NDPS Act – Sections 21(b) & 22(c) – Conviction Set Aside – Non-compliance of Section 50 – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for possession of cocaine and LSD and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and five years respectively – On appeal, High Court examined compliance of statutory safeguards under Section 50 NDPS Act – Held: Conviction unsustainable due to gross and total non-compliance of mandatory provisions [Paras 1, 33–36, 40].

Search and Seizure – Section 50 NDPS Act – Mandatory Safeguard – Right of Accused – Prosecution witnesses including complainant and members of raiding team consistently deposed that accused was informed only of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer – No option of being searched before a Magistrate was given – Such partial or defective intimation held to be in direct violation of Section 50(1) NDPS Act [Paras 12–21, 33–35].

Gazetted Officer – Member of Raiding Party – Not Independent – Accused was informed that Dy. S.P., a Gazetted Officer and part of the raiding team, was present at the spot and could conduct the search – Held: A Gazetted Officer who is part of the raiding/investigating team cannot be treated as an independent officer for purposes of Section 50 – Offering such “third option” pollutes the free exercise of statutory right of the accused [Paras 23–26, 32, 36].

Evidence Appreciation – Panch and Police Witnesses – Evidence of PW 1 (panch witness) and PW 2, PW 6, PW 9 (police witnesses) uniformly demonstrated that only one option under Section 50 was conveyed – Court held that even police witnesses failed to establish compliance in letter and spirit – Burden on prosecution not discharged [Paras 15–21, 33–34].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Strict Compliance – No Concept of Substantial Compliance – Reiterating settled law from Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja and Ranjan Kumar Chadha – Section 50 confers a valuable and mandatory right – Failure to strictly comply renders recovery of contraband suspect and vitiates conviction where recovery from personal search is the sole basis [Paras 26, 28, 33–35].

Effect of Violation – Recovery Inadmissible – Since recovery of contraband was effected pursuant to an illegal personal search, same could not be relied upon – Presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act could not be raised – Conviction based solely on such recovery held illegal [Paras 33–36, 39].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2024 quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Appellant directed to execute P.R. bond under Section 481 BNSS, 2023 [Paras 40–41].

Criminal Law  – Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC / Section 351 BNSS – Mandatory Duty of Court – Fair Trial – Convict sentenced to death for rape and murder of a five-year-old child – Trial Court failed to put vital incriminating circumstances, including DNA report, toxicology report and Section 164 CrPC statements, to the accused – Long omnibus questions reproducing entire prosecution case framed instead of specific material circumstances – Held: Such examination defeats the object of Section 313 and violates principles of audi alteram partem – Causes serious prejudice to the accused in a capital punishment case [Paras 22–29, 31–56].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Incriminating Evidence – DNA Evidence – Failure to Put to Accused – Ext PZ DNA report forming the backbone of prosecution case not put to accused under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Circumstances not put to the accused must ordinarily be excluded from consideration – In a case involving death sentence, omission is grave and non-negotiable – Fair opportunity to explain incriminating material is imperative [Paras 24–26, 40–43, 59].

Capital Punishment – Procedural Safeguards – Heightened Scrutiny – Death penalty imposed by Trial Court – Proceedings concluded with undue haste and without strict adherence to procedural safeguards – Held: In capital cases, every safeguard must be scrupulously followed – Any dilution of fair trial standards vitiates the conviction and sentence [Paras 59–60].

Appellate Powers – Remand – Section 386 CrPC – Curable Irregularity – Though defects under Section 313 CrPC are curable – Considering nature of omissions, defence rights, and need to balance justice to accused and victim – Held: Appropriate course is remand to Trial Court from the stage of recording statement of accused under Section 351 BNSS – Not a case of acquittal on merits nor mere exclusion of evidence [Paras 64–66, 69–70].

Criminal Appeal and Murder Reference – Result – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Death Reference Rendered Infructuous – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence quashed – Matter remanded to Sessions Court to re-commence trial from stage of Section 351 BNSS (Section 313 CrPC) – Accused to be examined afresh on all incriminating circumstances and permitted to lead defence evidence – Murder Reference disposed of as infructuous [Paras 67–75].

Decision: CRA-D-750-2021 partly allowed to the extent of remand – Conviction and death sentence set aside – Murder Reference No. 3 of 2021 disposed of – Trial to recommence from the stage of examination of accused under Section 351 BNSS.

