Interpretation of Rule 15 – Jharkhand Excise (Retail Rules 2022) – Imposing penalty on placement agencies for shortfall in Minimum Guarantee Revenue (MGR) – Court held Rule 15 should apply only when a placement agency fails to perform duties and obligations falling within its scope of work and causes monetary loss to JSBCL – Rule read down to mean liability of placement agency is confined to its scope of work and subject to principles of natural justice – [Paras 88-90]

Viability of Subordinate Legislation – Upholding Rule 15 – Presumption of intra vires nature of subordinate legislation – Judicial review parameters – Reading down the rule to conform with parent statute and constitutional principles – [Paras 72-74, 88-91]

Contractual Obligations – Jharkhand Excise Act, Retail Rules, and Agreement with Petitioners – Obligations under the agreement and rules cannot be contrary to the Jharkhand Excise Act and constitutional provisions – Contractual liabilities must align with the legislative framework and principles of natural justice – [Paras 82-84, 88-89]

Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit – Petitioner Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. – Forfeiture due to non-participation after submitting bid – Held to be premature and without a proper hearing – Directed to initiate fresh proceedings if required, in line with legal principles – [Para 95]

Decision: Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022, read down to limit the scope of penalizing placement agencies only in cases of non-performance causing monetary loss to JSBCL, in adherence to principles of natural justice.

Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit by petitioner Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. Quashed, with liberty to respondent JSBCL to initiate fresh proceedings if deemed necessary.

All writ petitions allowed in the above terms.

Bail in Economic Offence Case - Conditions - Petitions under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking bail in case FIR No. 120/2023 - Accused charged with offenses under IPC Sections 420, 120-B, Himachal Pradesh Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, and Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act - Allegations of embezzlement through fake websites and virtual currency schemes - Petitioners contend innocence and completion of investigation - Prosecution opposes bail on grounds of seriousness of economic offense and possibility of tampering with evidence - Court examines principles for grant of bail in economic offenses - Relies on jurisprudence emphasizing presumption of innocence until proven guilty, with bail as the rule and jail as the exception - Considers factors such as gravity of offense, severity of punishment, and likelihood of accused tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice - Noting completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet, finds no likelihood of immediate trial completion - Grants bail with stringent conditions including personal bond and sureties, appearance before court and investigating officer, prohibition on crypto currency business, property restrictions, non-interference with evidence or witnesses, and surrender of passport - Allows prosecution to move for bail cancellation if conditions violated.

Challenge to Recruitment Process – Petitioners, non-Punjab residents, challenged the recruitment advertisement (Annexure P-1) for 1746 constable posts claiming discrimination as no reservation was provided for candidates from other states – Held, petitioners eligible to apply under general/unreserved category – No entitlement to specific reservation for non-state residents [Para 2, 5].

Jurisprudence on Participation in Selection Process – Supreme Court precedents cited, establishing that participation in selection without initial objection bars candidates from contesting the process post-results – Referenced Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 which emphasizes non-entitlement to challenge a process post-participation if one has not been selected [Para 6].

Application of Constitutional Rights – Argument of violation of Articles 14 and 16 rejected – Court found no merit in claims of discrimination or unfairness in the selection process as open category was available to all [Para 7].

Decision:

Petition dismissed on grounds that petitioners participated in selection process without objection and lacked grounds to challenge post being unsuccessful – No constitutional rights violated.

Service of Summons – Dismissal of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Defendant's contention of non-receipt of summons – Allegation of false plea by defendant – Defendant's employee received summons on 20.02.2017 – Plaintiff argued defendant had knowledge of proceedings – Court finds no summons received on 14.02.2017 as claimed by defendant – Court considers confusion due to multiple suits and employee's lack of education – Set aside impugned order dismissing application – Defendant given opportunity to defend proceedings. [Paras 4-5]

Revision Petition – Deposit of amount – Stay of execution proceedings – Defendant directed to deposit sum with Trial Court – FDR to be converted into Auto Renewal Mode – Operation of execution proceedings stayed – Defendant to file appearance within specified time – Trial Court to proceed with matter – Matter listed for further proceedings on specified date – Copy of order to be sent to Trial Court for compliance. [Paras 7-9]

Disbursement of Industrial Promotion Assistance – Civil Appeal in High Court – State of West Bengal vs. Birla Corporation Ltd. – Intra-court mandamus appeal challenging the order for disbursement of sanctioned amounts to Birla Corporation Ltd. Under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 – Held, special package for ‘Mega Projects’ allows Industrial Promotion Assistance without financial cap, overriding other terms of the scheme – Directed State to disburse outstanding amounts to Birla Corporation Ltd. And verify additional claims. [Paras 1-35]

Eligibility for Incentive – Analysis – Birla Corporation Ltd.’s entitlement under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 as a ‘Mega Project’ – Discussed conditions of special package and definition of ‘Mega Unit’ – State’s contention of Fixed Capital Investment cap rejected – Held, no overall financial cap on Industrial Promotion Assistance for Birla Corporation Ltd. Under the special package. [Paras 9-20, 25-28]

Judicial Directives – State of West Bengal directed to disburse admitted amounts for financial years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 to Birla Corporation Ltd. – Authority instructed to verify claims for years 2013-14, 2014-15, and part of 2015-16 and disburse entitled amounts – Opportunities of hearing provided if claims are not allowed. [Paras 31-34]

