Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Insecticides Act – FIR filed for stocking and intention to sell banned insecticide “Fhorate” – Charge-sheet included multiple offences under IPC, Insecticides Act, Rules, and Environmental Protection Act – Applicant contended that stock was not for sale and procedure under Sections 21 and 22 of Insecticides Act not followed – Held: Statutory procedure under Sections 21 and 22 not complied with – FIR lodged even before analyst report received – No opportunity to remedy defect or follow seizure procedure – FIR and charge-sheet for major offences quashed [Paras 12–16, 31–32]

Insecticides Act – “Stocked or Exhibited for Sale” – Mere storage of banned insecticide in godown not sufficient to attract Section 18 – Apex Court in Mohd. Shabbir v. State of Maharashtra and P&H High Court in S.H. Dhillon relied upon – Held: No evidence of sale or exhibition for sale – Mere possession not an offence unless intention to sell is proved [Paras 16–18, 24]

Misbranding and Licensing – No Offence Made Out – Insecticide found not misbranded under Section 3(k)(v) or (vii) – Applicant held valid license till 2099 – No contravention of Sections 13 or 17 as applicant was neither importer nor manufacturer – Sections 3(k), 13, 17 not attracted [Paras 21–23]

Rules under Insecticides Rules, 1971 – Most Rules Held Inapplicable – Except for Rule 10-D (failure to display stock and price) and Rule 15(2) (non-maintenance of credit memo and accounts), all other rules found inapplicable based on facts and charge-sheet – Prosecution to continue only for these violations [Paras 27, 30–31]

Abuse of Process – FIR Lodged with Malafide Intent – Allegation that FIR was filed due to failure to meet illegal demand – Court applied principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Case falls under Category 7: proceeding attended with mala fide and private vengeance [Para 31]

Decision: Application partly allowed – FIR (Crime No. 0244/2023) and charge-sheet No. 173/2023 quashed in respect of offences under IPC, Insecticides Act, Insecticides Rules (except Rule 10-D and Rule 15(2)), and Environmental (Protection) Act – Prosecution to continue only for violations of Rule 10-D and Rule 15(2) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 – Pending applications also disposed of.

Civil Law – Recall of Witness – Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC – Application to recall plaintiff for cross-examination dismissed by Trial Court due to petitioner’s repeated defaults and non-payment of earlier costs – Petitioner failed to appear on crucial dates and did not seek rectification of court record when claim of proxy appearance was not reflected in order sheet – Held: Judicial record is sacrosanct and cannot be casually disputed without formal application – No infirmity found in Trial Court’s dismissal of application [Paras 5–9]

Civil Procedure – Costs and Consequences – Section 35B CPC – Petitioner repeatedly failed to pay costs imposed earlier by the court – Even on subsequent opportunities, petitioner neither paid the cost nor filed affidavit of evidence – Held: As per Supreme Court judgment in Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma, (2010) 1 SCC 53, non-payment of cost leads to consequence of being barred from participating in proceedings – Trial Court’s closure of cross-examination and defendant’s evidence justified and legally sound [Paras 9.1–11]

Abuse of Process – Repeated Adjournments – Delay Tactics – High Court noted pattern of calculated delay by petitioner through repeated absences, unjustified defaults, and misuse of procedural remedies – Petitioner took over 11 adjournments without valid justification – Held: Such conduct demonstrates deliberate attempt to frustrate trial proceedings – Courts must not allow civil litigation to be prolonged endlessly – Petition dismissed with strong judicial disapproval of dilatory tactics [Paras 12–14]

Appellate Review – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Scope and Interference – High Court declined to interfere with well-reasoned discretionary order of Trial Court rejecting recall – Held: No perversity or material irregularity in Trial Court's reasoning – Petition under Article 227 dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 15]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order upheld – No infirmity found in Trial Court’s reasoning – Pending application also dismissed

