In a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court regarding the legality of evidence collection in a case involving the storage of cow meat in Karnataka, the decision of the Karnataka High Court to quash an FIR was upheld. 

The High Court's ruling was upheld by the bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, asserting that the sample collected by the Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department was illegally obtained and thus deemed inadmissible.

The case centered around the actions of Dr. Omkar Patil, the Assistant Director of the Veterinary Department, who had collected a sample of the alleged cow meat without proper authorization or notice to the respondents. The fundamental flaw in the evidence collection process was highlighted by the bench, emphasizing that Dr. Patil lacked the legal authority to gather the sample.

Furthermore, the entire prosecution's case was noted to have rested on this unlawfully obtained sample. Given the lack of legal basis for its collection, the High Court's decision to quash the FIR was agreed upon by the Supreme Court. 

The ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to due process and legal protocols in evidence collection to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.

It is noteworthy that the appellant, Joshine Antony, had argued that Dr. Patil was authorized to collect the sample under Section 10 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964. However, this argument was rejected by the court, emphasizing the limited scope of Dr. Patil's powers under the said provision.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation, the Supreme Court emphasized that evidence collection must be conducted within the bounds of the law. The dismissal of the plea underscores the court's commitment to upholding legal principles and ensuring fairness in judicial proceedings.