Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Petitioners arrested with 112.270 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity, and in custody for 182 days – No application filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of detention under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act – Held: In absence of a report from the Public Prosecutor seeking extension beyond 180 days with reasons and progress of investigation, petitioners acquire an indefeasible right to bail – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 8–12]

Statutory Bail – Right under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Petitioners remained in judicial custody beyond the statutory 180-day period without the prosecution filing for extension – Held: Right to bail becomes enforceable in the absence of valid prosecutorial request – Custody beyond 180 days without extension is illegal – Bail cannot be denied on apprehensions alone if investigation is substantially complete and witnesses examined are official [Paras 9–11]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposed strict bail conditions including execution of bonds, weekly appearance at the police station, restriction on travel outside the state, and prohibition from influencing witnesses or committing any further offence – Held: Conditions necessary to balance liberty of accused with the interest of investigation and justice [Para 11]

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 granted bail subject to strict conditions including personal bonds, weekly reporting, restriction on travel, and cooperation with investigation.

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Assessment Order – Principles of Natural Justice – Writ Petition challenging assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B for A.Y. 2023–24 – Addition of ₹2.15 crores towards bogus purchases made without considering supplier’s detailed reply to notice under Section 133(6) confirming transaction and submitting supporting documents – Held: Clear breach of natural justice, assessment order unsustainable [Paras 4, 5(a), 8] –

Income Tax – Unsecured Loans – Peak Credit Addition – Addition of ₹22.66 crores made towards director’s loans including opening balances – Held: No show-cause notice issued regarding peak credit addition – Reliance placed on non-existent judgments – Grievance of lack of basis and computation found justified – Quasi-judicial function requires proper verification and diligence before relying on AI-generated content or sources [Paras 5(b), 9] –

Remand – Alternate Remedy – Despite availability of appellate remedy, interference under Article 226 warranted due to procedural violations – Assessment Order, Demand Notice under Section 156, and Penalty SCN under Sections 274/271AAC quashed – Matter remanded with directions to issue proper show cause, provide personal hearing, and pass a reasoned, speaking order by 31st December 2025 [Paras 10–12] –

Decision: Assessment Order, Demand Notice and Penalty Show Cause Notice quashed – Matter remanded for fresh assessment – Writ Petition allowed [Paras 11–14].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Section 10(1)(x) of Divorce Act – Standard of cruelty uniform under all personal laws – Ill-treatment of husband’s children and attempt to commit suicide by wife constitute mental cruelty – Divorce decree confirmed – Maintenance enhanced to ₹15,000/- per month considering husband’s income abroad [Paras 10–14].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Section 10(1)(x), Divorce Act, 1869 – Standard of cruelty uniform under all personal laws – Cruelty contemplated under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act must be understood in the same sense as under other personal laws – The law cannot recognise different degrees or types of cruelty based on religion – Right to live free from matrimonial cruelty is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution – Courts must interpret matrimonial cruelty under all personal laws in an identical manner to uphold constitutional equality [Para 11].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Ill-treatment of husband’s children – Conduct of wife towards husband’s children causing humiliation, agony and psychological trauma to the husband constitutes mental cruelty – Continuous harassment, neglect and abusive behaviour towards children justifies dissolution of marriage – Held, evidence of husband, children (PW2 & PW6) and corroborating witnesses (PW3–PW5) conclusively establish mental cruelty [Paras 10–12].

Attempt to Commit Suicide – Effect – Attempt by wife to commit suicide without reasonable cause, or threatening self-harm, amounts to cruelty – Such conduct causes emotional distress and apprehension of harm in the husband’s mind – Justifies decree of divorce [Para 13].

Cruelty – Interpretation – Constitutional Scheme – Courts must construe statutory provisions in harmony with Articles 14 and 21 – All citizens have equal right to live without matrimonial cruelty irrespective of religious denomination – Personal law cannot dilute this constitutional protection [Para 11].