Decision – Appeal of State of West Bengal dismissed – Orders of Principal Secretary quashed for lacking relevance and basis – Birla Corporation Ltd.’s entitlement under special package affirmed. [Paras 33-37]

Cheque Dishonor – Section 138 of NI Act - Conviction and Sentence Set aside - Criminal Revision against lower court's conviction and sentence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Petitioner convicted for dishonoring cheque issued as security - Petitioner contends cheque issued as security for another person's liability, not his own - Defense argues cheque issued with conditions, not presented without consent - Allegations against petitioner and company, but company not made party - Supreme Court precedent cited for necessity of company being arraigned as accused - Judgment setting aside conviction and sentence on grounds of procedural irregularity and abuse of process of law - Conviction and sentence set aside, petitioner acquitted and discharged. [Paras 1-23]

Bail Application – Accused Sah Jamal charged under Section 21© of the NDPS Act – In custody since 24-05-2023 – Application filed under Section 439 of CrPC. [Para 1]

Allegation of Procedural Violations – Petitioner contends wrongful implication, highlights non-compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act regarding handling and sending of samples to CFSL – Raises issue of samples not taken in front of Magistrate and discrepancy in sample identification (sample A1). [Paras 2-3]

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Cited Samarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing on proper procedures for sample seizure and handling as per Mohonlal’s case – Contends that non-compliance with these procedures casts doubt on the prosecution’s case. [Paras 7-10]

Court’s Analysis – Examines Section 52A of NDPS Act and relevant Rules – Notes procedural irregularities in the seizure and handling of the sample, aligning with principles laid out in Samarjit Singh and Mohonlal’s case. [Paras 4-10]

Bail Granted – Concluding that the petitioner overcame the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail granted subject to terms – Two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each, one being local – Regular attendance before investigating officer and court mandated. [Para 12]

Acquittal in POCSO and IPC Case – Criminal Appeal against Trial Court’s Acquittal Order – Minor’s Alleged Sexual Assault – Acquittal by Trial Judge – The respondents were acquitted by the Trial Judge in Special Case No. 39/2019 (Special Trial No. 03 of 2019) – The case involved alleged sexual offenses against a minor – The Trial Judge found contradictions in evidence and deemed the survivor’s testimony untrustworthy and unbelievable [Para 9].

Evidence Examination – Contradictions and Unreliability – The prosecution’s evidence, including that of the survivor (PW1) and her parents (PW2 and PW3), had inconsistencies and contradictions, specifically concerning the delay in reporting the incident and the locations where statements were recorded [Paras 13-17, 30.3, 30.6].

Medical Evidence – Assessment – No conclusive medical evidence indicating sexual assault; testimony of the doctor (PW 15) did not corroborate the prosecution’s narrative. [Para 25]

Delay in Filing FIR – Impact on Case – Notes significant 19-day delay in filing FIR. Finds the explanation of ‘family prestige’ by the survivor (PW1) insufficient and not substantiated by subsequent events. [Para 30.6]

Legal Principle – Presumption of Innocence and Appellate Review – Emphasizes the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused unless proven guilty. Asserts the duty of the Appellate Court to determine if Trial Court’s view is a possible one, not just a difference of opinion. Upholds the acquittal based on principles of criminal jurisprudence. [Paras 31-32]

Decision – Upholding of Acquittal – High Court finds no illegality, perversity, or error in the Trial Court’s judgement. Acquittal upheld due to insufficient evidence to convict the accused. Dismisses appeal with no costs. [Paras 32-33]

Sexual Offence Against Minor – Appeal against Conviction – Criminal Appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.06.2022 passed by the First FTSC (POCSO) Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur – Appellant convicted under IPC Section 324 and POCSO Act Section 5(L)(M)(N)/6 for sexually assaulting his minor daughter – Conviction based on the victim’s sole testimony, corroborated by her consistent statements despite absence of physical injuries – Held, the victim's testimony, being cogent and credible, suffices for conviction without physical injury corroborations, confirming life imprisonment and fines imposed. [Paras 9-37]

Credibility of Minor’s Testimony – Analysis – Held – Consistent and unchallenged testimony of the minor victim deemed reliable and credible, despite variations typical in the testimonies of young children – Medical evidence not contradicting the occurrence of sexual assault as absence of injury does not conclusively negate assault – Court relies on victim’s detailed accounts of repeated assaults which align with legal precedents affirming that the minor’s testimony can be sole basis for conviction in sexual assault cases. [Paras 10-20, 34-36]

Legal Precedents and Principles – Considered – Various Supreme Court decisions cited affirming the sufficiency of a minor victim’s testimony in sexual assault cases – Emphasis on the severe impact of sexual crimes on minors and the judicial responsibility towards safeguarding minor victims under the legal framework of the POCSO Act and relevant IPC sections. [Paras 12, 17-20, 26-28]

Decision – Upholding of Conviction and Sentence – Court dismisses appeal, upholding life imprisonment and concurrent sentencing as imposed by the trial court – Finds no merit in the appeal with substantial evidence and legal precedents supporting the conviction based solely on the credible testimony of the minor victim. [Paras 36-39]