Customs Law — Classification of Goods — n-Hexane — Chapter 27 vs. Chapter 29 — Burden of Proof on Revenue — Revenue sought classification of imported n-Hexane under CTH 2710.00/CETH 2710.12 (Chapter 27) as a petroleum oil/motor spirit on the ground that its flash point was below 25°C and distillation range was 63–70°C — Respondent-Assessee claimed classification under CTH 2901.10/CETH 2901.90 (Chapter 29) as a saturated acyclic hydrocarbon existing as a separate chemically defined compound — Held: Burden of proof in classification disputes rests on the Revenue — Revenue failed to discharge this burden as mere flash point below 25°C was insufficient without proof that n-Hexane was suitable for use as fuel in spark ignition engines, which is an essential condition for classification as Motor Spirit under Chapter 27 [Paras 41–43, 58].

HSN Explanatory Notes — Interpretative Value — Specific over General — Classification disputes under the Customs Tariff and Central Excise Tariff are to be resolved with the aid of HSN Explanatory Notes, which form the internationally accepted basis of tariff classification — Rule 3(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation mandates that the heading providing the most specific description shall prevail over a general heading — Chapter 29, Sub-Heading 2901.10 specifically names Hexane as a saturated acyclic hydrocarbon with six carbon atoms, whereas Chapter 27 provides only a general coverage of petroleum oils — Held: The specific entry in Chapter 29 prevails [Paras 44–55].

Separate Chemically Defined Compound — Impurities — Classification under Chapter 29 — n-Hexane, bearing the molecular formula C6H14 with a linear definitive structural diagram, qualifies as a separately chemically defined compound under Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 29 — Impurities present (other hexane isomers, sulfur, chlorine etc.) were unconverted starting materials arising from the fractional distillation process and were not deliberately added — Purity of 63.93% n-Hexane in the SGS Report matched Table 10 of the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia — Held: Presence of process-borne impurities does not displace classification under Chapter 29; imported product is not a mixture of acyclic hydrocarbon isomers excluded from that chapter [Paras 59–63].

Motor Spirit — Three Conditions — All Must Be Satisfied — For classification as Motor Spirit under Chapter 27/CETH 2710.12, all three conditions must be conjunctively fulfilled: (i) the product must be a hydrocarbon oil excluding crude mineral oil; (ii) flash point must be below 25°C; and (iii) the product must be suitable for use as fuel in spark ignition engines either by itself or in admixture — Revenue proved only the flash point condition — No evidence was placed on record that n-Hexane was used or suitable as fuel in spark ignition engines — Court followed CCE v. GAIL (India), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2130 [Paras 56–58].

DGFT Policy Circular — Binding Classification — Policy Circular No. 40(RE-2003)/2002-2007 dated 14.07.2004 issued by the DGFT categorically clarified that import of Hexane falls under Chapter 29 of the ITC (HS) — Under Para 2.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy, the DGFT's decision on classification is final and binding on all authorities — Held: The Revenue's classification under Chapter 27 was contrary to the binding DGFT circular; the appeal was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone [Paras 64–66].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — Order of CESTAT dated 15.07.2011 affirmed — n-Hexane correctly classifiable under CTH 2901.10 and CETH 2901.90 (Chapter 29) — Pending applications disposed of [Paras 72–73].

Civil Law — General Power of Attorney — Alleged Misuse — Sale Deeds Challenged as Collateral Security Arrangement — Burden of Proof — Appellant executed registered GPAs in favour of respondents alleging they were merely security for loans — Respondents executed sale deeds pursuant to GPAs in favour of close relatives — Appellant failed to produce any documentary proof of loan, payment of interest, or repayment — Trial Court itself found discharge of loan not proved — Held: Burden of establishing that transactions were not genuine sale transactions rested upon the appellant; before burden could shift to respondents under fiduciary misuse principle, appellant was required to establish foundational facts of fraud — Foundational evidence being absent, initial burden remained with appellant [Paras 43–46].

Civil Procedure — Order XLI Rule 31, CPC — Non-Examination of Appellant — Adverse Inference — Appellant levelled serious allegations of fraud, forgery, and misuse of blank signed papers but abstained from entering the witness box — Attesting witnesses to receipts and GPAs, admittedly appellant's own relatives, were also not examined — No expert evidence adduced to establish forgery — Held: Adverse inference drawn by First Appellate Court and High Court was justified; a party possessing special knowledge of facts who fails to enter the witness box invites adverse inference [Paras 48–52].