Maintenance – Quantum – Criteria – While fixing maintenance, income, status and living standard of husband must be considered – Husband working at U.S. military base in Afghanistan earning more than ₹2,00,000 per month – Maintenance of ₹6,000 per month inadequate – Enhanced to ₹15,000 per month from date of petition [Para 14; Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, AIR 2025 SC 3268].

Family Law – Evidence – Appellate Interference – Where Family Court’s findings on cruelty are based on credible and corroborated oral and documentary evidence, appellate interference is unwarranted [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Divorce decree confirmed – Maintenance enhanced from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000 per month – Mat. Appeal No.596/2019 and RP(FC) No.149/2023 dismissed – RP(FC) No.384/2019 partly allowed [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Acquittal under Section 307 IPC – Conviction under Section 324 IPC – Appeal by the State against acquittal of accused No.1 (Jaison) under Section 307 IPC and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Biju and Mohanan) under Sections 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC – Trial Court convicted accused No.1 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment – Held: Trial court rightly appreciated the absence of premeditation and lack of sufficient evidence regarding intention or knowledge as required under Section 307 IPC – Evidence showed single stab during a scuffle following a verbal altercation – No second attempt by accused to inflict fatal injury – Hence, acquittal under Section 307 IPC justified [Paras 4, 23-25].

Witness Testimony – Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – PW1 and PW2, both injured, consistently deposed regarding the incident and attributed the stabbing to accused No.1 – Their testimony corroborated by medical evidence (PW7, PW8) and injury certificates (Exhibits P3 & P5) – Minor inconsistencies in testimonies regarding accused Nos. 2 and 3 but consistent and credible as against accused No.1 – Held: Injured witnesses’ evidence carries greater weight and no reason found to disbelieve them with respect to accused No.1 – Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld [Paras 9-11, 13, 15, 31, 33-34].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Delay in implicating A2 and A3 – No mention of A2 and A3 in initial FIR (Exhibit P10) or doctor’s report (Exhibit P4) – Names added only later via Exhibit P15 – PW3 (independent witness) turned hostile and made no mention of A2 and A3’s presence – Delay and contradictions in the statements of PWs 1 and 2 regarding involvement of A2 and A3 create reasonable doubt – Held: Acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 justified – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 12, 26-29].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Recovery of Weapon – Knife (MO1) allegedly recovered based on disclosure by accused No.1 – Recovery not reliable – Investigating Officer failed to depose exact words of the accused or prove the disclosure statement – No independent witnesses to recovery – Held: Recovery procedure did not satisfy requirements under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – Recovery evidence discarded [Paras 17-22].

Criminal Procedure – FIR and Investigation – Initial FIR (Exhibit P10) registered under Section 324 IPC based on hospital intimation (Exhibit P4) – No mention of accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Involvement of A2 and A3 added only six days later via Exhibit P15 – Delay in recording witness statements and no explanation for non-inclusion in initial documents – Held: Such delay and omissions fatal to prosecution case against A2 and A3 [Paras 16, 27-29].

Legal Principle – Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus – Not Applicable in Indian Law – Argument that PWs 1 and 2’s testimony should be discarded entirely because disbelieved in part (as to A2 and A3) rejected – Held: Indian courts do not apply this doctrine – Duty of court is to separate truth from falsehood and assess credibility on a case-by-case basis [Paras 32-33].

Decision – Appeal filed by State against acquittal of accused No.1 under Section 307 IPC and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC dismissed – Appeal filed by accused No.1 against conviction under Section 324 IPC also dismissed – Conviction and sentence of two years’ imprisonment under Section 324 IPC against accused No.1 confirmed – Appeals dismissed in entirety [Paras 34].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Acquittals of accused Nos. 2 and 3 confirmed – Conviction of accused No.1 under Section 324 IPC affirmed – Sentence of two years’ imprisonment upheld.

