Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Quashment of Proceedings – Denied – NDPS Act – Recovery of Contraband – Absence of Mentioned Quantity – Petitioner (A2) sought quashing of proceedings in CC No. 74 of 2023 under Section 482 CrPC – Contraband (10 small packets of Ganja leaves and ₹9,750) was allegedly recovered from the petitioner at the crime scene – FIR, seizure mahazar, and final report failed to specify the exact quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner – Court held that the absence of exact quantity did not vitiate the prosecution at the threshold, as the determination of charges and statutory compliance falls within the trial court's purview [Paras 12–18].

Statutory Compliance – NDPS Act Sections 52(A) and 55 – Alleged Violation – Petitioner contended that the contraband remained in police custody for over three years before being sent for sampling, violating statutory safeguards – Court observed that while delay was unexplained, the absence of specific mention of quantity in the records rendered the challenge under Sections 52(A) and 55 premature – Compliance and procedural lapses must be adjudicated at trial [Paras 14, 22–24].

Evidentiary Issues – Applicability of Precedents – Petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments (Noor Aga v. State of Punjab [(2008) 16 SCC 417]; Union of India v. Mohanlal [(2016) 3 SCC 379]) and a Delhi High Court judgment (Kashif v. Narcotics Control Bureau [Bail Appln. 253/2023]) – Court noted that the applicability of these rulings to Tamil Nadu was disputed due to specific procedural directives in the state – Trial court was deemed appropriate to evaluate procedural lapses and evidentiary impact [Paras 21–24].

Trial and Evidence – Premature Invocation of Section 482 CrPC – The Court emphasized that whether the case involved small or commercial quantities of Ganja, the framing of charges, and the determination of statutory violations required evidence-based evaluation at trial – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC was deemed inappropriate at this stage [Paras 19–25].

Decision: Criminal original petition dismissed – Proceedings to continue in CC No. 74 of 2023 – Petitioner’s complicity to be assessed during trial – Connected miscellaneous petitions also dismissed [Paras 25–26].
 

Motor Vehicle Act – Pay and Recovery – Owner’s Negligence in Verifying Driver’s Licence – Accident resulting in fatalities of rider and pillion rider due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent without a valid driving licence – Tribunal directed insurance company to pay compensation to claimants with recovery rights against the vehicle owner – High Court upheld Tribunal's findings, emphasizing owner's duty to verify licence and competence of driver – Appeals dismissed [Paras 4–11].

Tribunal's Findings – Violation of Policy Conditions – Tribunal found the accident caused by the first respondent’s negligence – Driver lacked a valid licence, constituting breach of insurance policy terms – Ordered compensation payment by insurer with recovery rights against vehicle owner [Paras 4–5].

Owner’s Duty – Verification of Driver’s Credentials – High Court reiterated that vehicle owners are obligated under Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act to ensure drivers possess valid licences – No evidence presented by appellant to show licence verification or competence test before hiring driver – Mere engagement of counsel before Tribunal without filing written statement insufficient to rebut breach of policy conditions [Paras 6–11].

Judicial Precedents – Liability and Recovery Rights – Cited United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru [(2003) 3 SCC 338] and Beli Ram v. Rajinder Kumar [2020 (5) KLT OnLine 1015 (SC)] – Affirmed principles that insurer must pay third-party claims but retains recovery rights against insured if policy breach proven – Owner's plea of lack of means to verify licence authenticity rejected [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – High Court held that failure of the owner to verify driver’s licence and competence constituted breach of insurance policy terms – Directed no interference with Tribunal's pay-and-recovery order – No costs imposed [Paras 11].
 

Taxation Law - Goods and Services Tax – Maintainability of Writ Petition against Show Cause Notice – Limited Jurisdiction – A writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice under Section 74 of the CGST/WBGST Act is not maintainable unless the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or ex-facie perverse. Procedural grievances, such as alleged non-consideration of replies, can be addressed during the statutory adjudication process under Section 74(9). Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioners failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or perversity in the issuance of the notice. [Paras 14, 19, 20, 22].

Input Tax Credit – Buyer’s Obligations under Section 16 of the CGST/WBGST Act – Non-Automatic Reversal – Recovery of unpaid taxes should primarily be made from defaulting suppliers, as clarified by the CBIC Press Release dated 04.05.2018, but buyers are not absolved from ensuring compliance with conditions for availing ITC under Section 16. Decision: Retrospective cancellation of suppliers' GST registrations does not invalidate transactions but requires buyers to verify claims of ITC. [Paras 8, 21].

Principles of Natural Justice – Consideration of Replies to Pre-SCN Intimation – Not Mandatory – A reply to pre-SCN Form GST-DRC-01A need not be adjudicated upon before issuing a formal SCN under Section 74(1). The petitioners' contention that their reply was ignored does not amount to a violation of natural justice as they have the opportunity to raise all defenses during the adjudication process. Decision: The issuance of the SCN was valid and did not breach the principles of natural justice. [Paras 9, 16, 20].

