Supreme Court Acquits Accused in NDPS Act Case – Detailed Analysis of Procedural Non-Compliance – Supreme Court overturns conviction of Smt. Najmunisha and Abdul Hamid Chandmiya in narcotics case under NDPS Act. Elaborates on failures in lawful search and seizure, highlighting non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act. Identifies flaws in the prosecution’s approach: absence of prior written information or personal knowledge of Gazetted Officer justifying search at accused’s residence, discrepancies in raiding party’s testimony, and absence of proper authorization. These procedural lapses deemed sufficient to question the prosecution’s case integrity, leading to the acquittal of the accused. [Paras 28, 35, 36, 46, 47]

Inadmissibility of Confessional Statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act – Supreme Court’s Rationale – Relies on the landmark decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, reinforcing the principle that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessionals in trials. Clarifies the scope and limits of powers conferred on officers under Sections 41 and 42, emphasizing that these officers do not qualify as police officers authorized to investigate or file a police report, thereby rendering any confessional statements made to them inadmissible for conviction under NDPS Act. [Paras 50-52]

Upholding Fundamental Rights and Ensuring Fair Trial – Constitutional Imperatives – The judgment underscores the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution in ensuring a just and fair trial. Critiques the investigation for failing to observe due process, adversely impacting the credibility of the prosecution’s case and leading to a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights. Highlights the criticality of adhering to statutory safeguards in search and seizure procedures, as a balance between individual rights and social security. [Paras 24, 48]

Decision –  Acquittal – Appeals allowed – Convictions set aside due to procedural lapses and inadmissibility of key evidence – Benefit of doubt accorded to the appellants [Para 54].

Acquittal - Dishonor of Cheques – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Criminal Appeals against Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Cases - Appeals against High Court judgment upholding acquittal of respondent for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner, a partnership firm, alleged issuance of cheques by respondent that were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, claiming financial assistance provided to respondent. High Court found no conclusive evidence of legally enforceable debt or liability on respondent’s part. Supreme Court finds no perversity in findings of High Court and First Appellate Court, dismissing the appeals. [Paras 1-6, 12]

Burden of Proof in Cheque Dishonour Cases – Analysis – In cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the 1881 Act, once the signature on cheque and receipt of money in respondent’s account are established, burden shifts to accused to disprove the presumption of debt or liability. However, Supreme Court upholds High Court’s finding that in this case, the presumption of guilt was successfully rebutted by the respondent, with the petitioner failing to prove existence of a legally enforceable debt. [Paras 7-9, 11]

Interference with Acquittal – Scope under Article 136 of the Constitution – Supreme Court’s interference with concurrent findings of fact in acquittal cases is limited. Finds no perversity or absence of evidence in the concurrent findings of First Appellate Court and High Court. Dismisses petitions as findings were neither perverse nor based on no evidence. [Paras 11, 12]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals against Acquittal – Supreme Court dismisses the petitions, affirming the decisions of the High Court and the First Appellate Court. No substantial point of law warranting interference under Article 136. [Para 12-14]

Settlement and Discharge in Cheque Dishonour Case – Initial agreement in Lok Adalat failed due to non-fulfillment of financial obligations by the appellant – Subsequent payments made, including interest for delayed payment – Supreme Court focuses on substantial compliance and overall justice rather than strict adherence to procedural timelines – Held, the intent of the parties was to resolve the matter through financial restitution, which was fulfilled by the appellant. [Paras 1-15]

Compounding of Offences Under Section 138 of NI Act – Compounding at initial stages encouraged, but permissible at any stage – Despite full payment, complainant unwilling to compound the offence – Supreme Court emphasizes the compensatory over punitive aspect of the law, highlights overcrowding of courts with cheque dishonour cases – Consent of complainant necessary for compounding under current legal framework – Court finds continuation of criminal proceedings unwarranted after full restitution. [Paras 11-13]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Considering the appellant's compliance with payment directives, including the additional interest for delayed payment, and lack of fraudulent intent from the start – Court quashes all criminal proceedings against the appellant, including the pending criminal appeals against his conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act – Exercise of powers under Article 142 to do complete justice – Directed trial court to hand over the deposited Demand Drafts to the complainant. [Paras 14-15]