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment – Validity of Sanction under Section 151 – ITAT quashed reassessment on ground that approval for reopening by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was mechanical – Approval merely recorded “Yes, I am convinced it is a fit case” – Held: Such wording amounts to valid approval satisfying requirement of Section 151 – Distinction drawn with N.C. Cables Ltd., where only word “approved” was used – Approval here involved expression of satisfaction and thus meets statutory mandate [Paras 13–20].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Addition of Share Capital – Assessee alleged to have received ₹25,00,000/- as accommodation entry from S.K. Jain Group – AO relied on investigation wing report and added sum under Section 68 – ITAT did not adjudicate merits and quashed proceedings solely on approval defect – Held: Since approval under Section 151 was proper, ITAT erred in quashing reassessment without examining merits [Paras 6–10, 19–20].

Precedent – N.C. Cables Ltd. – Applicability – ITAT and Assessee relied on N.C. Cables Ltd., (2017) 391 ITR 11, where only “approved” was recorded as sanction – Held: Distinction exists as present case used more detailed language reflecting satisfaction – Earlier decision not attracted – Also relied on Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. where similar approval held valid [Paras 13–19].

Assessment Procedure – Use of Investigation Wing Reports – AO reopened assessment based on incriminating material from investigation into S.K. Jain Group’s shell companies and accommodation entry operations – Challenge by Assessee to authenticity and non-supply of documents rejected – High Court did not interfere with the reliance placed on such reports for initiating reassessment [Paras 3–8].

Appellate Procedure – Deference to Prior ITAT Order – ITAT followed its earlier order in Assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010–11 – High Court noted that earlier ITAT decision was not appealed due to low tax effect – Held: Lack of appeal in prior case does not preclude adjudication on merits when substantial question of law is framed [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – ITAT’s order dated 07.07.2023 quashing reassessment set aside – Reassessment proceedings restored – Substantial question of law decided in favour of Revenue.

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 21 read with Section 22 – Cognizance – Complaint Requirement – Charge on Police Report Quashed – Petitioner charged under Sections 379, 411 IPC and Section 21 MMDR Act read with Rule 54 JMMC Rules – Cognizance taken based on police report – Held: Section 22 MMDR Act imposes a statutory bar against courts taking cognizance of offences under the Act except upon a written complaint by an authorized officer – Hence, Magistrate could not frame charge for MMDR offences on police report – Charges under Section 21 MMDR Act and Rule 54 JMMC Rules quashed with liberty to file complaint through authorized officer [Paras 8–9, 16–19].

Cognizance – Offences under IPC and MMDR Act – Distinction and Coexistence – Court clarified that police investigation and cognizance under IPC (Sections 379, 411) are not barred—Offence of theft of minerals under IPC distinct from mining without license under MMDR Act—Police report maintainable for IPC offences—Magistrate competent to take cognizance for IPC offences independent of complaint under MMDR Act [Paras 10–14, 17].

Interpretation of Law – Section 22 MMDR Act – Judicial Precedents – Followed State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772; Kanwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 14 SCC 331; and Jayant v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670 – Held: Section 22 bars cognizance only, not investigation—Magistrate can take cognizance of IPC offences on police report; for MMDR offences, cognizance must rest on complaint by authorized officer [Paras 14–18].

Investigation – Parallel Proceedings – Permissibility – Police may investigate offences under both IPC and MMDR Act; however, after investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. can relate only to IPC offences—Authorized officer may separately file complaint under MMDR Act—Both proceedings can coexist without conflict [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Order dated 23.11.2023 framing charges under Section 21 MMDR Act and Rule 54 JMMC Rules quashed—Liberty to prosecution to file complaint through authorized officer—Charges under IPC (Sections 379 and 411) upheld; trial to continue accordingly [Paras 19–20].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Limitation – Cause of Action – Notice Returned ‘Refused’ – Applicability of 15-day Period – Held: Even when statutory notice is returned unclaimed or refused, service is deemed effected under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act – Cause of action arises only after expiry of 15 days contemplated under proviso (c) to Section 138 N.I. Act – Contrary view in Jayakrishnan v. Unnikrishnan, 2015 (5) KHC 683, held per incuriam for not noticing Supreme Court’s binding precedents in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555 and K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Law – Section 138 N.I. Act – Refusal to Accept Notice – Effect – Refusal deemed valid service – However, drawer entitled to statutory period of 15 days for payment from date of deemed service – Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days premature, but one filed after expiry within limitation valid [Paras 7–8].