CBIC Press Release – Limited Applicability – The CBIC Press Release dated 04.05.2018 does not provide immunity to buyers against reversal of ITC unless exceptional circumstances exist. Decision: Buyers' obligations under Section 16 remain unaffected, and procedural safeguards under the GST framework provide adequate remedies. [Paras 10, 21].
 

GST Assessment – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Section 75(4) of GST Act – Orders Set Aside – The petitioner challenged the assessment orders issued under the GST Act for assessment years 2017-18 to 2021-22, alleging that no personal hearing was provided before passing the orders despite the adverse decisions contemplated – Held: Section 75(4) of the GST Act mandates that a personal hearing must be granted if an adverse decision is contemplated – The respondent failed to provide a personal hearing after the petitioner submitted their reply to the notice issued under Form GST DRC-01 – This amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice – Impugned orders set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 8-11].

Opportunity of Personal Hearing – Necessity Where Adverse Decision is Contemplated – The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice under Form GST DRC-01 but was not afforded a subsequent opportunity of personal hearing – It was observed that providing personal hearing before the petitioner’s reply was received does not satisfy the requirement under Section 75(4) – Personal hearing must be provided after considering the reply if adverse action is contemplated [Para 9].

Inspection and Allegations – Lack of Conclusive Evidence – The respondent relied on the petitioner’s advertisement on Indiamart.com to allege that the petitioner sold goods falling under a higher GST category – However, the surprise inspection conducted at the petitioner’s premises did not reveal any finished goods as claimed – The impugned orders were passed without adequately addressing the petitioner’s objections or providing proper reasoning [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Impugned assessment orders for all assessment years set aside – Matter remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration with specific directions to adhere to principles of natural justice, grant a personal hearing, and consider the petitioner’s reply dated 10/10/2023 – Respondent to pass final orders within four weeks after the hearing [Para 12].

Service Law - Pension Scheme – Switching Between DCRB and CPF Schemes – Rights under Clause 63(2) of DCRB Regulations – Employees who initially opted for the DCRB Scheme but later switched to the CPF Scheme can exercise their right to return to the DCRB Scheme under Clause 63(2), subject to refunding the employer’s share of provident fund and gratuity exceeding ₹70,000. Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the benefits of a beneficial legislation like the DCRB Scheme cannot be denied on mere technical grounds, provided the employees meet the stipulated conditions. [Paras 24, 40].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation of Clause 63(2) of DCRB Regulations – Clause 63(2) was intended to allow employees to switch to the DCRB Scheme even after receiving CPF benefits, subject to fulfilling conditions. Decision: The members of the appellant association were held eligible to apply for the DCRB Scheme benefits despite initially opting out, as Clause 63(2) must be interpreted liberally in favor of employees. [Paras 23, 32, 40].

Delay and Laches – Claim of Pension under DCRB Scheme – Not a Bar in Service-Related Claims – A delay in claiming pension benefits does not render the claim stale if it constitutes a continuing wrong and does not affect third-party rights. Decision: The Court rejected the argument of delay as the appellants’ claim did not prejudice the settled rights of third parties. [Paras 33, 39].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – Switching Pension Schemes – Mere delay or past conduct does not constitute waiver of rights under beneficial legislation. Decision: The members of the appellant association, though they opted out of the DCRB Scheme, did not waive their right to return, especially when the General Manager had acknowledged the availability of such an option. [Paras 32, 39].
 

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Sentencing Reduced – Appellant convicted under Sections 451, 376, and 506 IPC for committing rape, trespass, and criminal intimidation – Trial Court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment: 1 year for Section 451, 3 years for Section 506, and 7 years for Section 376 IPC, with fines imposed – High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence under Section 376 IPC to the period already undergone (3 years) based on mitigating circumstances and the prosecutrix's pardon [Paras 1, 16–17].

Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Reliability – High Court reaffirmed that a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if found trustworthy – Despite minor inconsistencies in her statements, the prosecutrix’s testimony was deemed credible and sufficient to convict the appellant – Medical examination corroborated the allegations of rape – Independent witness (PW4) partially supported the case by confirming that the prosecutrix raised an alarm immediately after the incident [Paras 6–9].

Defective Investigation – No Impact on Conviction – Appellant argued absence of FSL report and defective investigation – Court held that such lapses do not absolve guilt if the victim’s testimony is credible – Cited Dhanraj Singh v. State of Punjab [(2004) SC] to emphasize that defective investigation should not benefit the accused if sufficient evidence exists [Para 10].

Sentencing Principles – Mitigating Factors – Considering the appellant’s age (20 years at the time of the incident), lack of prior criminal antecedents, and the passage of 17 years since the offence, High Court invoked the proviso to Section 376 IPC (as it stood in 2007) allowing reduction of the minimum sentence of 7 years – Cited Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) SC] and Puran Singh v. State (NCT) of Delhi [(2010) Del HC] to justify sentencing leniency [Paras 14–16].

