Facts:

The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The trial court sentenced the appellant to 18 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakh.

The High Court partially allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to 16 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2 lakh.

Issues:

Whether the trial court could impose a sentence higher than the minimum prescribed under Section 21(c) without considering factors enumerated in Section 32B.

Whether factors other than those mentioned in Section 32B could be considered while imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment.

Held:

The court clarified that the discretion of the court to impose a punishment higher than the minimum term is not limited to factors mentioned in Section 32B(a to f).

The quantity of the substance with which an accused is charged is a relevant factor that can be considered while determining the quantum of punishment.

The Court can examine a punishment higher than the minimum if it relies on an irrelevant factor not enumerated in Section 32B(a to f).

In the present case, where the appellant was found in possession of a quantity much higher than the commercial quantity, the punishment higher than the minimum was upheld.

The High Court's decision to reduce the sentence from 18 years to 16 years was affirmed, but considering the appellant's role as a carrier, the sentence was further reduced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2 lakh.

FACTS:

The plaintiffs, including the appellant and his late brother, filed a suit against the second defendant, the wife of 'B', seeking a declaration that she had no right in the suit property. The plaintiffs contended that the document of adoption dated 27.04.91, adopting the first defendant, was false. The trial court dismissed the suit, upholding the adoption. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.

ISSUES:

During the pendency of the appeal, the second plaintiff (second appellant) passed away. However, his legal representatives were not brought on record.

The High Court held that the appeal abated not only with respect to the second appellant but as a whole.

HELD:

The court observed that Order XXII, Rule 3 is applicable to appeals filed under Order 41 as well. It applies when a suit or an appeal is filed by more than one plaintiff/appellant, and on the death of one, the right to sue does not survive to the remaining plaintiff/appellants alone. In such cases, the legal representatives of the deceased party should be substituted; failure to do so results in abatement. In the present case, there were legal representatives available for the deceased brother of the appellant, but no steps were taken for their substitution. Therefore, the appeal abated with respect to the deceased brother, and the trial court's decree, upholding the adoption, became final with respect to him.

The court emphasized that allowing the appellant to proceed further and succeed in the appeal would lead to an inconsistent decree. The High Court would pass a decree declaring the adoption invalid, contradicting the trial court's decree that had become final. The court held that both inconsistent decrees cannot stand together, creating irreconcilable conflict. The situation would be the same even if the late brother had filed a separate suit.

The argument that an interlocutory order granting permission to prosecute the appeal despite the death of the late brother creates an estoppel against holding that the appeal abated as a whole was rejected. The court emphasized that the impact of the death of the late brother on the proceeding arises from the incompatibility of decrees, and the interlocutory order is not sufficient to overcome this legal obstacle.

REFERRED CASES:

Harihar Prasad Singh and Others vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh and Others 1975 (1) SCC 212

Ram Sarup vs. Munshl & Ors. 1963 (3) SCR 858

Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRS. & Ors. vs. Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (Dead) by LRS. & Ors. 2003 (3) SCC 272

State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram AIR 1962 SC 89

Facts:

Respondents filed a partition suit in 2007.

Decreed ex-parte in 2008.

Appellant and others filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, dismissed in 2010.

Appeal withdrawn in 2013, followed by a fresh appeal in the same year.

Issues:

Whether time spent in proceedings to set aside the ex-parte decree constitutes "sufficient cause" to condone the delay in filing an appeal?

When an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is dismissed on merits, is a regular appeal under Section 96(2) CPC barred?

Held:

The court held that the time spent in pursuing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is a "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in filing the first appeal. Emphasized that the right to appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a statutory right and should not be denied merely because the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed.

In the interest of justice, the court allowed the appeal, condoned the delay, and restored the appeal challenging the ex-parte decree. Noted that the appellant and others were not grossly negligent in pursuing their case. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter.

FACTS:

On 23.11.1997, a dispute over a road led to a confrontation between the accused and the complainant's family. The prosecution claimed that accused No.1 and No.2 fired gunshots resulting in the death of Somiben and injuries to others. The trial court convicted the appellant-accused No.1, and the High Court affirmed the decision.

ISSUES:

Identification of assailants in the dark agricultural field.

Contradictions in witness testimonies regarding who fired the fatal shots.

Recovery of weapons and corroboration of evidence.

Motive and its role in establishing guilt.

HELD:

The court considered the lack of evidence on lighting conditions during the incident, casting doubt on the identification of assailants in the dark. Contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the shooter and the recovery of weapons raised concerns. The motive was acknowledged but deemed a double-edged sword.

In the absence of conclusive evidence and doubts on crucial aspects, the court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused. The conviction of appellant-accused No.1 was set aside under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 25(c) of the Arms Act.

