Bail Application – NDPS Act – Methamphetamine Seizure – Regular Bail Granted – The petitioner was arrested for possessing 13.87 grams of contraband initially identified as MDMA, but later confirmed as Methamphetamine – After failure by the Investigating Officer to submit the chemical analysis report on time, the petitioner was granted interim bail – Held: Given that the quantity of contraband is intermediate, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the investigation is nearly complete, and the interim bail has already been granted, the court makes the interim bail order absolute [Paras 5-6].

Chemical Analysis – Identification of Contraband – Methamphetamine, Not MDMA – The prosecution initially alleged the petitioner was in possession of MDMA, but the chemical analysis confirmed it was Methamphetamine – Held: Despite the change in the nature of the contraband, the quantity involved remains intermediate, which allowed the court to consider the application for regular bail favorably [Para 5].

Delay in Submission of Chemical Analysis Report – Impact on Bail – The Investigating Officer failed to submit the chemical analysis report as directed by the court, which led to the petitioner being granted interim bail – The report was later submitted confirming the intermediate quantity of Methamphetamine – Held: Given the completion of recovery and near completion of the investigation, the petitioner’s interim bail was confirmed as regular bail [Paras 4-6].

Criminal Antecedents – Clean Record – Favorable Consideration for Bail – The petitioner has no previous criminal record – Held: The absence of criminal antecedents favored the grant of regular bail under the circumstances of the case [Para 5].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Interim bail order dated 13/08/2024 made absolute – Petitioner to comply with the conditions laid out in the interim order [Para 6].

Full Tank Level Dispute – Extent of FTL – Petitioners' objections regarding Durgam Cheruvu tank’s FTL not considered – Directions for Reconsideration – The petitioners argued that the FTL determined by the respondents exceeded the original extent of Acs. 65.12 Guntas, encroaching on their private property – Held: The Lake Protection Committee was directed to hear the petitioners’ objections and decide the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu through a speaking order – No demolition of the petitioners’ constructions until the FTL determination is finalized [Paras 1-6].

Administrative Law – Right to Hearing – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners entitled to a personal hearing before Lake Protection Committee – Petitioners had submitted objections within the prescribed time limit but were not considered – Held: The Lake Protection Committee must provide the petitioners with a personal hearing and finalize the FTL notification after considering the objections [Paras 10-12].

Land Rights – Private Property – Article 300-A Constitution of India – Encroachment Allegations – Petitioners’ claim of interference with peaceful possession – Petitioners' properties were alleged to fall under the extended FTL area – Held: The respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioners' possession until the FTL is determined [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Remedy – No Final Relief Granted – Pending Decision by Committee – The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claims as the matter was left to be adjudicated by the Lake Protection Committee – Writ petitions disposed of with directions to the Committee [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Writ petitions were disposed of with directions to the Lake Protection Committee to hear the petitioners' objections and notify the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu within six weeks. No demolition of the petitioners' constructions will take place until the FTL is determined.

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Applicant convicted for abetment of suicide and cruelty towards his wife – Trial Court sentenced him to imprisonment, and the conviction was upheld by the appellate court – Applicant argued that contradictory medical opinions (postmortem and chemical analysis) undermined the prosecution’s case and that there was no evidence of abetment – Held: Medical evidence favored the postmortem findings over the chemical analysis, but the prosecution failed to establish abetment or cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-12, 13-31].

Medical Evidence – Postmortem vs. Chemical Analysis – The postmortem indicated poisoning, while the chemical analysis found no poison – Court relied on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence to conclude that poison might not always be detected after death due to various factors – Held: Postmortem findings prevail over chemical analysis, but this does not conclusively establish abetment or cruelty [Paras 7-12].

Abetment of Suicide – Insufficient Proof – Applicant argued that no evidence of provocation or incitement was provided to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC – The Court referred to Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that abetment requires proof of instigation or active encouragement – The prosecution failed to prove any proximate incitement leading to the deceased's suicide [Paras 13-22].

Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Lack of Continuous Harassment – No evidence of continuous harassment or unlawful demands for dowry was established – The deceased’s complaint about harassment was vague and not corroborated by credible witnesses – The general allegations surfaced only after her death, which were insufficient to convict under Section 498A IPC [Paras 23-29].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC quashed – Applicant acquitted and fine to be refunded – Bail bonds canceled and surety discharged [Paras 31].

Contract Law – Liquidated Damages – Delayed Supply of Goods – The plaintiff supplied electrical insulators to the defendant under three purchase orders, but deliveries were delayed – Defendant withheld payment citing liquidated damages – Plaintiff argued the delay was due to force majeure events (floods and labour issues), but failed to provide timely notice as required by the contract – Held: The force majeure defense was not valid as the plaintiff did not provide notice within the stipulated period, and the pattern of supply remained consistent during the alleged force majeure period – Liquidated damages levied by the defendant were upheld [Paras 14, 16].

Interest on Delayed Payments – No Contractual Stipulation for Interest – Plaintiff sought interest for delayed payment based on the alleged 30-day practice – Defendant argued there was no clause in the purchase order specifying a time frame for payment or interest on delayed payment – Held: The claim for interest is not sustainable as the contract did not stipulate any provision for interest, and the payment was made as per the terms of the purchase orders [Paras 11, 15].

Limitation – Suit Barred by Limitation – The suit was filed by the plaintiff beyond the three-year limitation period for recovery of withheld amounts – The cause of action arose in 2009 when the defendant informed the plaintiff of the recovery towards liquidated damages, but the suit was filed in 2012 – Held: The suit is barred by limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Plaintiff’s claims dismissed [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Suit dismissed – No costs [Para 17].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Application under Order XI Rules 12/14 CPC – Challenging Validity of Orders – Petitioner challenged the validity of the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC-II, Pratapgarh, rejecting his application under Order XI Rules 12/14 CPC – Petitioner sought to summon the original Will dated 21.03.1952 allegedly in possession of the respondents – Trial Court and Revisional Court dismissed the application and revision respectively, citing lack of evidence that the Will was in possession of the respondents and undue delay in filing the application [Paras 2, 21, 22, 36].

Misjoinder of Parties – Impleading Judicial Officers – Petitioner incorrectly impleaded the District Judge and Civil Judge as opposite parties – Court cited the precedent in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat and held that judicial officers are not to be made parties as they do not defend their orders in higher courts – Court noted the misjoinder of parties but did not dismiss the petition on this ground since the respondents did not raise an objection during arguments [Paras 8, 9].

Will as Evidence – Secondary Evidence – Petitioner argued that the certified copy of the Will dated 21.03.1952, being secondary evidence, was inadmissible and sought to summon the original – Court held that a certified copy of a Will is admissible under Section 57 of the Registration Act – Petitioner failed to establish that the original Will was in possession of the respondents, and thus the application to summon the Will was dismissed [Paras 33, 35, 40, 41].

Delay in Filing Application – The application under Order XI Rules 12/14 CPC was filed after the extended time for completing the trial had lapsed and after evidence had been concluded – Court held that the application was an attempt to fill gaps in the petitioner’s case and would prejudice the respondent’s rights – Application was filed at an advanced stage of the trial without justifiable cause for the delay [Paras 37, 38].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Court found no illegality in the orders passed by the lower courts – Petitioner's challenge lacked merit and was dismissed – No costs awarded [Paras 42, 43].

Selection Process – Normalization of Marks – Interview Weightage – Petitioner challenges the selection process of ISRO for the post of Administrative Officer, alleging irregularities in the normalization of marks in the written test and interview – Court holds that the selection process followed laid down procedures, including normalization and interview weightage, which were clearly mentioned in the advertisement – No irregularity found in calling more than three candidates for interview or the allocation of 40% marks to the interview stage – Court concludes that the selection board exercised due discretion in evaluating candidates, and the petitioner’s failure in the interview cannot be grounds for challenging the process after participating in it without objection [Paras 26–30, 35–36].

Challenge to Selection Criteria – Participation in Process Without Objection – The petitioner participated in the selection process and only challenged the criteria after being unsuccessful – Court refers to settled law that candidates who participate in a selection process without raising objections cannot later challenge the procedure after finding themselves unsuccessful – Cites Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (4) SCC 357, to emphasize that candidates are estopped from challenging a process they participated in without protest [Paras 33–34].

Court’s Role in Evaluating Selection Decisions – The Court reiterates that it cannot step into the shoes of the appointing authority to reassess the marks assigned to candidates during interviews – The discretion to evaluate a candidate’s performance in interviews lies with the selection board, and courts should refrain from second-guessing such evaluations unless there is evidence of mala fide intent, which was not present in this case [Paras 35–36].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The Court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, finding no irregularities in the selection process – The petitioner’s challenge was deemed to lack merit, as he participated in the process without objection and failed to show any mala fide or procedural impropriety [Paras 37–38].

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Modification to Section 326 IPC – Appellants’ Conviction Partially Reduced – The appellants, Sugreev and Ghanshyam, were convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing grievous injuries by firearm to the complainant and his father – Held: The injuries inflicted by Sugreev were on non-vital parts (legs), and medical testimony did not support the allegation of life-threatening injuries – As such, Sugreev’s conviction under Section 307 IPC was reduced to Section 326 IPC, with a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 – Ghanshyam, whose injury was deemed to be simple and not by firearm, was convicted under Section 323 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC, and as he had already served two years in custody, no further imprisonment was required [Paras 27-35].

