14 May 2025 Legal Updates

NON-PUBLIC SERVANT CAN BE CONVICTED FOR ABETTING OFFENCES UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi v. State Represented by Inspector of Police 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 13, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Facts

The appellant (P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi) was working as an Assistant Superintendent in Chennai Port Trust. Her husband was serving as Divisional Manager in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. In June 2009, an FIR was registered against the appellant's husband for illegally demanding Rs. 3,000/-. During the investigation, raids were conducted at their house. On December 31, 2009, another FIR was registered against her husband under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The check period for disproportionate assets was from September 1, 2002, to June 16, 2009. It was alleged that disproportionate assets worth Rs. 60,99,216/- were acquired during this period.

Trial Court

Found the appellant and her husband guilty and held that disproportionate assets worth Rs. 37,98,752/- were acquired from him. Appellant was convicted under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment

High Court of Madras:

• Dismissed their appeal and upheld the Trial Court's verdict

Key Legal Issue

Whether the appellant, as a non-public servant (in this context, as the wife of the main accused), could be convicted for abetting the offense under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Court's Reasoning and Judgment

1. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in P. Nallammal v. State (1999) which established that even non-public servants can abet offenses under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

2. The Court noted that abetment under Section 107 IPC can occur through: Instigation, Conspiracy or Intentionally aiding by act or illegal omission.

3. The Court found that the appellant fell under either the second or third category of abetment by:

• Actively concealing wealth by keeping assets in her name
• Allowing her husband to accumulate assets disproportionate to his known sources of income

4. The Court dismissed the appellant's argument that she was no longer married to the co-accused, stating that she was his wife during the commission of the offense. The Court observed that even if she wasn't his wife, it was immaterial as she had allowed him to accumulate assets in her name.

5. The Court also noted that the appellant herself was a public servant during the relevant period

Final Decision

The Court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to surrender within 4 weeks. 

KEY TAKEAWAY

Allowing a public servant to keep illegally acquired assets in one's name constitutes abetment.

PROLONGED INCARCERATION UNDERMINES RIGHT TO LIFE, CONDITIONAL LIBERTY MUST OVERRIDE BAIL RESTRICTIONS UNDER MCOCA: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Rajesh Kumar alias Raje v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 8, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan

Summary of the Judgment

This bail order deals with the applicant Rajesh Kumar's request for regular bail in a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA). 

Facts

The applicant was initially arrested in July 2017 with 3 kg of heroin, which led to an FIR under the NDPS Act. He was allegedly part of a drug trafficking syndicate along with co-accused Deepak (described as kingpin), Neeraj, Babu, and Sajan. Later, a separate FIR was registered under MCOCA alleging organized criminal activities. The applicant had spent over 6.5 years in custody with only 11 out of 100 witnesses examined

Key Legal Issues

Whether prolonged incarceration can be considered as a ground for granting bail?

Court's Reasoning

• While acknowledging the stringent bail requirements under MCOCA, the court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial incarceration must be considered
• Citing precedents like Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), the court held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be compromised even under special statutes
• The court observed that the applicant had already spent more than the minimum sentence (5 years) in custody
• The court noted that the applicant was not the kingpin of the alleged syndicate, had satisfactory conduct in jail, and had been granted bail in the NDPS case

Decision

The court granted bail to the applicant subject to conditions such as furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, Not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, Not leaving the country without court permission, Regular appearances before the trial court and Weekly reporting to the investigating officer.

Legal Principles Established

• Prolonged incarceration can override statutory restrictions on bail
• The right to speedy trial under Article 21 applies even in cases under special statutes like MCOCA
• Time spent in custody compared to potential sentence is a relevant factor for bail considerations

'COMPLETE SPECIFICATION' OF INVENTION IN PATENT IS SACROSANCT TO DETERMINE CASE OF INFRINGEMENT: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Crystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• 07.05.2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Facts

• Crystal Crop Protection Limited (the plaintiff) claimed that its registered patent for a weedicide was being infringed. Their patent was for a herbicide containing "Clodinafop (9%)" and "Metribuzin (20%)" plus a surfactant, dyeing agent/pigment, and safener.
• Safex Chemicals and others (the defendants) made similar weedicides called "RACER", "Trophy", and "Jodi No.1" but didn't include the dyeing agent/pigment. They argued this meant they weren't copying the patent.

Issues

• Does leaving out the dyeing agent still count as patent infringement under something called the "Doctrine of Equivalents"?
• Was the dyeing agent an essential part of the plaintiff's patent?

Court's Analysis & Decision

1. Doctrine of Equivalents Test

The Court used a three-question test from a case called Actavis v. Eli Lilly:

• Does the changed version achieve the same result in the same way?
• Would an expert know the changed version works similarly?
• Did the patent owner intend strict compliance with the exact wording?

The Court decided the defendants' products failed this test because the dyeing agent was crucial to the patent's core idea (helping farmers visually check if the weed treatment worked).

2. Essentiality of Dyeing Agent

The Court found the dyeing agent was essential because:

• The patent's Complete Specification emphasized the dye's importance in solving previous problems
• During the patent application process, the plaintiff had included the dye in their main claims, which now prevented them from claiming it wasn't important

3. Prima Facie Findings

• No direct infringement since the dye was missing from defendants' products
• No infringement by equivalents since the dye was essential to how the patent worked
• Interim injunction denied: The balance of fairness favored letting defendants continue business; the plaintiff could claim money damages later if they win

Order

Request for temporary ban on defendants' products denied; defendants must keep sales records. The case will proceed to full trial.

Key Legal Principles

1. Patent Infringement:

• All essential elements of a patent claim must be present in the accused product to count as infringement.

2. Prosecution History Estoppel:

• Patent owners can't contradict statements or changes they made during the patent application process.

3. Interim Injunctions:

• Courts avoid conducting mini-trials at the preliminary stage; challenges to patent validity are dealt with during the final trial.