LawforAll

▼
Sunday, September 28, 2025

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 8(c), 18(b) — Possession — Conscious possession — Proof — Principle of parity — Where two accused were jointly tried for possession of 5.5 kg opium, common evidence was led and conviction recorded against both — High Court later acquitted one co-accused (A-1) on ground that prosecution failed to establish conscious possession, holding evidence of mediators and Excise officials inconsistent and not specifying which accused was carrying the handbag containing contraband — State did not challenge acquittal of A-1 — Held, in such circumstances, on principle of parity, benefit of acquittal must equally extend to A-2 (appellant herein) since prosecution case, evidence and incident were identical — Conviction and sentence of A-2 unsustainable — A-2 acquitted. Criminal Trial — Parity — Principle of parity — When co-accused are tried together on the basis of common evidence, and acquittal of one accused has attained finality due to failure of prosecution to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt, the other accused is entitled to same benefit of doubt unless distinguishing circumstances exist. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 386 — Appeal against conviction — Appellate court’s power — Acquittal of co-accused in subsequent appeal — Applicability of parity principle — Acquittal of A-1 by High Court not challenged by State — Appellant A-2, convicted on same evidence, entitled to acquittal. held : Appeal allowed — Appellant (A-2) acquitted — Conviction and sentence set aside — Bail bonds cancelled; sureties discharged.

›
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 8(c), 18(b) — Possession — Conscious possession — Proof — Principle of parity — W...
Saturday, September 27, 2025

Criminal Law – Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC – Duty of High Court While deciding a criminal appeal against conviction, the High Court, as the first appellate court, is duty-bound to re-appreciate the entire evidence, including medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the defence version. Merely giving a short judgment without discussion of facts, evidence, or reasoning is not sufficient when liberty of the accused is at stake. A cryptic order of acquittal reversing the trial court’s judgment of conviction is unsustainable in law. Principles Reiterated High Court, as an appellate court in criminal matters, stands in a position akin to a trial court and must independently assess whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Pendency of cases and workload cannot justify abdication of judicial duty where liberty is concerned. Reliance placed on State of U.P. v. Ambarish (2021) 16 SCC 371; Shakuntala Shukla v. State of U.P. (2021) 20 SCC 818; and State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood (2023) 7 SCC 282. Result Supreme Court held that the impugned High Court judgment (02.05.2013) acquitting the accused was cryptic and de hors reasoning. Without going into merits, SC set aside the acquittal judgment and remanded the matter to the Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, for fresh consideration. Accused Anil and Imran to remain on bail subject to fresh bonds of ₹15,000 each with sureties before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Haldwani. High Court requested to rehear the appeals expeditiously. Disposition: Appeals allowed; High Court judgment dated 02.05.2013 set aside; matter remanded for rehearing.

›
Criminal Law – Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC – Duty of High Court While deciding a criminal appeal against conviction, the High Court, as...

Constitution of India – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition – Withdrawal – Second SLP – Maintainability – Where a special leave petition challenging a High Court order is withdrawn unconditionally, without seeking or being granted liberty to re-approach the Supreme Court, a second SLP against the same order is not maintainable. Principle of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC (withdrawal without liberty precludes fresh proceeding) applies to SLPs as a matter of public policy – Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P., (1999) 1 SCC 81, applied. S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar, (2023) 7 SCC 740, distinguished. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLVII Rule 7(1) – Review – Appealability – An appeal does not lie against an order rejecting a petition for review. Rejection of review does not result in merger; it only affirms the original decree/order. Remedy lies, if at all, against the parent order, not against the review dismissal. SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Section 13(4) – Borrower default – Loan classified as NPA – High Court directing repayment schedule – Challenge before Supreme Court by second SLP not maintainable once earlier SLP was withdrawn unconditionally. Doctrine of Merger / Res judicata – Public policy – Entertaining a second SLP in such circumstances would amount to sitting in appeal over earlier SC order and is barred by principles of public policy; litigation must attain finality (interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium). Held – Appeals dismissed as not maintainable. Connected applications closed. Liberty reserved to appellant to pursue remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law.

›
Constitution of India – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition – Withdrawal – Second SLP – Maintainability – Where a special leave petition ch...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss. 439(2), 401, 482 – Cancellation/Revocation of Bail – Held: Distinction reaffirmed. Cancellation of bail applies where accused misuses liberty, tampers with evidence, threatens witnesses, commits similar offences, absconds, etc. Revocation of grant of bail applies where order granting bail is perverse, illegal, or passed on irrelevant considerations – superior courts may set aside such orders. [(P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211; Abdul Basit, (2014) 10 SCC 754, followed)]. Bail – Delay in filing application for cancellation – Delay alone not fatal. However, long lapse of time coupled with good conduct of accused on bail weighs in favour of continuation of liberty. Bail – Factors for grant/refusal – While antecedents relevant, they cannot by themselves constitute a ground to deny bail. Period of incarceration and conduct during bail period may tilt balance towards liberty. [(Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763, relied on)]. Bail – High Court’s power – Once Sessions Court grants bail mechanically without considering relevant factors, High Court may either (i) remit matter for fresh consideration by Sessions Court, or (ii) itself assess and revoke, depending on circumstances. Bail Jurisprudence – Balancing liberty and fair trial – Supreme Court reiterates principle: “Bail is the rule, jail is the exception” (Krishna Iyer, J.). Court must balance individual liberty with victim’s rights and societal interests. Strict conditions can ensure trial integrity without unnecessary curtailment of liberty. Bail – Post-bail misconduct allegation – Affidavit by alleged victim (Abhiram) disowning FIR against appellant Vishnu undermined allegation of fresh offence. FIR in such circumstances did not warrant cancellation of bail. Practice & Procedure – Conditions imposed by Supreme Court – Bail restored subject to stringent conditions: Accused barred from entering Alappuzha district (except for trial). Mandatory police station attendance every alternate day. No tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. No deferment of cross-examination of eye-witnesses. Liberty to seek modification of restrictions post recording of all eye-witness evidence. Bail bonds to satisfaction of trial court. State directed to ensure witness protection and presence; trial court to expedite trial. Result – Impugned judgment revoking bail set aside. Appeals allowed. Accused to remain on bail subject to stringent conditions.

›
2025 INSC 1136 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.4197-4199 OF 2025 [ARISING O...