Motor Accident Claim – Rash and Negligent Driving – Determination of Liability – Deceased travelling as passenger in TATA Indigo car which collided with Swaraj Mazda goods vehicle that suddenly entered National Highway – Tribunal held accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Swaraj Mazda vehicle – FIR naming car driver as tortfeasor not relied upon as complainant disowned contents and no police witness examined – Finding of sole negligence on goods vehicle upheld [Paras 5–10].

Evidence – FIR – Evidentiary Value – FIR not substantive evidence – Complainant (PW-4) stated that he merely signed where police instructed – In absence of examination of police officials by insurer, Tribunal justified in discarding FIR contents – High Court affirmed approach [Paras 6, 8].

Contributory Negligence – Plea Rejected – Specific issue framed on rash and negligent driving of TATA Indigo vehicle – Tribunal held no negligence on part of car driver – High Court found no perversity in factual findings [Paras 9–10].

Compensation – Assessment of Income – Deceased aged 25 years, employed as software professional – Salary claimed at Rs.34,102/- per month – Tribunal restricted monthly income to Rs.17,000/- considering company was newly formed – Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses and addition of 40% towards future prospects upheld [Paras 7, 11].

Multiplier – Correct Application – Multiplier of 18 applied having regard to age of deceased – Compensation under conventional heads including loss of estate, funeral expenses and love and affection held to be just and reasonable [Paras 7, 11–12].

Appeal under Section 173 MV Act – Scope of Interference – High Court held that findings on negligence and quantum were well-reasoned and based on evidence – No ground made out for interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed – Award dated 29.06.2020 confirmed – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs.

Income Tax – Reassessment – Second Reopening – Change of Opinion – Invalidity – Assessment for AY 2009–10 earlier reopened and completed under Sections 147/143(3) – Specific issue of interest-free loan received by assessee from closely held company examined – No addition made – Subsequent notice under Section 148 issued for same AY on same foundational facts – Held: Reopening based on mere change of opinion impermissible – Proceedings without jurisdiction [Paras 23–35].

Reassessment – Scope of Sections 147/148 – Abuse of Power – Once reassessment undertaken and concluded after conscious application of mind, Revenue cannot reopen assessment again for same transaction on different legal interpretation – Power of reassessment is an exception and cannot be exercised casually or repeatedly – Second reopening amounts to harassment and uncertainty in tax administration [Paras 31–33, 45].

Interest-Free Loan – Deemed Income – Sections 2(22)(e) and 2(24)(iv) – During first reassessment, AO examined interest-free loan under Section 2(22)(e) and dropped proposed addition – Subsequent attempt to tax notional interest as income under Section 2(24)(iv) based on same facts impermissible – Both provisions held to be “two sides of the same coin” – AO ought to have examined all possible legal consequences in first reassessment itself [Paras 34–35].

Failure to Disclose Material Facts – Extended Limitation – Section 149 – Revenue invoked extended limitation alleging failure to disclose fully and truly material facts – Held: Assessee disclosed primary facts including audited balance sheet, books of accounts and loan transactions – No obligation to disclose secondary facts or inferences – Invocation of extended period held baseless and contrary to law [Paras 36–41].

Primary vs Secondary Facts – Duty of Assessee – Assessee required only to disclose primary facts necessary for assessment – Drawing of inferences and legal conclusions is duty of Assessing Officer – Reopening cannot be justified on ground that AO failed to draw correct inference earlier [Paras 41–42].

Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Against Section 148 Notice – Despite availability of alternative remedy, High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 where proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights – Particularly justified where proceedings stayed for years and relate to stale assessment year [Paras 21–22, 43].

Constitutional Law – Arbitrary Reassessment – Violation of Fundamental Rights – Repeated reopening for same issue held violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of Constitution – Tax administration must adhere to certainty, fairness and rule of law [Paras 45–46].

Costs – Arbitrary Exercise of Power – Court deprecated conduct of Revenue in initiating second reassessment without jurisdiction – Token costs imposed to compensate petitioners and mark disapproval of arbitrary action [Para 47].

Decision – Writ petitions allowed – Notices dated 31.03.2016 under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings quashed – Costs of ₹1,00,000/- per case awarded to each petitioner – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 46–48].

Maintenance – Interim Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Sufficient Means – Physical Incapacity of Husband – Revisionist-wife sought interim maintenance claiming opposite party to be a practicing doctor having sufficient means – Trial Court rejected interim maintenance holding that husband had become incapable of earning due to grievous firearm injury – High Court examined scope and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as a measure of social justice for wives unable to maintain themselves – Held: One of the essential ingredients for grant of maintenance is that the husband must have sufficient means – Where earning capacity of husband is completely destroyed due to physical incapacity, requirement of “sufficient means” not satisfied [Paras 2, 8, 10].