Civil Procedure — Order XLI Rule 31, CPC — Substantial Compliance Sufficient — First Appellate Court framed points for determination and undertook detailed reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence on all issues including loan transactions, receipts, possession, mutation entries, limitation, and conduct of parties — Held: Requirement of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC is one of substantial compliance and not mere technical formality; judgment not liable to be set aside solely on ground of non-compliance where substance of appellate adjudication is present [Paras 40–42].

Civil Law — Mutation Entries — Evidentiary Value — Prolonged Inaction — Mutation entries stood in names of purchasers for nearly a decade, unchallenged before any authority — GPAs remained uncancelled — Further registered transactions took place without objection — Held: Mutation entries alone do not confer title, however when continued for many years, supported by registered transactions and remaining unchallenged for a prolonged period, they become relevant factors on possession and conduct — Unexplained delay of ten years in filing suit inconsistent with conduct of a person alleging fraudulent alienation [Paras 53–54].

Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Section 100 CPC — Scope of Interference — First Appellate Court being final court on facts undertook independent reappreciation and reversed Trial Court decree with reasoned findings — High Court found no substantial question of law — Held: No perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference; scope of High Court under Section 100 CPC is well settled and does not permit reassessment of factual findings [Para 55].

Decision: Appeal dismissed [Para 57].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Trial Court and sentence confirmed by High Court for murder of the son of the de-facto complainant, whose body was found in a field on 01.11.2012 – Prosecution relied on last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of weapons and motorcycle, serological report and oral testimonies – Supreme Court, on examination of each circumstance, finds none of them to qualify as incriminating and reverses the conviction – Appeals allowed – Appellants to be released forthwith [Paras 3, 18].

Last Seen Together – Time Gap – Proximity to Death – The last seen together theory is a relevant incriminating circumstance only when the gap between the accused and the deceased being seen together and the death is proximate – Where the time gap is large, intervening circumstances may snap the link and prevent adverse inference against the accused merely on account of failure to explain when they parted company – In the present case, PW14 saw the deceased with the accused at 5 PM on 30.10.2012 and the body was recovered at around 10 AM the next day, the post mortem report placing death within 24 hours of examination — time frame too large to treat last seen as a proximate incriminating circumstance [Paras 7, 9].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Reliability – Conflicting Versions – Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence by its very nature – Where the confession spoken of by one witness is directly contradicted by three other prosecution witnesses who speak of only an exculpatory statement absolving the maker and implicating co-accused, the confession is not proved – An exculpatory statement implicating co-accused is unreliable and cannot be used against those co-accused for want of opportunity for cross-examination – Confession made when the accused was in the custody of a mob raises grave doubt of duress, further undermined by injuries found on the accused at the time of medical examination after arrest [Paras 10, 11].

Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Requirements – Concealment and Knowledge – For a recovery to be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the statement of the accused must specifically disclose a concealment and lead the police to the place of concealment from which the object is recovered – Where the seizure list merely records that objects were recovered "on being shown and certified by accused" without recording any statement of concealment, the recovery does not qualify under Section 27 – Recovery from an open field with free public access, without proof of concealment, is of no evidentiary value – Alleged weapons not produced in Court and not shown to the doctor to elicit medical opinion on causation, further rendering the recovery of no consequence [Paras 12–15].

Recovery of Motorcycle – Evidentiary Value – Motorcycle said to have been recovered prior to arrest of the accused and on information from PW12 — house owner PW9 failed to identify the accused — motorcycle not produced before the Court nor were its registration details placed on record — PW1 not questioned about recovery — discrepancies identical to those in the recovery of alleged weapons – Recovery of motorcycle of no evidentiary value [Para 16].

Witness Testimony – Credibility – PW11, a crucial witness to the last seen drinking together theory, unable to specify her employer, the name or locality of the house she claimed to be returning from — BDO office locality thickly populated reducing probability of open drinking — testimony does not inspire confidence — PW13 turned hostile — PW4, aunt of A3, admitted to being threatened by PW1 to depose falsely and gave contradictory answers even in re-examination — no credence can be placed on these witnesses [Paras 6, 17].

Motive – Absence – While motive is not imperative where the chain of circumstances is complete, absence of motive in a case of brutal murder is yet another circumstance adding to reasonable doubt when no link in the chain of circumstances has been established [Para 17].

