Appeal of several individuals against their conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The appellants, originally convicted by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and whose conviction was largely upheld by the High Court of Telangana, argue that the investigating officer committed significant proceduralviolations regarding the seizure and storage of contraband, specifically 600 kgs of dry ganja. The Supreme Court finds merit in these arguments, noting non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and Standing Order No. 1/89, which dictates procedures for handling seized contraband. Ultimately, the court concludes that the possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out due to the improper handling and storage, leading them to grant the appellants the benefit of the doubt and overturn their convictions. Narcotic Drugs

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A, 323, 504, 506  – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4 – Quashing of summoning – Cruelty – Marriage took place on 17.06.2010 and the couple stayed at Varanasi for five days and proceeded to live in Kota on and from 22.06.2010 where they lived for most of the time – The complainant returned from Kota in October, 2010 and thereafter, it is said that on 16.08.2015 the appellants came to her house at Kota and demanded dowry by threatening and illtreating her – It is also alleged that they snatched her Mangalsutra and ran away. Admittedly, the marriage has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce passed

Penal Code, 1860, Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Acquittal set aside – Sentence reduced – Held that to attract Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree – If hurt of any nature is caused and it is proved that there was intention or knowledge to cause death, Section 307 IPC would stand attracted – Accused-respondent fired from his service weapon AK-47 and since he was a constable in the army, he was well aware that gunshot from such a weapon, if hits anyone will certainly result in causing death – Injured had sustained four injuries, two each on both the upper thighs and they were of grievous

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Quashing of complaint – Defamation – Offence u/s 500/34 IPC – Appellant is house buyer and respondent complainant is builder – They erected a board/banner visible to the public at large setting out in English and Hindi languages stating their grievance against respondent-complainant – All that the banner depicts is what they thought were their grievances against the respondent with whom they had a business relationship – The banner sets out that one of the issues was “ignoring grievances” implying thereby that there have been running issues between the two – something which is bound to occur in a builder-buyer relationship – The careful choice of the words, the conscious avoidance of intemperate,

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438 – Anticipatory bail order – Challenge as to – FIR under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 IPC – Held that it is not a case where respondent no. 2 has been released on anticipatory bail in a heinous offence – Though, ordinarily habitual offender ought not to be released on bail in a routine manner, however, in the case at hand, the High Court has elaborately dealt with the cases against respondent no. 2 – Once the benefit of anticipatory bail has been given by the High Court, the consideration for its cancellation has to be tested on the anvil as to whether the High Court has committed any serious error in law while

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, Section 2(17), 85(i)(b) – Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, Regulation 31C – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1986, Sections 22(1) or 22A – Employee State Insurance – Failure to pay contributions of ESI – Appeal against conviction – Basic point canvassed by the Appellant is that he neither held the post of General Manager nor was he the ‘Principal Employer’ during the relevant period, therefore, he could not be charged, much less convicted, for an offence under the Act repelled – Trial Court, the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court have returned concurrent findings of fact that the Appellant was liable, as in the record of Respondent No.2/Company he was

Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959, Section 25 and 27 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Motive – Appellant tried for murder of his own son – Motive remains hidden in the inner recesses of the mind of the perpetrator, which cannot, oftener than ever, be ferreted out by the investigation agency – Though in a case of circumstantial evidence, the complete absence of motive would weigh in favour of the accused, it cannot be declared as a general proposition of universal application that, in the absence of motive, the entire inculpatory circumstances should be ignored and the accused acquitted – Accused and the deceased along with the wife of the accused and his two other children

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(C) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313 – NDPS – Conviction set aside – Search and seizure – Recovery of bags containing Ganja, totally weighing 38.200 kgs – Prosecution’s evidence clearly shows that on 4th March 2016, one Seema Choudhari was found sitting with another accused in a Wagon R car – All the contemporary documents, including the memo of arrest of the same date, do not mention the name of the appellant as the accused – The accused is described as Seema Choudhari –  In the examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is not put to the appellant that she is the same person as