Mines and Minerals – Lease Lapse – Revival Application – Subordinate Legislation – Retrospective Operation – Rule 20(7) of 2016 Rules Held Valid – No Vested Right in Revival – Petitioners sought revival of lapsed iron and manganese mining lease granted in 1990 and lapsed due to inactivity – Revival sought under third proviso to Section 4A(4) of MMDR Act (prior to amendment) – Amendment by Act 16 of 2021 removed revival provision and substituted Rule 20(7) retrospectively from 28.03.2021 – Petitioner’s application pending on amendment date rejected based on new Rule 20(7) – Held: No vested right accrues in mere filing of revival application – Subordinate legislation (Rule 20(7)) amended to align with parent Act’s policy change – Not ultra vires MMDR Act – Application rightly decided under law as it stood on decision date [Paras 27–33].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospective Effect – Subordinate Legislation – General Clauses Act Inapplicable – Rule Consistent with Parent Act – Court held Rule 20(7) not ultra vires merely for applying to pending applications – Amended Rule brought to prevent conflict between principal Act and delegated legislation – Rule-making authority acted within scope under Section 13 MMDR Act – Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897, does not protect non-vested expectations or future benefits – Revival is not a vested or accrued right – Hence, amended Rule 20(7) applies [Paras 29–31].

Right to Revival of Mining Lease – No Vested Right – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – Relying on Hind Stone v. State of Tamil Nadu and Monnet Ispat, Court reiterated that no one has a vested right to grant, renewal, or revival of mining leases – Mere filing of application does not create enforceable right – Such applications are to be considered under rules in force at the time of disposal, not filing – Hence, revival claim cannot survive [Paras 29(c), 30–32].

Judicial Review – Rule 20(7) – Constitutionality Upheld – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners failed to establish any grounds of invalidity under tests for subordinate legislation – Rule 20(7) neither manifestly arbitrary nor beyond statutory authority – Challenge dismissed – Application for revival rightly decided under prevailing law [Paras 31–33].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Rule 20(7) of the 2016 Rules upheld as valid – No vested right accrued to petitioner under repealed revival provision – No order as to costs.

Tender Law – Disqualification of Lowest Bidder – Abnormally Low Bid – Petitioner submitted financial bid quoting ₹1.92 for Packet-1 and ₹4.55 for Packet-2 in UIDAI tender for Aadhaar document verification services – Petitioner declared L-1 based on highest technical score and lowest combined commercial bid – Financial Evaluation Committee (FEC) disqualified bid citing price as “abnormally low” for Packet-1 – Court held: Though RFP did not expressly permit rejection on such ground, none of the other bidders agreed to match L-1 rate, frustrating the tender process – Held: Disqualification justified in larger public interest despite procedural lapses [Paras 26–43, 46–50]

Tender Evaluation – QCBS and RFP Compliance – RFP mandated equal weightage to Packet-1 and Packet-2 for financial bid evaluation under Clauses 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 – FEC considered only Packet-1 rate of ₹1.92 while disqualifying petitioner – Court held: Evaluation process flawed and not in full compliance with RFP – However, since tender required multiple vendors and other bidders refused to match rate, FEC's action was not arbitrary – Court declined to interfere [Paras 33–38, 41–43]

Public Procurement – Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Court reiterated limited scope of interference under Article 226 in contractual matters – Held: Court will not supplant expert views unless decision is perverse, arbitrary, or actuated by mala fides – FEC considered petitioner’s clarifications twice, recorded reasons in rejection report – Mere error in procedure does not warrant interference if public interest outweighs private loss – Petition dismissed [Paras 44–48]

Administrative Law – Natural Justice – Compliance – Petitioner given two opportunities to justify pricing and explain technical approach – FEC recorded detailed reasons for rejection after reviewing clarifications – Principles of natural justice held to be satisfied – No procedural illegality found [Paras 44–47]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference warranted under Article 226 – Procedural lapse by FEC in not strictly following RFP clauses did not vitiate outcome – Disqualification based on inability of other bidders to match price protected larger public interest – Pending applications disposed of.

Income Tax – Bogus Purchases – Reopening of Assessment – Information from Sales Tax Department – AO reopened assessment based solely on list of alleged hawala dealers and added entire ₹2,05,74,750 as bogus purchases – Assessee produced purchase bills, VAT auditor’s certificate, ledger, and bank payment proof – CIT(A) restricted addition to 15% of reduced purchase value based on Simit P. Sheth principle – ITAT confirmed – Held: Reopening based only on unverified external information without giving assessee opportunity to cross-examine alleged dealers violates natural justice – Addition of 100% unjustified; estimation at 15% reasonable [Paras 4–10, 13–16].

Section 147 – Reassessment – Mere information from investigation wing or Sales Tax Department cannot be sole basis for belief of escapement without independent inquiry – AO’s reliance on third-party list without supplying material to assessee renders assessment unsustainable [Paras 13–15].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Once assessee produces purchase invoices, bank payment details, and VAT audit certificate, onus shifts to Revenue to disprove genuineness; failure to do so vitiates addition [Paras 15–16].

Natural Justice – Violation – Failure to furnish underlying material or allow cross-examination of alleged bogus suppliers renders order contrary to fairness and due process [Paras 13–14].

Factual Finding – Concurrent Findings of CIT(A) & ITAT – Both authorities found partial genuineness and applied 15% gross profit estimation following CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451, Guj.) – No perversity shown – No substantial question of law arises under Section 260A [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Revenue’s appeal dismissed – Order of ITAT and CIT(A) upheld – Addition restricted to 15% of alleged hawala purchases – No substantial question of law arises [Para 17].

Indirect Tax – Informer Reward Scheme – Maintainability of Writ – Informer’s Right – Petitioner claimed entitlement to reward under CBEC Notification dated 31.07.2015 for providing information against M/s Shakti Enterprises leading to tax demand and penalty – Order-in-original dated 06.12.2023 raised demand, later modified by order-in-appeal dated 15.07.2024 reducing liability – Petitioner challenged appellate order alleging wrongful computation of taxable value and reduction of demand – Held: Grant of reward to informer is a matter of discretion – No vested or enforceable right accrues to informer to seek writ of mandamus – Petitioner, being an informer, has no locus to assail adjudicatory order on merits – Reference made to Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy (2003) 12 SCC 627 [Paras 7–9].

Procedure – Maintainability – Court directed presence of informer and directed parties to address question of maintainability on next date – Notarised affidavit of petitioner kept in sealed cover with Registry [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Petition adjourned – Issue of maintainability to be heard on 18.12.2025 – No interim relief granted [Para 13].

Patent Law – Process Patent – Rejection under Section 3(d) – Controller and Single Judge held process to be a mere use of known processes not involving any new reactant or yielding a new product – Appellate Court held that Section 3(d) was wrongly invoked – Process yielded additional products like magnesium sulphate and activated carbon, which were not disclosed in prior art – Also held that process was not “known” in its entirety to attract bar under Section 3(d) [Paras 22.1–22.8].

Patent Law – Inventive Step – Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 25(1)(e) – Controller held process lacked inventive step in view of prior art D1 (US Patent 2018/0257945) and D2 (BIS Guide IS:8032-1976) – Single Judge adopted Hoffmann-La Roche test but incorrectly began analysis at Step 4 – Appellate Court held: Proper analysis requires identifying person skilled in art and inventive concept before assessing obviousness – Found substantial procedural lapses and inadequate reasoning – Held: Findings on obviousness unsustainable and matter remanded [Paras 17.1–21.6].

Patent Law – Prior Art Comparison – Court found significant distinctions between claimed process and prior art documents – Subject process involved unique steps for zero liquid discharge and recovery of multiple products – D1 and D2 lacked corresponding sequence or outputs – Held: Subject invention could not be treated as obvious without reasoned analysis – Rejected summary conclusions by Controller and Single Judge [Paras 21.1.1–21.3].

Patent Office Procedure – Need for Speaking Order – Appellate Court criticized laconic and mechanical reasoning of Assistant Controller – Held that conclusion of obviousness was unsupported by analysis of how prior art would lead a skilled person to the invention – Stressed need for reasoned orders following settled principles like Hoffmann test [Paras 20.1–20.11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Assistant Controller and Single Judge set aside – Objection under Section 3(d) rejected – Matter remanded to CGPDTM for fresh decision confined to Section 25(1)(e) objection – No new material to be introduced – De novo decision to be passed within six months [Paras 23–25].

Election Law – Election Petition – Rejection at threshold – Pleadings insufficient – Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC allowed – Election Petition filed under Section 100 RP Act to challenge election of Respondent No.1 on five grounds: three alleging corrupt practices, one for improper acceptance of nomination, and one for improper refusal of votes – Court held that the petition lacked necessary pleadings and material particulars under Section 83(1)(a) and (b) – Absence of disclosure of names, dates, places in allegations of bribery and undue influence – No averment of material effect on election result in relation to improper acceptance of nomination or non-counting of votes – Held: Petition does not disclose cause of action and is liable to be rejected [Paras 1, 20–24, 51].

Corrupt Practices – Allegation of Bribery – Distribution of Sarees – Lack of particulars – Plea that sarees were distributed to voters with stickers bearing Respondent’s photo and party symbol – No names of distributors or connection to Respondent No.1 pleaded – Court held that without stating whether the distributor was candidate, election agent, or acted with consent, the plea fails statutory requirements – Allegation was vague and inferential – Not sufficient under Section 83(1)(b) RP Act [Paras 25–28, 69].