Maintenance Law – Earning Capacity – Distinction between Unemployment and Physical Incapacity – Ordinarily, a husband is expected to earn according to his capacity and cannot evade maintenance by pleading unemployment – However, present case stands on a different footing where husband suffered grievous spinal injury with pellet lodged in spinal cord, rendering him incapable of sitting or practicing his profession – Held: Law does not compel a physically incapacitated person to earn when medical evidence shows inability to do so [Paras 12, 14A].

Conduct of Wife – Impact on Claim for Maintenance – Material on record showed that injury to husband was caused in a firing incident involving revisionist’s brother and father – Prima facie conduct of wife’s side contributed to incapacity of husband – Held: A wife who, by her own acts or by acts of her family members, causes or contributes to the husband’s incapacity to earn cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation and claim maintenance – Grant of maintenance in such circumstances would result in grave injustice [Paras 12, 12A, 14A].

Judicial Discretion – Interference in Criminal Revision – Trial Court considered pleadings, medical condition, and earning incapacity of husband while rejecting interim maintenance – No manifest illegality, perversity, or material irregularity found – High Court held that Trial Court neither exceeded nor failed to exercise jurisdiction – Revisional interference unwarranted [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order dated 07.05.2025 rejecting application for interim maintenance upheld.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 – Reversal of Acquittal – Trial Court acquitted accused on ground that complainant failed to prove financial capacity to advance loan of ₹10,00,000 – Lower appellate Court reversed acquittal and convicted accused – Held: Once issuance of cheque and signature are admitted, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise – Trial Court erred in insisting upon proof of source of funds without accused discharging initial burden [Paras 2, 5].

Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act – Burden of Proof – Accused did not dispute signature or issuance of cheque – Defence that cheque was misused not supported by any material evidence – Mere suggestion or denial insufficient to rebut statutory presumption – Accused failed to probabilise defence [Paras 4–5].

Financial Capacity of Complainant – Requirement of Proof – Complainant stated that loan amount was mobilised from known persons and agricultural income – Sale deed produced to show ownership of agricultural land – Held: At initial stage, complainant is not required to prove financial capacity unless accused lays foundation in reply notice or evidence – Failure to reply to statutory notice strengthens complainant’s case [Paras 3, 6].

Failure to Reply to Statutory Notice – Adverse Inference – Accused neither replied to demand notice nor paid cheque amount – Held: Failure to reply to statutory notice permits inference that defence is an afterthought – Reliance placed on Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar [Paras 2, 6].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Judgment of Conviction – Lower appellate Court gave cogent reasons for reversing acquittal – Judgment found to be well-reasoned and based on evidence – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 374(2) CrPC [Para 5].

Sentence – Non-compliance of Suspension Order – Accused failed to comply with condition of deposit while seeking suspension of sentence – Held: Trial Court directed to secure accused for undergoing sentence [Para 5].

Family Pension – Recovery of Excess Payment – Bank Error – Widow Pensioner – Demand Notice Challenged – Excess family pension paid for more than a decade due to mistake of pension disbursing bank – No misrepresentation, fraud or concealment by petitioner – Recovery sought from widow solely dependent on family pension – Held: Recovery impermissible as being harsh, inequitable and arbitrary – Demand notice set aside to extent of outstanding recovery [Paras 1–3, 18–23].

Pension Law – Recovery of Excess Amount – Principles of Equity – Applicability of Rafiq Masih – Recovery from retired employee/family pensioner after long period – Excess payment continued for over 10 years – Court held recovery would cause grave hardship outweighing employer’s right to recover [Paras 12–14, 20–21].

Undertaking for Recovery – Effect – Consent on Dotted Lines – Exploitation – Undertaking furnished by widow authorising recovery from pension – Such undertaking obtained as a matter of routine held insufficient to justify recovery – Reliance placed on Division Bench judgment holding such undertakings exploitative and unenforceable in equity [Paras 22–23].

Pension Payment Order (PPO) – Binding Nature – Correction of Pension – While recovery barred on equitable grounds, petitioner held entitled only to family pension strictly as per PPO prospectively – No right to continue receiving excess pension [Paras 18, 23].