Ocular vs. Medical Testimony – Prevalence of Medical Testimony – In cases where there is a conflict between ocular testimony (eyewitness accounts) and medical evidence, the medical evidence prevails if it completely rules out the possibility of the ocular evidence being true – Held: In this case, medical testimony contradicted the claim that the complainant Santosh was injured by a firearm – The court relied on the medical evidence, which indicated that the injury was caused by a hard and blunt object, not a gunshot [Paras 14-17].

Defective Investigation – Not Fatal to Prosecution Case – Allegations of defective investigation, such as missing X-ray reports and delayed witness statements, do not vitiate the trial if the material evidence, including testimonies of injured witnesses, remains reliable – Held: Despite some investigation flaws, the prosecution's case was upheld based on strong injured-witness testimonies and corroborative medical evidence – The appellants' convictions were modified accordingly [Paras 19-22].

Common Intention – Absence of Pre-Determined Common Object – The court ruled that common intention under Section 34 IPC was not applicable as the injuries were caused on the spur of the moment, and there was no evidence of premeditated common object – The appellants were held liable for their individual actions without invoking common intention [Paras 28-29].

Decision:

The criminal appeals are partly allowed.

Sugreev’s conviction under Section 307 IPC is modified to Section 326 IPC, and he is sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo an additional 3 months of imprisonment.

Ghanshyam’s conviction is modified to Section 323 IPC, and as he has already served approximately two years in custody, no further imprisonment is required. A fine of Rs. 1,000 is imposed, and in default, he will undergo 10 days simple imprisonment.

Out of the total fine amount, Rs. 25,000 will be paid to injured Govind, and Rs. 1,000 to injured Santosh as compensation under Section 357(3) of CrPC.

Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) – Section 201(1) and 195 of the Income-tax Act – Situs of Intellectual Property – Territoriality Principle – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Ltd., challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order raising a demand for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 in relation to the purchase of the "Horlicks" trademark from foreign entities. The petitioner contended that the intellectual property was not situated in India, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in CUB Pty Ltd. vs. Union of India. The Deputy Commissioner rejected this, holding the trademark as a capital asset situated in India, thus attracting TDS obligations. Held: The issues of territoriality and the location of the intellectual property are mixed questions of fact and law. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the Deputy Commissioner's decision and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to avail appellate remedies under Section 253 – Petition dismissed, statutory remedy of appeal recommended [Paras 16-23].

Limitation for Action under Section 201 – No Specific Time Limit – Reasonable Time Required – The petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner's order was passed beyond the limitation period of one year. The Court held that Section 201 does not specify a time limit, and while action must be taken within a reasonable period, the Tribunal's imposition of a one-year limit is not binding. The Court held that the order was not barred by limitation – Petition dismissed [Paras 25-27].

Observations on Judicial Propriety – Unwarranted Comments on Delhi High Court Judgment – Expunged – The Court noted the improper comments made by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the Delhi High Court's decision in CUB Pty Ltd., labeling it per incuriam. The Court expressed serious concern over such remarks, directed the deletion of the remarks within two days, and urged disciplinary caution for future cases – Remarks expunged, officer warned [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Legality of Arrest under PMLA – The petitioner, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly, was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with illegal mining activities, alleging that he benefited from the proceeds of crime – The petitioner contended that the arrest was politically motivated ahead of state elections and challenged the remand orders, asserting that no direct evidence linked him to the crime syndicate after he ceased to be a director of the implicated company – Held: The arrest and remand orders were quashed as the grounds for arrest and reasons to believe were found unsustainable – The court noted procedural lapses in complying with Section 19 of the PMLA, including the absence of concrete evidence directly implicating the petitioner in money laundering [Paras 1-15].

Illegal Mining – Non-scheduled Offence under PMLA – The case against the petitioner primarily rested on allegations of illegal mining, which is not a scheduled offence under the PMLA – The court held that without a scheduled offence, prosecution under the PMLA was untenable – Further, the petitioner had ceased to be a director of the implicated company years before the alleged illegal activities occurred, weakening the link between the petitioner and the proceeds of crime [Paras 12-14].

Political Vendetta – Timing of Arrest – The petitioner argued that his arrest was timed to prevent his participation in upcoming elections, as he had fully cooperated with the investigation prior to his arrest – The court observed that the arrest coincided with the election schedule and that there was no substantial new evidence to justify the arrest at that time – Held: The arrest appeared to be politically motivated and unwarranted under the circumstances [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Quashing of Arrest and Remand Orders – The court quashed the arrest order dated 20/07/2024 and remand orders dated 20/07/2024 and 29/07/2024, directing the petitioner’s immediate release unless required in any other case – The court emphasized that compliance with procedural safeguards under the PMLA is paramount, and violations cannot be justified on political grounds [Paras 16-17].