel – Not Explicitly Part of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1) – Linked to Freedom of Speech and Business under Article 19(1)(a) and (g) – Impact of Advanced Technology, Globalization, and International Trade on Increased International Travel. [Para 26]

Denial of Passport – Violation of Fundamental Rights – Article 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 – Denying Right to Earn Livelihood and Opportunities for Employment Abroad – Requirement of Procedure Prescribed by Law. [Para 27(iv)]

Judicial Precedents – High Court not a Criminal Court – In Agreement with Rajasthan High Court’s Findings – No Application of Clause (f) of Section 6(2) of Passport Act – Post Conviction or Acquittal Proceedings. [Para 24, Para 27(i)]

Minimizing Litigation – Directions to Passport Authorities – Consideration of Court’s Observations and Findings in Processing Pending and Subsequent Applications – Expeditious Decision Making. [Para 29]

Criminal Bail Petition - Regular Bail - FIR registered under various sections including the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, Explosive Substances Act, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act - Petitioner not named in original FIR, implicated based on disclosure statements of other arrested accused - Petitioner in custody since 23.08.2022, none of the 30 prosecution witnesses examined - Similar relief granted to petitioner in two other cases - Petitioner granted regular bail - Furnishing of bail/surety bonds required - Monthly appearance before police station and submission of affidavit ordered - FDR of Rs.2,00,000/- to be deposited by petitioner - Order not reported.(Para No. 1-5)

Criminal Procedure - Regular Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - Petitioner seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 22-C of the NDPS Act - Petitioner in custody for over two years - Investigation completed, but trial likely to take more time - Petitioner not involved in any other case - Violation of right under Article 21 of the Constitution claimed - Previous court orders granting bail based on the length of custody cited.

Precedents - Bail under NDPS Act - Court refers to several previous judgments where bail was granted in NDPS Act cases based on the length of custody alone, despite the bar under Section 37 of the Act for offenses involving commercial quantity of drugs.

Grant of Bail - Court considers the petitioner's prolonged custody and the possibility of further delay in trial as significant factors - Regular bail granted with conditions to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, including not tampering with evidence and not intimidating prosecution witnesses.

Criminal Revision – Conviction under Sections 323, 325, and 504 IPC – Appellate Court adding conviction under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC – Challenge to the legality of conviction – Failure to establish common intention or pre-arranged plan – Inference of common intention should not be reached unless necessary inference deducible from circumstances of the case – Prosecution did not lead any evidence or establish pre-meeting of minds – Appellate Court erred in convicting the revisionists under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC – Conviction set aside – Revision allowed in part. (Para 19 to 32)

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Benefit of Section 4 – Crime committed in 1992 – Over 30 years elapsed – Revisionists not convicted for any offence prior to the present case – Deceased accused and long passage of time – Revisionists entitled to benefit of Section 4 – Instead of sentencing, revisionists to file bonds to maintain good behavior and peace for one year – Breach of conditions to result in undergoing sentence – Revision allowed in part. (Para 33 to 39)

Quashing of FIR - Allegations under Section 306 IPC and Sections 6, 18, 8, 21 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2022 (POCSO Act) - Incident of suicide by a student due to alleged harassment, bullying, and torture by classmates at the school - Jurisdiction of the High Court to examine the petitioner's plea for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings

POCSO Act, 2022 - Sections 19 and 21 - Obligation to report offenses - Mandate to report apprehension or knowledge of an offense under the Act to the police - Consequences of failure to report - Liability for imprisonment and fine - Duty applies to all persons, including school principals, responsible for the safety and welfare of children.

Principal's Responsibility - Role of the petitioner as Principal of Delhi Public School, Greater Faridabad - Overall incharge of the school - Duty to ensure the safety and security of students - Allegations of inaction in the matter of harassment and bullying of the deceased child - Questioning the petitioner's compliance with the mandate of the POCSO Act.

Applicability of POCSO Act - No exemption for a school principal from reporting offenses - Legal obligation to report such incidents immediately - Inaction leading to tragic consequences - Consideration of the petitioner's arguments on the absence of some involved students in the school - Irrelevance of the same in the context of the petitioner's duty to report.

Dismissal of the petition for quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings - Emphasis on the petitioner's failure to report the incident as required by the POCSO Act - Direction for the trial court to proceed with the matter impartially, considering the evidence on record and without being influenced by the present observations.

Divorce – Cruelty – Appellant-wife filed an appeal against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court – Husband alleged that the wife refused to stay with his parents and misbehaved with them – Wife claimed cruelty and dowry demands by the in-laws – High Court set aside the decree of divorce – Court held that the husband failed to prove cruelty adequately and the wife’s refusal to stay under certain conditions did not amount to cruelty – Pending criminal cases based on dowry demands were also considered – Maintenance – Husband ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as monthly maintenance to the wife. (Para 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

Detention under Foreigners Act - Power to Detain and Confine - Delegation of Authority - G.O.Rt.No.599, dated 02.11.2021 issued by 1st respondent - Legality - Writ Petition challenging the Government Order - Delegation of power under Section 3(2)(g) of the Foreigners Act - Absence of such delegation - Detenu's alleged fraudulent entry into India and possession of forged documents - Grant of bail by lower court with specific conditions - Court's consideration of relevant provisions and precedents - Held that the G.O.Rt.No.599, dated 02.11.2021 is illegal - Order set aside - Immediate release of detenu on bail subject to imposed conditions - Deportation process not precluded - Miscellaneous petitions to stand closed.(Para No. 10, 15, 17 & 18)

Civil Procedure – Ex-Parte Order – Setting aside of – Adequate opportunity to the defendant – Importance of providing a fair opportunity to the litigants – Court should not pass an ex-parte decree without cogent reasons supporting such a decision – Need for proper examination of evidence before passing judgment.

Delay in filing the appeal – Dismissal at threshold – Remarriage of the respondent during the interregnum period – The court may dismiss the appeal if there is an undue delay in filing it after the expiry of the appeal period.

Earlier proceedings on the same controversy – Need for proper examination of material evidence – Every judgment must be supported by adequate reasons – The court should not decide the case solely based on the defendant’s absence – Plaintiff must establish the case independent of the defendant’s actions.

Remanding the matter for fresh consideration – Appellate court’s observations not to be treated as final – Trial court directed to decide the case afresh within a specific time frame. (Para No. 1-28)