Prosecutrix’s Pardon – Impact on Sentencing – Prosecutrix’s affidavit forgiving the appellant further influenced the Court to reduce the sentence – Affidavit filed in 2011 acknowledged her pardon for the appellant’s unlawful act [Para 15].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Sections 451, 376, and 506 IPC upheld – Sentence under Section 376 IPC reduced to the period already undergone (3 years) – Bail bonds canceled, surety discharged – Judgment communicated to the Trial Court and Jail Superintendent [Paras 16–18].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Complaint filed by Power of Attorney Holder in their own name – Not Maintainable – A power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in their own name but may do so on behalf of the payee or holder in due course. The complaint is invalid unless the power of attorney holder has personal knowledge of the transaction, and this is explicitly averred in the complaint. Held: The complaint filed by Ranveer Singh in his own name instead of payee Pankaj Singh is quashed, with liberty to file afresh. [Paras 13, 16, 26-27]

Power of Attorney Holder – Authority and Knowledge – A power of attorney holder must explicitly aver their knowledge of the transaction in the complaint. Supporting documents and affidavits verifying personal knowledge are essential. Disputes regarding knowledge and authority of the attorney holder can only be resolved during trial. Held: The complaint filed by Mukund Goyal, husband of the payee, was found to have sufficient averments regarding knowledge of the transaction, and the proceedings were upheld. [Paras 16, 19, 21-24]

Summoning and Procedural Compliance – Failure to Appear Before Court – Non-compliance with summons or issuance of coercive measures by the accused prevents further examination of facts regarding the power of attorney holder's knowledge. Held: The absence of the accused does not invalidate the complaint or proceedings. [Para 23]

Quashing of Proceedings – Maintainability – Grounds for Quashing – Insufficient averments in a complaint or lack of explicit authority may justify quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; however, disputes over knowledge or authorization must generally be resolved at trial. Held: Proceedings in Application U/S 482 No. 28869 of 2024 quashed; Application U/S 482 No. 23721 of 2024 dismissed as maintainable. [Paras 19, 24-27]
 

Mutation and Vesting of Land – No Entitlement to Mutation – Appellants sought mutation of premises No. 15A, Armenian Street, Kolkata, based on a registered deed of conveyance. The Court affirmed findings that the property vested in the State as a "Khatal" under the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, 2001, as of January 18, 1982. Consequently, the appellants had no ownership or right to mutation – Held: Appellants have no locus to claim mutation. Mutation application rightly denied by Kolkata Municipal Corporation [Paras 64-65].

Jurisdiction of Thika Controller – Findings on Khatal Valid – While the Thika Controller found the land to be a "Khatal" and not a Thika property, the Court held that determining the nature of the property was within the ancillary jurisdiction of the Controller while adjudicating Thika tenancy disputes under the Act of 2001 – Held: Finding of Khatal status was within jurisdiction and valid. Appellants estopped from challenging the Controller's decision, having failed to appeal earlier [Paras 47-51, 62].

Suppression of Material Facts – Misconduct Established – The appellants participated in Misc. Case No. 26 of 2009 but failed to disclose this in their writ petition. They also suppressed the order dated January 28, 2011, and relied on an unverified document purporting to amend this order – Held: Appellants approached the Court with unclean hands, justifying dismissal of the writ petition and imposition of costs [Paras 67-75].

Costs and Section 340 CrPC Proceedings – Affirmed – Costs of Rs. 25 lakhs imposed for suppression of material facts and deliberate misrepresentation. Direction for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC upheld. – Held: Appellants’ misconduct warrants penal and financial sanctions [Paras 76-78].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Offence under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – Bail Granted – The petitioner, accused of receiving Rs. 65,00,000 on the promise of arranging a job in Australia and failing to fulfill the promise, resulting in the suicide of the complainant, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court held that the applicability of Section 108 of the BNS requires further investigation, and no conclusive observations were made on the merits. However, considering the petitioner’s detention period and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the Court allowed the bail application subject to stringent conditions. The petitioner was directed to execute a bond and comply with conditions to ensure proper investigation and compliance [Paras 6-10].

Bail Jurisprudence – Principle of Bail as Rule and Jail as Exception – Applicability – Bail Allowed – The Court reaffirmed the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, wherein it was held that denial of bail in deserving cases violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that continued detention of the accused was unwarranted and allowed the bail application [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Observations – Conditions for Bail – Safeguards to Prevent Abuse – Directions Issued – The Court imposed conditions, including the requirement to cooperate with the investigation, prohibition on leaving the country without prior permission, and assurance of good conduct, to prevent misuse of bail and to safeguard the investigation process. It was further directed that any violation of these conditions could lead to cancellation of bail by the jurisdictional court. Held: Bail granted with stringent conditions to ensure balance between personal liberty and the integrity of the investigation [Para 10].