Precedent – Doctrine of Per Incuriam – High Court’s earlier decision in Jayakrishnan v. Unnikrishnan per incuriam as it ignored binding decisions of the Supreme Court – Law declared by Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji governs – High Court bound to apply ratio [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. – When based solely on erroneous interpretation of limitation under Section 142 N.I. Act – Proper course is to set aside and remand for fresh trial on merits [Para 9].

Decision: Held, Jayakrishnan (2015) incorrectly interpreted Section 138 – Supreme Court decisions in Alavi Haji and Bhaskaran apply – Complaints not time-barred – Judgments of acquittal set aside – Matters remanded for fresh consideration – All other issues left open – Parties directed to appear before Trial Court on 13.10.2025 at 11:00 a.m. [Paras 8–9].

Partition – Ancestral Property – Registered Settlement Deed – Plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 inherited land from their father via registered settlement deed dated 24.09.1977 – Defendants 2 to 4 sold entire 1 acre of land to defendant no.1 in 1998, despite holding only 3/4th share – Held: Sale not binding on plaintiff’s undivided 1/4th share – Plaintiff entitled to 1/4th partition and possession [Paras 6, 17–20].

Adverse Possession – Not Established – Defendants claimed exclusive possession and adverse title from 1998 – However, failed to prove continuous, open, hostile possession to the exclusion of true owner – Constructing house or paying tax not sufficient proof – Plaintiff’s legal notice in 2010 rebutted presumption of adverse possession – Plea rightly rejected by courts below [Paras 7–8, 19–20].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts based on proper appreciation of evidence – No illegality or perversity found – No substantial question of law involved – Mere erroneous appreciation of evidence or plea of error in factual inference does not invoke jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 14–23].

Registered Sale Deed – Validity Limited to Seller’s Share – Defendants 2 to 4 had no authority to sell plaintiff’s 1/4th undivided share – Buyer (defendant no.1) failed to verify title or join plaintiff in execution – Sale deed dated 30.03.1998 valid only to extent of 3/4th share – Held: Plaintiff's share unaffected by sale [Paras 6, 17, 19–20].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage – No substantial question of law involved – Concurrent findings of both courts upheld – Plaintiff entitled to 1/4th undivided share in suit property – Pending applications closed – No costs [Paras 21–23].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Mens Rea – Adequacy of Sentence – Section 306 IPC – Section 377 Cr.P.C. – State sought enhancement of sentence imposed on accused-husband convicted under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for wife’s self-immolation following repeated quarrels and physical abuse under intoxication – Evidence showed deceased committed suicide after domestic discord, joblessness of husband, and estrangement from her family – No evidence that accused intended or consciously instigated wife to commit suicide – Dying declaration and complaint revealed quarrel but not proximate act of abetment – Held: Continuous harassment alone insufficient to constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC without proof of mens rea or proximate incitement – Husband’s intoxicated state and flight from scene not conclusive of instigation – Sentence of three years’ imprisonment proper and not inadequate – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21, 22, 23, 28, 31, 32].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Reliability – Complaint treated as First Dying Declaration – Recorded in presence of Medical Officer – Endorsed as patient conscious – No prompting or tutoring shown – Held reliable and admissible – Corroborated by subsequent dying declaration before Executive Magistrate [Paras 8–13].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Sentence under Section 377(3) Cr.P.C. – Scope – Court empowered to consider both enhancement and reduction of sentence or even acquittal on merits – No ground to interfere when sentence proportionate and supported by evidence [Paras 7, 32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC confirmed – No enhancement warranted – Record and proceedings to be returned to Trial Court [Para 33].