The Supreme Court set aside a 2025 Gujarat High Court judgment that had revived the prosecution of a prison sipahi discharged in 1999 in a 1998 arms and explosives case. The High Court faulted the trial court for ignoring a precedent that did not exist in 1999, and in any event a trial at this distance of time would not serve the interest of justice (paras 2, 6-9).
The Supreme Court held that ‘GRD Powder’ and ‘GRD Mix’, sold as powder and biscuit, are not ‘non-alcoholic drinks and beverages’ under Entry 20(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and fall in the residuary entry. The taxable event is the sale, so classification turns on the form of the goods when sold, not the consumer's later use (paras 16-19, 29). Read ejusdem generis, ‘beverages’ covers liquids (paras 20, 23). The State's appeals were dismissed (para 31).
The Supreme Court quashed a cheating FIR against the power-of-attorney holder of landowners, after the High Court had quashed the same FIR for the landowners but refused the holder relief. The buyers had not acted on their 2012 sale agreement for years; the land was sold to another in 2016, and only then did they sue and complain (paras 3-4). The holder's culpability could not exceed the landowners', and it was "a classic case of casting the shadow of criminality on a pure civil dispute" (paras 17-18).
The Supreme Court quashed a Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act case against a woman's parents-in-law, holding that the allegations against them were vague and omnibus, attributed no specific overt act, and had no support beyond her own complaint and her parents' statements (paras 25-26). Applying Bhajan Lal, Arti Mehta and Geddam Jhansi, it said criminal law must not reach every family member without a clear factual foundation (paras 16-17, 26). The case against the husband was untouched (para 27).
The Supreme Court set aside the Prevention of Corruption Act conviction of an Assistant in the District Education Office, Saraikella, holding that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of the bribe. No trap witness saw the demand or the handing over of ₹5,000; the case rested only on the complainant's uncorroborated word (para 18), and recovery of the notes could not make up for it (paras 19-23). He had already served his sentence but pursued the appeal to clear his name (para 3).
The Supreme Court held that a contractor's claim for refund of GST, based on a contract clause promising reimbursement of service tax if it became applicable, does not fall within the contract's arbitration clause. The Chhattisgarh High Court was therefore wrong to dismiss the contractor's writ petition on that ground; the petition was restored for a fresh hearing on merits (paras 7-10).
The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court order quashing an NDPS case against an accused who fled the spot where 32.615 kg of ganja was seized. The rulings it relied on, starting with Tofan Singh, concerned convictions or bail cancellation, not a pending trial (para 11). A Section 67 confession or Section 53A disclosure has no evidentiary value at trial, but it is material the investigator may use to gather further evidence (para 13). The case was restored (para 15).
Applying the four-step test in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, the Supreme Court quashed a rape FIR and chargesheet after what it found was a consensual relationship that "went sour" (paras 4, 13). The complainant did not allege a promise of marriage used to entice her into a sexual relationship; the rape allegation came more than one and a half years later, and the complaint was filed specifically to coerce the appellant into marrying her (paras 8-9).
The Supreme Court quashed a chargesheet accusing a man of sexually exploiting a woman on the pretext of marriage after their consensual relationship of about three years ended. Applying Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, it held that consent under fear or misconception cannot be loosely inferred where both parties admittedly chose the relationship. The complaint showed no clear promise of marriage, the allegation was "clearly an afterthought", and a criminal prosecution "cannot be reduced to a strong-arm tactic" (para 7).
The Supreme Court granted bail to a man held for about one year and four months in an NDPS case involving an alleged 27 kg of ganja-patti, after the Punjab and Haryana High Court had refused it. Weighing the period in custody and the time the trial will take, the Court kept in mind Article 21 and the principle of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and enlarged him on bail on conditions to be set by the trial court (paras 3, 5-6).
The Supreme Court set aside the life sentence of a man convicted of raping and murdering his young niece in Sikkim in 2013, holding that the chain of circumstances was broken at several points. No witness saw him take the child, the recovery spot was open to passers-by, the bones recovered were of male origin, the forensic tests were inconclusive, and his Section 313 answers could not fill the gaps.
The Supreme Court dismissed Himachal Pradesh's appeal against the acquittal of a woman accused of strangling her step-mother and minor step-brother. The last-seen witness had improved on his police statement, the investigating officer never explained why or when he recorded the taxi driver and hotel worker, tower locations were never collected, and a DNA match on a trunk showed only that the accused, a regular visitor, had been there at some point.