REFERRED CASES:

Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 141

Facts:

The appellant filed a civil suit for the eviction of the respondent from a property. The trial court and the first appellate court ruled in favor of the appellant. However, the High Court, in the second appeal, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and dismissed the suit.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the second appeal filed by the respondent.

Held:

The court observed that the High Court framed two substantial questions of law for the first time in the impugned judgment itself, contrary to the requirement of Section 100(4) of the CPC.( Para 12)

Citing the case of Surat Singh (Dead) vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors., the court emphasized that the procedure and manner in which the High Court decided the second appeal were not in conformity with the mandatory requirements of Section 100 of the CPC.( Para 14)

The court, invoking its authority, set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh. It emphasized the need for the High Court to frame proper substantial questions of law after hearing the appellant, in accordance with the law.( Para 15)

The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the controversy but remanded the case due to the infirmity in the manner the second appeal was decided.( Para 17)

Facts:

FIR registered against the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2002.

Charge-sheet filed in 2005 without including the authorization for investigation.

The prosecution's application to bring the authorization on record dismissed in 2008 due to a delay in filing.

Subsequent attempts to bring the authorization on record, invoking different provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issues:

Whether the dismissal of the first application on procedural grounds operates as res judicata for subsequent attempts.

The nature of the lapse in not filing the authorization along with the charge-sheet.

Held:

The Court held that the failure to file the authorization order was a procedural lapse and not a substantive violation of the law. The rejection of the first application was based on the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and not on merits. The court emphasized that substantive justice must prevail over procedural or technical justice. Therefore, the prosecution was permitted to bring the authorization for investigation on record.( Paragraphs 6, 7, 9, 11)

Facts: In a sexual harassment case, the appellants filed anticipatory bail applications along with a Vakalatnama before the Madurai High Court. The date on the Vakalatnama became a point of contention, leading to allegations of forgery.

Issues: The primary issue revolved around the date mentioned in the Vakalatnama, with the State contending that it was forged. The appellants claimed it was an inadvertent mistake.

Held:

The court emphasized that forgery, even if committed outside the court, affects the administration of justice.

However, in this case, the Vakalatnama could not be conclusively termed as forged. The appellants admitted their signatures but argued that the date was mistakenly recorded.

The court found the appellants' explanation plausible, stating that there was no evidence of intentional deception or fraudulent intent.

The court highlighted that fraud requires mens rea, and the accused must intend wrongful gain or loss to another.

The direction to lodge a criminal complaint against the appellants was deemed unjustified, as there was no prima facie evidence of an intention to cause harm.

The court concluded that the mistaken date in the Vakalatnama did not warrant criminal proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Decision:

The court set aside the direction to lodge a criminal complaint against the appellants, stating that the Vakalatnama's incorrect date did not amount to fraud. The court emphasized the absence of evidence supporting the allegations and the inadvertent nature of the mistake.

FACTS:

Nirval Singh, the respondent, sought compassionate appointment after the death of his father who was working with the appellants.

The policy for compassionate appointment dated 21.11.2002 was in force when the application was submitted.

The respondent did not receive compassionate appointment as the implementation of the policy was kept in abeyance for the consideration of a new policy.

ISSUES:

The delay in approaching the courts for redressal after a period of 7 years.

The change in policy from the earlier one to the new one.

The options offered to the respondent under the new policy, which he declined.

HELD:

Addresses the delay in approaching the courts and the change in policy. The Court held that the delay of 7 years extinguished the objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family. The abolishment of the earlier policy and the introduction of the new one meant that the application had to be considered under the new policy. The respondent failed to avail the options offered under the new policy.( Paragraph 7 )

Concludes the decision by stating that the offer of solatium could be the only remedy available at this stage. The Court directed the payment of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent within two months, considering the revised policy.( Paragraph 9 )

Facts:

The Respondent applied for the allotment of a flat under the Self-Financing Housing Scheme.

The Board allotted a flat, and after various proceedings, the matter reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court passed an order on 19.09.2012, conclusively determining the rights and obligations of the parties.

Subsequently, the Respondent initiated execution proceedings to enforce the Supreme Court's order.

Issues:

Whether a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings?

Held:

The nature of execution proceedings is independent and different from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a consumer complaint.

Execution proceedings cannot be considered a continuation of the original consumer dispute.

Revision Petition is not maintainable under Section 21(b) against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings.

The National Commission erroneously entertained the Revision Petition, which was not maintainable.

The Delhi High Court rightly set aside the Order passed by the National Commission on the ground that a Revision Petition was not maintainable against the Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings.