Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Applicant found with 460 grams of MD (Commercial Quantity) – Held: The rigors of Section 37 apply. The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. Given the recovery and circumstances, such satisfaction cannot be recorded. [Paras 12-14]

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Section 50 Compliance – Search of Person – Applicant argued panchas did not sign the Section 50 notice – Held: The Applicant signed the notice waiving her right to be searched by a Magistrate. The failure of panchas to countersign the Section 50 notice is a minor lapse and does not vitiate the search or entitle the accused to bail at this stage, especially when the search was conducted by a Gazetted Officer. [Para 9]

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Section 42 Compliance – Held: The information received from co-accused was reduced to writing and forwarded to the Senior Officer. Section 42 compliance was prima facie established. [Para 7]

Decision: Bail Application rejected. [Para 17]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Maintainability under Section 528 BNSS – Chargesheet and Cognizance Not on Record – Application Not Maintainable – Applicant sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC without placing the chargesheet or order of cognizance on record – Held: In absence of both, the application under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) is not maintainable – Quashing remedy lies under Article 226 until cognizance is taken – Once cognizance is taken, Section 528 BNSS becomes applicable only if those documents are placed on record [Paras 13, 18]

Criminal Law – Second FIR on Same Allegations – Abuse of Process – Allegation of Fraudulent Sale Deed Based on Forged Power of Attorney – Applicant alleged that second FIR based on same set of facts as earlier FIR (FIR No. 39 of 2022) violates principles laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – However, Court declined to adjudicate merits in absence of maintainability due to procedural lapse – Observed that merits cannot be examined where application itself is procedurally defective [Paras 2–4, 19]

Forgery and Cheating – Prima Facie Allegations – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Application of Law in Sheila Sebastian and G. Sagar Suri Cases – Applicant relied on Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharraj, (2018) 7 SCC 581 to argue he was not the maker of false document and therefore not liable for forgery – Court declined to evaluate whether ingredients of forgery and cheating were satisfied due to procedural bar [Paras 3, 4, 15–16]

Scope of Inherent Powers – BNSS Section 528 (Old Section 482 CrPC) – Limited to Post-Cognizance Stage – Recent Supreme Court Clarification in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Case – Citing Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No. 13424 of 2025, Supreme Court held that FIR can be quashed under Article 226 before cognizance is taken – After cognizance, quashing under Section 528 BNSS is available only if chargesheet and cognizance order are on record – Applied to dismiss current application [Paras 13, 18]

Judicial Discipline – Full Bench Binding Precedent – No Conflict with Apex Court View – Court considered Full Bench decision in Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U.P., 1989 APLJ (Cri) 107, and harmonized it with current law – Reiterated that police power to investigate is unfettered and cannot be interfered with under Section 528 unless misuse of power or abuse of process is evident – Quashing of FIR not permissible unless strict procedural compliance is met [Paras 7, 14]

Decision: Application dismissed as not maintainable – Applicant failed to place chargesheet and cognizance order on record – In absence of these, inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (old Section 482 CrPC) cannot be invoked – Court declined to examine merits or legality of FIR – Remedy, if any, lies under Article 226 or by filing appropriate application post-cognizance with necessary documents [Paras 18–20]

Muslim Law – Maintenance – Rights of Divorced Muslim Woman – Maintainability under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Scope of Ext.D1 Agreement – Divorced Muslim woman entered into agreement (Ext.D1) with husband receiving Rs.1,00,000/- as matah and Rs.35,000/- for iddat – Family Court rejected claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. relying on Kunhimohammed v. Ayishakutty – Held: Ext.D1 agreement does not bar remedy under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unless adequacy of settlement is established – Application maintainable even after such agreement [Paras 3, 8-13]

Minor Status – Validity of Agreement – Representation by Guardian – Contention that agreement (Ext.D1) was void ab initio as petitioner was a minor rejected – Held: Under Muslim law, marriage and related agreements by minor female represented by her father (wali) are valid if she has attained puberty [Para 7]