Corrupt Practices – Undue Influence – Threat to party worker – Not linked to electoral right – Threatening of one Manohar Patil, party worker of Petitioner, pleaded as corrupt practice under Section 123(2) RP Act – No averment that he was an elector or that his right to vote was interfered with – Court held this does not constitute a valid ground for corrupt practice – Also, inconsistency found between the complaint and pleading [Paras 29–32, 70].

Corrupt Practices – Fielding dummy candidates with similar names – No pleading of inducement with specifics – Allegation that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 with similar names were fielded to confuse voters – No pleading of who offered gratification, when, or how – SMS messages relied on were not connected to Respondent No.1 by specific averments – Respondent Nos.2 and 3 polled far fewer votes, and even if added to Petitioner’s total, would not change result – Held: No case made out under Section 100(1)(b) or (d) RP Act [Paras 33–39, 71–73].

Nomination Defect – Error in criminal case year – Not a substantial defect – Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1 failed to disclose RCC No.318/2013 and instead mentioned 318/2012 – Court held it was a typographical error; full details of the case were otherwise disclosed – No material effect on election result pleaded – Held: Not a valid ground under Section 100(1)(d)(i) RP Act [Paras 40–43].

Votes Not Counted – Polling Station 217 – No impact on election result – Technical error led to non-counting of 1,014 votes from one polling station – Petitioner did not plead how this materially affected result, especially since the winning margin was 5,694 votes – Held: Ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) RP Act not made out [Paras 44–46].

Election Law – Requisites of valid Election Petition – Section 83 RP Act – Non-compliance fatal – Court reiterated settled law that strict compliance with Section 83 RP Act is mandatory – Absence of even a single material fact or particular is fatal – No amount of evidence can cure pleading defects – Petition can be rejected at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 47–51].

Election Petition – Amendment – Section 86(5) RP Act – Cannot be used to introduce new corrupt practice or fresh particulars – Petitioner filed amendment application after realising fatal defects – Proposed amendments introduced new allegations or particulars not originally pleaded – Held: Amendments impermissible under Section 86(5); amendment power is limited to amplification of already pleaded particulars, not introduction of new instances or corrupt practices [Paras 53–74].

Practice and Procedure – Belated amendment aimed to defeat rejection application – Not permissible – Amendment application filed one day prior to hearing of Order VII Rule 11 application – Court found it to be a tactical move – Held: Amendment not bonafide and prejudicial to Respondent – Petition liable to be rejected irrespective of proposed amendment [Paras 75].

Decision: Election Petition rejected – Application for amendment also rejected – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Petition dismissed as not disclosing cause of action [Paras 76(i)–(iii)].

Juvenile Justice – Habeas Corpus – Illegal Detention – Petitioner No. 1, arrested for murder under Section 302 IPC, was in judicial custody since 2017 – During trial in 2024, he raised a claim of juvenility and produced a scholar register showing his date of birth as 13.12.2002 – The trial court failed to determine his age as required under Section 9(2) of JJ Act and mechanically forwarded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board – The Board declared him juvenile on 15.05.2025 – Held: Since the claim was raised before the trial court, only the court was competent to determine age – Board’s order was without jurisdiction and a nullity – Petitioner’s continued detention in jail thereafter was illegal

Juvenile Justice – Detention in Jail – Prohibition under JJ Act – Under Section 10(1) of the Act, a child in conflict with law cannot be placed in police lock-up or jail – Even during age inquiry, such person must be kept in a place of safety – Petitioner’s detention in Naini Central Jail after raising juvenility claim was contrary to statutory mandate – Held: Present custody illegal

Habeas Corpus – Judicial Custody – Maintainability – Although habeas corpus is generally not maintainable against judicial remand, an exception arises where the detention is shown to be patently illegal or without jurisdiction – In present case, remand was mechanically passed without determination of age – Held: Writ of habeas corpus maintainable

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Juvenile in conflict with law can be detained for maximum three years under JJ Act – Petitioner had been in jail for over 8 years – Continued detention violative of Article 21 – Illegal and unconstitutional

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Writ of habeas corpus issued – Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj directed to release Petitioner No. 1 immediately – Commissioner of Police to produce Petitioner before trial court – Trial court directed to determine age under Section 9(2) JJ Act – If found juvenile, he to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for further action – If not, trial to proceed as per law