Rejection of Election Petition – Appeal against High Court’s dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of Election Petition – Appellant’s nomination for Assam Legislative Assembly scrutinized, and election won – Respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition, alleging false educational qualifications and financial disclosure by appellant – Supreme Court finds Election Petition lacking in precise, specific allegations, with no statement of material facts or particulars of alleged corrupt practice under Section 83 of RP Act – Election Petition does not set out grounds for declaring election void under Section 100 – Held, Election Petition against appellant to be dismissed. [Paras 1-26]

Material Facts in Election Petition – Necessity and Analysis – Held, Election Petition must contain concise statement of material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices, as required under Section 83 of RP Act – Vague, general allegations without specific details insufficient – Failure to meet these requirements renders Election Petition liable for dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. [Paras 13-21, 24-25]

Implications of Corrupt Practices Allegations – Standards of Proof and Pleading – Election Petition alleging corrupt practices must provide clear, cogent, and precise allegations – Standard of proof akin to criminal charges – Allegations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt – Inadequate pleadings on corrupt practices warrant dismissal of Election Petition. [Para 21]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Election Petition No. 1 of 2021 filed by Respondent No. 1 dismissed – Lack of concise statement of material facts and specific allegations in Election Petition lead to its dismissal. [Para 25-26]

Seizure and Confiscation under the Gujarat Prohibition Act – Appeal against High Court’s refusal to release a vehicle seized with liquor – Appellant sought release of vehicle under Special Criminal Application, bypassing Section 451, Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court clarifies proper procedural approach for custody and disposal of seized property. [Paras 1-6]

Interpretation of Sections 98 and 132, Gujarat Prohibition Act – Analysis – Confiscation and seizure powers under the Act – Distinction between powers of authorized officers and courts emphasized – Proper procedure for disposal of seized property underlined. [Paras 7-14]

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction Applied – Interpretation of Section 98(2) of Gujarat Prohibition Act – Court resolves ambiguity in the provision, reconciling it with the Cr.P.C. and other provisions of the Act. [Para 9]

Procedure for Release of Seized Property – Section 451, Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court delineates the proper course of action in cases involving custody of property seized during investigation – Directs Appellant to approach the appropriate criminal court for release of vehicle. [Paras 15-17]

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the High Court’s order – Appellant directed to seek remedy under Section 451, Cr.P.C. at the concerned criminal court. [Para 18]

Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3 and 5 - Appeal filed after an inordinate delay of 5659 days - High Court refusing to condone the delay - Special Leave Petition filed challenging the High Court's decision - Principles governing the condonation of delay discussed - Law of limitation founded on public policy to put an end to litigation by forfeiting the remedy - Discretionary power of courts to condone delay under Section 5 - 'Sufficient cause' for condonation of delay - Balance between liberal interpretation and strict enforcement of limitation laws - Court's obligation to dismiss appeals filed beyond the prescribed period - Duty of the courts to enforce limitation laws without equitable considerations - Application of law of limitation must be done with rigor, not affected by inconvenience or hardship to parties - Mere acceptance of judgment by other claimants not sufficient ground for condonation of delay - No interference by Supreme Court with High Court's refusal to condone delay, considering lack of due diligence and negligence by petitioners - Special Leave Petition dismissed.

Discharge - Criminal Appeal against High Court order setting aside discharge order – Allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420 and 120B IPC – Appellants established educational society and applied for approval from AICTE to start educational institutions – Allegation that appellants suppressed mortgage information in applications – CBI filed FIR and charge-sheet against appellants – Magistrate discharged appellants, but High Court set aside discharge order – Appeal before Supreme Court – Held, no evidence of deliberate deception by appellants – AICTE granted approval despite disclosure of mortgage in initial application – No evidence of inducement causing harm to AICTE – No criminal conspiracy established – Discharge order restored – Criminal appeal allowed.