Quantum of Maintenance – Adequacy of Provision under Personal Law – Review of Maintenance Order – Rs.1,00,000/- fixed as lifetime maintenance found inadequate in comparison to Rs.35,000/- for three-month iddat – Held: Family Court erred in not assessing whether petitioner could maintain herself – Remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity to adduce evidence [Paras 13-14]

Child Maintenance – Sufficiency of Award – Maintenance of Rs.750/- per month awarded to minor daughter found inadequate considering needs and father's means – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Para 14]

Interpretation of Law – Harmonious Construction – Parallel Remedies – Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (AIR 2024 SC 3665) held that Sections 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 3 of Muslim Women Protection Act operate in distinct domains – Right to claim maintenance under Section 125 continues unless extinguished by payment under Section 3 and order under Section 127(3)(b) Cr.P.C. [Paras 9-12]

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court for fresh disposal – Maintenance claim of divorced wife and quantum for child to be reconsidered after allowing parties to lead evidence – Directed to conclude proceedings within six months.

Taxation Law - Customs Act – Undervaluation of Imported Goods – Acceptance of Enhanced Value – Appellant imported Dryers, Heaters and Coolers and declared value which was later found to be understated – Investigation revealed non-inclusion of design charges forming part of transaction value – Appellant accepted enhanced valuation and paid differential duty without challenge – Held: Valuation having attained finality, assessee cannot subsequently contest consequences flowing from such undervaluation [Paras 4–9, 14–16].

Customs Valuation – Design Charges – Inclusion in Assessable Value – Design and engineering charges relating to imported machinery held includible under Rule 12 read with Rule 10(b)(iv) of the 2007 Rules – Notifications granting nil duty to “plans, drawings and designs” held applicable only to those items as independent assessable commodities and not to design charges embedded in value of imported machinery – Argument based on Notifications rejected [Paras 10–11, 17–18].

Confiscation – Section 111(m) – Misdeclaration of Value – Goods liable to confiscation where declared value in Bill of Entry does not correspond with actual transaction value – Appellant’s admitted undervaluation squarely attracted Section 111(m) – Held: Confiscation of goods and redemption fine imposed under Section 125 upheld [Paras 20–22].

Penalty – Section 112(a) – Improper Importation – Once goods are rendered liable to confiscation under Section 111, penalty under Section 112(a) follows – No scope for discretion where undervaluation is admitted and not a matter of bona fide interpretational dispute – Penalty imposed upheld [Paras 23–25].

CESTAT – Scope of Appeal – Where assessee accepts valuation and challenges only confiscation and penalty – Held: Tribunal justified in dismissing appeal since confiscation and penalty were direct statutory consequences of admitted undervaluation [Paras 8–9, 22, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Substantial questions of law answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee – Confiscation under Section 111(m), redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a) upheld – No costs.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Acquittal – State challenged judgment acquitting respondents of offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 307/34 IPC – Held: Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that injuries were caused by accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 1, 17, 20].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Injured and alleged eye-witness did not know accused earlier – Accused identified for first time in Court – Occurrence took place at night and assailants were standing in darkness – Held: Dock identification without prior TIP is weak and unreliable – Identity of accused not established [Paras 12-13].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Contradictions – Injured stated in police statement that assailants were unknown and standing in dark – Subsequently identified accused in Court – Identification held improbable as injury was inflicted from behind and injured became unconscious – Testimony not trustworthy [Paras 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Presence of Eye-Witness – PW5 Kartar Singh claimed to be present – Injured did not name or refer to PW5 either in FIR or evidence – PW5 closely related to injured – Did not take injured to hospital – Held: Presence of PW5 at spot doubtful and possibility of being introduced witness cannot be ruled out [Para 14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery – Shoe allegedly recovered from spot on third day and another from accused – Place of occurrence was busy thoroughfare – Held: Recovery highly improbable and unreliable [Para 15].

Motive – Absence – Though motive not mandatory in every case – In facts of present case absence of motive weakened prosecution case – Failure to establish reason for accused to attack complainant [Para 16].

Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal – Appellate Court to interfere only in case of perversity or illegality – No infirmity or perversity found in trial Court judgment – Acquittal upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment dated 27.11.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridkot acquitting respondents upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Weak Evidentiary Value – Petitioner implicated only based on co-accused’s disclosure; no recovery from petitioner; Court holds disclosure statement without corroboration cannot be sole basis for implication; evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Raises serious doubts regarding fairness of investigation [Paras 3, 6].

Custody & Delay – Long Incarceration Dilutes Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Petitioner in custody since 12.06.2023; challan filed 07.12.2023; 28 witnesses cited but none examined – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Prolonged incarceration of 2 years 3 months 15 days violates Article 21; thus rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act stand diluted [Paras 6, 6.3–6.4].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Principles Summarised – Court reiterates jurisprudence:

• Twin conditions are cumulative, not alternative;

• Bail Court may look at defence material;

• “Not likely to commit offence while on bail” requires demonstrable probability, not theoretical presumption;

• Antecedents alone cannot justify rejection when case on merits is made out [Paras 6.2–6.6].**

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Reiterated – Cites line of Supreme Court precedents (Hussainara Khatoon; Antulay; Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain; Chitta Biswas; Nitish Adhikary) – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delay cannot justify prolonged incarceration; pre-trial detention cannot turn into punitive imprisonment [Paras 6.5–6.6].

Antecedents – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Petitioner involved in two other cases per custody certificate – Court holds antecedents relevant but not determinative when prosecution case in present FIR itself is weak and delay substantial [Para 6.6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to strict conditions including: no misuse of liberty, no tampering with evidence, appearance at trial dates, deposit of passport, maintaining same mobile number, monthly affidavit regarding non-involvement in offence – State given liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 7–9].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Unlawful Assembly – Assault – Cross-FIR – Evidence of complainant and injured witnesses found to be partisan, contradictory, and inconsistent with their police statements which admitted mutual fight and injuries on opposite side – Suppression of fatal injuries on accused’s father (deceased Ganpatsinh) in cross-case held fatal – Trial court’s view held a “possible view” warranting no interference [Paras 6–12, 15].

Witness Credibility – Interested/Injured Witnesses – PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7 admitted during cross-examination that police statements recorded a mutual fight and blows inflicted by prosecution side – Court notes material improvements, suppression of crucial facts, inconsistency regarding weapon use (bhala vs. chappu), and contradictions with Investigating Officer (PW-9) – Held: Testimony unreliable and unsafe for conviction in absence of independent corroboration [Paras 7–10].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Medical certificates (Exhs. 32–37, 41, 43) show only simple abrasions and lacerated wounds – No injury consistent with alleged knife blow to chest – Absence of grievous injuries inconsistent with prosecution’s claim of severe attack with lethal weapons – Held: Medical evidence does not support ocular version [Paras 8–10].

Forensic Evidence – Weapon Recovery – FSL Report (Exh. 66) inconclusive – No tamancha recovered to support allegation under Section 506(2) IPC – Panchnama witnesses formal; no link between recovered weapons and injuries – Held: Recovery does not corroborate prosecution case [Paras 8–10].

Independent Witnesses – Non-examination – Incident occurred in village with 60–70 houses; FIR itself mentions interveners (Somabhai Fulabhai, Mangal @ Yogibhai, etc.) – None examined – Held: Failure to examine independent witnesses severely undermines prosecution case, especially in cross-case scenario [Paras 7–10].

Cross-Cases – Mutual Fight – Complainant and injured witnesses were themselves accused in cross-FIR (C.R. I-170/1993) for death of accused’s father – Suppression of mutual injuries and one-sided narration held deliberate and fatal to prosecution – Strong motive to falsely implicate accused established – Benefit of doubt justified [Paras 7–12].

Appellate Interference – Principles – Applying Chandrappa principles and Supreme Court rulings in Rajesh Prasad (2022) 3 SCC 471 and H.D. Sundara (2023) 9 SCC 581 – Court reiterates double presumption of innocence and limits on interference in acquittal appeals – Trial court’s view is a plausible, legally sustainable view – No ground to reverse acquittal [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of all accused upheld – Records and proceedings to be remitted [Paras 15].