Legal Services – Third Accused – Direction to NALSA – A3, who did not file an appeal despite having been convicted and imprisoned along with A1 and A2, directed to be provided legal assistance — Member Secretary, NALSA directed to coordinate with the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority to ensure an appeal is filed before this Court on behalf of A3 within two months — matter posted for compliance on 20.07.2026 [Para 20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled – NALSA directed to facilitate filing of appeal by A3 within two months.

Criminal Law – Bail – Murder – Cancellation – Cryptic and Non-Speaking Order – Respondent No. 2 accused of committing murder of the deceased along with two co-accused by firing multiple shots with country-made pistols – Sessions Court rejected bail upon consideration of gravity of offence, post-mortem report and recovery of murder weapon – High Court granted bail by cryptic order observing prima facie that Panch witnesses had not named accused in inquest proceedings – Held: High Court's order suffers from non-application of mind; impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 8-9, 16-17].

Bail – Grant – Parameters – Material Facts to be Considered – Judicial Discretion – High Court failed to consider specific overt act attributed to Respondent No. 2 in FIR, post-mortem report corroborating prosecution version, recovery of .315 bore country-made pistol along with spent cartridge at accused's instance, and witness statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS – Held: Judicial discretion to grant bail, though wide, must be exercised in a judicious and reasoned manner adverting to settled parameters, particularly in grave offences; materials prima facie implicating accused cannot be brushed aside [Paras 10-11, 14-16].

Inquest Proceedings – Scope – Section 174 CrPC / Section 194 BNSS – Non-Mentioning of Accused in Inquest Report – Adverse Inference – Scope of inquest under Section 174 CrPC is confined to ascertaining the apparent cause of death and does not contemplate recording names of accused or manner of assault – Non-mentioning of the author of the crime in inquest report cannot by itself be a reason to doubt accused's involvement – High Court erred in drawing adverse inference solely on the ground that Panch witnesses had not named Respondent No. 2 at stage of inquest proceedings [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2223 of 2026 set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration of bail application in accordance with law – Respondent No. 2 directed to surrender within one week to concerned jail authorities and to remain in judicial custody till appropriate order is passed by High Court on reconsideration – No opinion expressed on merits of the case.

Bail – UAPA – Reference to Larger Bench – Divergence in Application of Binding Precedent – Appellants charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 sought bail – During hearing, State counsel pointed to a perceived divergence among coordinate Benches in the application of the three-Judge Bench ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb – A coordinate Bench in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA expressed serious reservations on the manner Gulfisha Fatima applied K.A. Najeeb – Held: Where a coordinate Bench entertains reservations of a fundamental character about the application of a binding larger Bench decision, the matter must be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench – Registry directed accordingly [Paras 3, 14–16, 23, 25].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 vs. Section 43D(5) UAPA – Correct Approach to Bail – K.A. Najeeb holds that statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) do not per se oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail where continued detention violates Part III – However, the ratio is neither a charter for indefinite incarceration nor a mathematical command that mere passage of time must automatically result in bail – Held: The true question is how Article 21 is to be applied in a statutory field where Parliament has consciously imposed bail restrictions in respect of offences affecting national security – Neither extreme — mechanical bail on delay alone nor absolute insistence on Section 43D(5) — is constitutionally permissible [Paras 7–8, 20–21].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent – Coordinate Bench Cannot Unsettle Earlier Coordinate Bench – A coordinate Bench may distinguish, explain, or express doubt about an earlier coordinate Bench decision, but where the doubt goes to the root of the legal principle applied — particularly regarding the application of a larger Bench decision — the matter cannot rest at the stage of criticism – A doubt expressed in emphatic terms is still a doubt and not a declaration of law – Held: Disagreement must be resolved by reference to a Bench of appropriate strength; uncertainty in matters touching personal liberty and national security is itself an institutional cost [Paras 15–18].

Interim Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Pending Reference – Appellants having undergone substantial incarceration and the trial not likely to conclude immediately, it would be unjust to make them suffer continued detention merely because an important question of law has arisen for authoritative settlement – Held: Interim bail granted for six months subject to stringent conditions including personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two local sureties, surrender of passport, restriction on leaving NCT of Delhi, prohibition on contacting prosecution witnesses, and fortnightly reporting to the Investigating Officer [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Leave granted – Matter referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench to settle the correct approach to bail under special statutes where Article 21, prolonged incarceration, and Section 43D(5) of UAPA intersect – Appellants directed to be released on interim bail for six months subject to conditions – Trial Court directed to proceed with utmost expedition.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Grievous Hurt – Alteration of Conviction – Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC – Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC – Appellants convicted by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court under Section 307/34 IPC for assaulting informant Amar Singh with lathis causing fractures in both parietal bones, neurological complications and prolonged hospitalisation – Supreme Court, on examination of the concurrent findings, holds that prosecution failed to establish the requisite mens rea under Section 307 IPC while grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC stood conclusively proved – Conviction altered accordingly – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 24, 38].