Role of Accused in Cheating – Analysis – Held – No evidence of deliberate deception by appellants – AICTE granted approval despite disclosure of mortgage in initial application – No inducement causing harm to AICTE established – No evidence of criminal conspiracy by appellants – Discharge order restored.

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet against Appellants – Supreme Court sets aside High Court order and restores discharge order – No evidence of deliberate deception by appellants or inducement causing harm to AICTE – No criminal conspiracy established – Appellants discharged of alleged offence under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.

Validity of Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held – Limitation period for filing revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C is 90 days – No limitation prescribed for invocation of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C – CBI filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C long after limitation period expired – Held, CBI should have pursued statutory remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C – Appeal allowed.

Exercise of Inherent Powers of High Court – Held – Inherent powers can be exercised when no specific remedy provided in the Code – Cannot be invoked to nullify provisions of the Code – Specific remedy of revision available to CBI under Section 397 Cr.P.C – CBI should have pursued statutory remedy – Appeal allowed.

Partition and Separate Possession – Civil Appeal – Appeal against High Court judgment in a property dispute involving partition and separate possession of properties, including agricultural lands and business ventures – Supreme Court upholds Appellate Court’s decree for partition and separate possession, setting aside High Court’s misinterpretation of facts. [Paras 1-29]

Joint Family Property and Business Dispute - Dispute over whether properties and a garage business were part of a joint Hindu family - Initiated by Vitthalrao against descendants of his deceased brother, Laxmanrao - Trial Court held only agricultural land at Mouza Shendola as joint property; other properties and business as self-acquired by Laxmanrao - Appellate Court reversed, decreeing all properties and business as joint - High Court initially upheld Appellate Court but later reviewed to exclude certain properties from partition based on misinterpretation [Paras 3-5, 10-16, 22-29].

Joint Family Business – Analysis and Decision – Examines evidence indicating joint family business in garage operations named ‘Gajanan Automobiles’ and ‘Trimurti Auto Garage’ – Supreme Court finds substantial evidence supporting joint family business, contrary to High Court’s observation – Upholds Appellate Court’s decision recognizing joint family business from inception, not just post-1991 as per erroneous High Court observation. [Paras 15, 18, 19, 26, 28]

Misinterpretation of Appellate Court Judgment – High Court’s Review based on Erroneous Observation – Supreme Court finds High Court erroneously interpreted Appellate Court’s judgment regarding commencement of joint family business, leading to an incorrect review decision – Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s observation and its consequential order. [Paras 21, 23, 27, 29]

Judgment – Upholding Appellate Court’s Decision –  upholds Appellate Court’s judgment, decreeing partition and separate possession in favor of plaintiff, dismissing High Court’s review order based on incorrect factual analysis. [Para 29]

Delay in Filing Application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC – Condonation of Delay – Principles to be Applied – Discretion of the Court – Gross Negligence and Want of Due Diligence – Sufficiency of Cause – Liberal Construction of the Term – Reasonable Explanation for Delay – Adherence to Strict Proof – Doctrine of Prejudice – Concocted Explanation – Consequences of Negligence on Part of Litigant – Application for Condonation of Delay after 14 Years – Failure to Provide Satisfactory Explanation – Dismissal of Appeal Upheld. [Paras 9-11]

Quashing of Delayed Application – Discretion of Courts – Adherence to Justice – Lack of Bona Fides – Consequences of Negligence – Application of Limitation Act, Section 5 – Examination of Explanation for Delay – Failure to Demonstrate Reasonable Grounds – Gross Negligence and Inaction – Observance of Strict Proof – Dismissal of Appeal. [Paras 9-11]

Role of Courts in Condonation of Delay – Judicial Discretion – Consideration of Circumstances – Liberal Approach – Public Interest and Justice – Distinction between Inordinate Delay and Short Duration – Vigilance of Courts – Evaluation of Explanation – Consequences of Inaction or Negligence – Consequences of Fanciful or Concocted Explanations – Dismissal of Delayed Application – Upholding of Trial Court’s Decision – Affirmation by Revisional Court and High Court – Dismissal of Appeal by Supreme Court. [Paras 9-11]