Electricity Law – Pilferage of Energy – Civil Liability – Criminal Acquittal – Clause 39.15 – Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not extinguish civil liability for pilferage – Recovery under APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act and Section 52-A Revenue Recovery Act upheld – Limitation counts from final appellate criminal judgment – Writ petition dismissed with costs.

Electricity – Pilferage of Energy – Departmental Assessment – Criminal vs. Civil Consequence – Held: Theft of energy embodies two distinct components—(i) criminal liability punishable under law, and (ii) civil liability to pay for unrecorded consumption – Even if prosecution fails to secure conviction, civil liability survives unless charge is proven false – Acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not bar recovery proceedings.

Terms & Conditions of Supply – Clause 39.15 – Effect – Acquittal on any ground other than “charge is false” does not bar recovery – Sessions Court and High Court acquitted petitioner only on benefit of doubt; hence civil liability intact – Recovery proceedings maintainable.

Evidence – Criminal Case Findings – Session Court found prosecution failed to prove existence or use of remote controller; seals intact; possibility of tampering not established – Held: Such findings only raise doubt, not a declaration of false charge – Therefore, civil liability unaffected.

APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 – Applicability – Assessment order of Superintending Engineer (31.07.1992) confirmed by Chief Engineer (23.10.2001) attained finality – Dues fall within definition under Sections 2 & 3 – Recovery as arrears of land revenue under Section 6 valid – Form-A (06.12.2001) and Form-B notices (18.04.2002) validly issued  .

Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 – Section 52-A – Validity – Authorises recovery of public dues by treating them as arrears of land revenue – No inconsistency with Electricity Act, 2003 – Recovery for electricity dues permissible – Supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence affirming competence of States to confer such powers on revenue authorities.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Primacy Clauses (Sections 173, 174, 185) – No inconsistency between the 2003 Act and APSEB Recovery Act – Hence, old dues recoverable without recourse to Special Court under Section 153 – Civil recovery mechanism preserved.

Limitation – Article 113, Limitation Act – Cause of action accrues only after final appellate criminal judgment – Here, High Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 721/2008 dated 14.11.2011 marked such accrual – Recovery notice dated 18.09.2014 within 3-year limitation – Recovery not time-barred.

Decision:  Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- – All connected applications closed [Final Para] .

Labour Law – Legal Representation – Section 36(4) ID Act – Employer’s Right to Counsel – Applicant, a small laundry employing 4–5 persons, sought leave to engage an Advocate for cross-examination in Reference proceedings – Labour Court rejected request solely on objection of workman – Held: Refusal was mechanical and contrary to settled law – Court must exercise discretion to prevent prejudice and ensure fairness – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 11–13, 17–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Fair Trial – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner was unskilled in legal procedure and unable to cross-examine or present evidence effectively – Denial of legal aid to such a party violates Articles 14 and 21 – Right to fair hearing includes reasonable opportunity to defend with appropriate representation – Leave under Section 36(4) must be interpreted liberally in such cases [Paras 15–16].

Statutory Interpretation – Consent and Leave under Section 36(4) – Twin conditions of opposite party’s consent and Court’s leave are mandatory – However, Court must scrutinise mala fide or arbitrary denial of consent – Labour Court has power to override such refusal in interest of justice – Consent cannot be used to exploit or disadvantage the other party [Paras 9–10, 14].

Legal Framework – Special Law vs. General Law – Advocates Act vs. ID Act – Section 30 of Advocates Act does not override Section 36 of ID Act – ID Act being special legislation governs representation before Labour Courts – Special law prevails over general law – Labour Court’s discretion remains intact [Paras 9, 23–24].

Judicial Precedents – Court relies on Bangalore Water Supply, Paradip Port Trust, T.K. Varghese, Thyssen Krupp Industries, and Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat to reaffirm that denial of representation must not result in inequality or miscarriage of justice – Representation must be allowed where required for effective participation [Paras 4.1–4.4, 14].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Labour Court's order dated 01.12.2023 quashed – Applicant permitted to engage Advocate of choice – Labour Court to proceed on merits – Appreciation recorded for Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Shailesh Pathak [Paras 18–20].