Employer–Employee Relationship – Bank as Disbursing Authority – SBI merely a pension disbursing agent – Excess payment due to clerical error of bank – Recovery from vulnerable pensioner deprecated despite absence of misrepresentation [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned demand notice quashed to extent of remaining recovery – Adjustments already made not interfered with – Family pension payable strictly as per PPO henceforth.

Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Section 24 CPC – Convenience of Wife – Paramount Consideration – Wife sought transfer of divorce petition filed by husband at Kurnool to Vijayawada where she was residing with a minor child and where multiple connected proceedings were pending – Distance between Vijayawada and Kurnool exceeding 300 kms causing hardship to wife – Held: In matrimonial disputes, convenience of the wife ordinarily deserves precedence over inconvenience to the husband, particularly when she is residing with a minor child and dependent on her parents [Paras 6, 8].

Multiplicity of Proceedings – Same Parties – Avoidance of Hardship and Conflicting Decisions – Wife had already instituted maintenance proceedings, domestic violence case, and criminal proceedings at Vijayawada – Husband attending proceedings at Vijayawada – Divorce petition filed by husband at Kurnool – Held: Transfer justified to consolidate proceedings at one place to avoid multiplicity and unnecessary hardship [Paras 6–8].

Section 24 CPC – Ends of Justice – Scope of Power – Power to transfer proceedings to be exercised where ends of justice so demand – Court to consider economic condition, social background, standard of living, and protective umbrella available to parties – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik – Held: Present case squarely falls within parameters warranting transfer [Paras 7–8].

Matrimonial Disputes – Socio-Economic Realities – Judicial Approach – Wife residing separately with five-year-old child and dependent on parents – Lack of male assistance and financial constraints pleaded – Held: Socio-economic realities of Indian society mandate liberal approach in favour of wife while considering transfer petitions [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed – F.C.O.P. No.78 of 2025 withdrawn from the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool and transferred to the Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada – Directions issued for expeditious transmission of records – No order as to costs.

Land Acquisition – National Highways Act, 1956 – Successive Declarations under Section 3D – Validity – Challenge to second notification dated 10.07.2024 issued under Section 3D(1) without issuing a fresh Section 3A notification – Allegation of change in alignment and arbitrary inclusion of petitioner’s land – Court held that no change in alignment was established – Issuance of two Section 3D notifications necessitated due to obstruction by landowners preventing survey – Both notifications part of same acquisition proceedings and issued within one year of Section 3A notification – Act, 1956 does not prohibit successive Section 3D declarations – Second notification held valid [Paras 6.2.1–6.2.13].

National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3C – Right of Objection – Limited Scope – Petitioner alleged denial of opportunity to file objections before issuance of second Section 3D notification – Section 3A notification duly published in Gazette and newspapers – Petitioner failed to file objections within statutory period – Right under Section 3C confined only to objection regarding use of land and not acquisition per se – Failure to object within time disentitles petitioner from raising grievance later – No violation of principles of natural justice found [Paras 6.3.1–6.3.9].

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Land – Bar of Judicial Challenge – Upon publication of declaration under Section 3D(1), land vests absolutely in Central Government under Section 3D(2) – Section 3D(4) bars challenge to such declaration before any court – Once vesting takes place, acquisition cannot be interdicted in writ jurisdiction [Paras 6.4.4–6.4.5, 7.1].

Compensation – Section 3G(3) – Alleged Procedural Lapse – Remedy under Section 3G(5) – Petitioner contended non-compliance with mandatory requirement of public notice before determination of compensation – Court held that even assuming procedural irregularity, it would not vitiate acquisition – Dispute relates to quantum and classification of land – Statutory remedy of arbitration under Section 3G(5) held to be efficacious – Writ petition not maintainable on this ground [Paras 6.4.1–6.4.6].

Judicial Review – Highway Projects – Limited Interference – Decisions regarding alignment, feasibility and extent of land acquisition lie within domain of technical experts – Courts not equipped to evaluate technical and policy considerations – Interference warranted only in cases of patent illegality or mala fides – No mala fides or statutory violation established in present case [Paras 6.5.1–6.5.4].

Public Interest vs. Private Interest – Infrastructure Projects – Widening and four-laning of NH-334D held to be project of national importance – Individual hardship cannot override larger public interest – Appropriate relief lies in fair compensation rather than quashing acquisition – Balance struck in favour of public interest while safeguarding right to seek enhanced compensation [Paras 6.6.1–6.6.5, 7.3–7.4].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Acquisition proceedings upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to seek enhancement of compensation through arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 – Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on merits of compensation or classification of land [Paras 8–8.1].