Section 307 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Mens Rea – Intention to Commit Murder – To sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, both intention or knowledge to commit murder and an overt act in execution thereof must be established – The nature of injury, though an important consideration, is not by itself determinative; intention may be inferred from the type of weapon used, motive, parts of the body targeted, manner and force of blows, and surrounding circumstances – Gravity of injury and its being dangerous to life does not, without more, establish the requisite intention [Paras 25–32].

Intention – Inference from Circumstances – Spontaneous Assault vis-à-vis Premeditation – The incident arose suddenly when the injured intervened in an altercation involving a jeep driver – No history of prior enmity, no evidence of planning or premeditation, and no conduct showing a determined effort to cause death – Weapons used were ordinary lathis, not inherently deadly – Object of appellants appears to have been to deter interference rather than to cause death – Held: Requisite intention under Section 307 IPC not established [Paras 33–35].

Grievous Hurt – Section 320 IPC – Clauses Seventhly and Eighthly – Fractures in both parietal bones near the midline, neurological complications, prolonged hospitalisation and loss of power in right wrist brought within the definition of grievous hurt – Injury squarely covered under Clause Seventhly (fracture of a bone) and Clause Eighthly (injury dangerous to life/prolonged incapacitation) – Ingredients of Section 325 IPC fully satisfied [Paras 36–37].

Sentence – Period Already Undergone – Appellants sentenced to the period already undergone — Roshan Lal: 2 years 7 months; Sajjan Singh: 2 years 8 months; Satya Prakash: 1 year 1 month — Fine of Rs. 50,000/- each imposed, payable to the injured-informant, in default, six months' simple imprisonment – Bail bonds discharged upon payment; in event of non-payment, discharged only after serving default sentence [Paras 40–42].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference by Supreme Court in Criminal Appeals by Special Leave – This Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence – Interference is warranted where findings are vitiated by an error of law or procedure, misreading of evidence, inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence, or where conclusions are manifestly perverse and based on no evidence [Para 2].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC altered to Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC – Appellants sentenced to the period already undergone – Fine of Rs. 50,000/- each imposed payable to the injured-informant, in default six months' simple imprisonment – All pending applications disposed of.

Writ Law - Constitutional Validity - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 - Section 63(4) - Admissibility of electronic records - Petitioner Pune Bar Association challenged Section 63(4) read with the Schedule as unconstitutional for imposing undue hardship on litigants - Specifically challenged the requirement of disclosing hash values in Part A and obtaining an expert signature in Part B of the Schedule - Court noted that digital records have replaced physical documents and necessitated updated laws - Observed that hash values are electronic fingerprints providing a sure way of identifying and verifying digital data - Found that such requirements ensure authenticity and integrity - Held - The provision has a clear rational nexus with the object of the law and is not hit by the vice of manifest arbitrariness - [Paras 1-4].

Evidence Law - Expert Opinion - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 - Section 39 - Qualification of Expert for Part B Certificate - Dispute over whether an expert under Part B of the Schedule must strictly be an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the IT Act - Petitioner relied on a Madras High Court judgment to argue that restricted notification causes hardship - Supreme Court applied harmonious construction to Section 39(1) and Section 39(2) of the BSA - Noted that Section 39(2) is not prefaced by a non-obstante clause to exclude Section 39(1) - Held - In addition to entities notified under Section 79A of the IT Act - if a Court is satisfied on the basis of unimpeachable material that any other person has special skill and expertise in computer science and cyber forensics - such person may sign Part B of the Schedule as an expert - [Paras 5-7].

Evidence Law - Precedent - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 - Section 63(4) - Binding nature of High Court findings - Reference made to R. v. B & Anr 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 6084 - The Madras High Court had held that certificates under Part B must only be filled by Section 79A IT Act examiners - Supreme Court observed the High Court failed to consider Section 39(1) of the BSA - Held - The finding of the High Court regarding the restrictive definition of an expert under Section 79A of the IT Act for the purposes of the BSA Schedule shall not be treated as a binding precedent - [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Clarified that experts beyond those notified under Section 79A IT Act can sign Part B of the Schedule – Question of law kept open.

Bail — Cancellation — High Court granting bail without engaging prior Supreme Court order cancelling bail — Duty to identify supervening circumstances or fresh grounds — High Court's impugned order failed to advert to the earlier Supreme Court order dated 27.01.2025 cancelling bail, failed to identify any changed factual matrix or supervening circumstances justifying departure, and failed to engage with CCTV evidence, weapon recovery, and Trial Court's rejection of second bail application — Held: While no absolute bar exists against a High Court granting bail after cancellation by the Supreme Court, such bail must be supported by reasons demonstrating change in circumstances or fresh grounds — impugned order is perverse and unsustainable [Paras 23–24, 34–35].

Bail — Conduct of Accused Post-Cancellation — Absconding — Accused failed to surrender for approximately 42 days after Supreme Court's direction — NBW issued by Trial Court — Section 82 CrPC proceedings initiated — Plea that delay was due to pendency of Review Petition rejected — Held: Filing of a Review Petition does not operate as automatic stay upon the original order; accused was bound to comply forthwith — Contumacious conduct is a crucial factor in determining whether bail ought to be granted afresh [Paras 25–27].

Bail — Parity with Co-Accused — Not an Inflexible Rule — Accused Jeeshan attributed specific role of firing with country-made pistol and charged under Arms Act — Co-accused Aurangzeb attributed role of assault by knife with no Arms Act charge — Appellant's withdrawal of SLP against Aurangzeb's bail after his conviction in murder case not a dismissal on merits and creates no precedent — Held: Parity in bail cannot be mechanically applied where roles of accused are materially different [Paras 30].

Criminal Law — Section 307 IPC — Absence of Firearm Injuries Does Not Negate Charge — Accused fired weapon at victims who escaped by chance — Held: Section 307 IPC requires the doing of an act with intent or knowledge that it can cause death; if victims escape by chance, the offence is nonetheless made out — Argument that CCTV does not show actual firing is a matter for trial evaluation and not determinative at bail stage [Para 29].

Bail — Reasoned Orders — Duty of Court — Held: Bail orders must engage with material on record; mere recitation of "facts and circumstances of the case" without more does not constitute a reasoned order — Courts must also recognise the potential threat to life and liberty of victims and witnesses if an accused is released on bail [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Impugned order dated 22.09.2025 set aside — Bail of Respondent No. 2/accused Jeeshan cancelled — Respondent No. 2 directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith, failing which the Trial Court shall take necessary steps including issuance of NBW to secure his custody [Paras 36–37].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Civil Dispute - Abuse of Process - FIR registered after nine years regarding land dispute pending before civil courts - Complainant suppressed earlier complaint and introduced material improvements including allegations of extortion - Held - Criminal process cannot be permitted to become a weapon of harassment in disputes concerning title over immovable property - Dispute is predominantly civil in nature and continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of court - [Paras 36-41, 52-54]

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 - Forgery - False Document - Execution of Power of Attorney by parties claiming title despite a prior settlement decree - High Court held lack of title equated to forgery - Held - approach unsustainable - Essential ingredient of forgery is making a false document - Claiming property as one’s own or executing documents for property one does not own does not constitute making a false document under Section 464 if the document is not forged or fabricated and there is no impersonation - Equating a disputed claim of title with the making of a false document is an error in law - [Paras 44-45]

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 384, 420 and 511 - Cheating and Extortion - Ingredients of Offence - Absence of delivery of property - FIR alleged demand for money and partnership in property without specifying date or place - Held - Offence of cheating requires deception and consequential delivery of property - Offence of extortion requires delivery of property pursuant to intimidation - Where no money or property was delivered and allegations of threat are vague the ingredients of Sections 384 and 420 are not satisfied - Section 511 cannot be invoked where the foundational allegations are absent or vague - [Paras 46-48]

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Refusal to Quash - Criminal Antecedents - High Court relied on criminal antecedents of the accused to refuse quashing - Held - Criminal antecedents cannot constitute the sole or primary basis to decline quashing of criminal proceedings if the essential ingredients of the alleged offences in the impugned FIR are not made out - [Paras 50]

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 120-B - Criminal Conspiracy - Sustainability - Substantive offences not made out - Held - Once the substantive offences of forgery, cheating, and extortion fail to be established on facts the allegations of conspiracy under Section 120-B necessarily fail - [Para 49]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – FIR No. I-CR No. 504/2009 and all consequential proceedings including chargesheet quashed qua the appellants.