Excise Law – Suspension of Licence – Disproportionate Penalty – Petitioner’s licences under various excise categories suspended w.e.f. 16.3.2024 based on alleged seizure of truck-load of liquor without proper documentation – High Court finds contradictions between Inspection Report and FIR regarding whether liquor was bottled at petitioner’s plant – Court observes that penalties were highly disproportionate and offences were compoundable – Suspension cannot be indefinite or tantamount to cancellation – Held: Orders of suspension and rejection of representation quashed; authorities directed to determine compounding fee and decide renewal application [Paras 4–6, 15–16, 23–29, 30, 37–39]

Contradictory Findings – Inspection Report vs FIR – Inspection Report claimed seized liquor appeared bottled at petitioner’s plant – FIR alleged liquor was not bottled at the plant – Court held this contradiction undermines credibility of State’s action – Additionally, allegations regarding missing truck and its recovery with reduced stock absent from Inspection Report but added in FIR, indicating afterthought – Held: FIR appears to have been registered post-facto to cover deficiencies in original inspection [Paras 22–25, 33]

Admission of Guilt – No Admission on Critical Issues – State argued petitioner admitted to offences – Court clarified that responsibility was only taken for minor stock discrepancies, not for alleged illegal liquor – No admission regarding truck-load seizure or Krishan Kumar’s role – Mischaracterization of replies by Financial Commissioner – Held: Impugned orders incorrectly based on supposed admissions not supported by record [Paras 17, 32–33]

Employment Status – Custody of Seized Liquor Given to Unauthorised Person – Seized truck allegedly handed over to Krishan Kumar, who was not named in official employee list and was claimed to be a construction contractor – Court held that even if Krishan Kumar was a supervisor, handing over seized liquor back to same person from whom it was recovered defies logic and legal procedure – Held: Serious procedural lapse undermines validity of entire action [Paras 21–24, 26–27]

Licensing – Renewal of Licence – State contended licence deemed cancelled for non-renewal – Court held that renewal had been delayed in earlier years without adverse consequences – Further, suspension of licence prevented petitioner from applying for renewal – Held: Petitioner could not be faulted for not renewing licence while suspension order was in effect [Paras 34–36, 38]

Excise Regulation – Permissible Wastage – Punjab Distillery Rules permit set-off of excess and deficient wastage across months within defined limits – Court held minor variation in physical stock of spirit and liquor was within acceptable norms and could not justify harsh penalty of suspension [Paras 28–30]

Right to Trade in Intoxicants – Fundamental Right – Court clarified that while no fundamental right exists to trade in intoxicants per se, once licence is granted, licensee acquires a protected right to carry on business subject to law – State cannot act arbitrarily or deny recourse to legal remedies [Para 31]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders dated 15.6.2024 and 9.12.2024 suspending licences quashed – Commissioner (State Taxes and Excise) directed to determine appropriate compounding fee within 15 days and decide application for licence renewal accordingly.

Criminal Law – Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered by police under Section 13 of the D&C Act pursuant to Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Held: Only authorities specified under Section 32 of D&C Act (Drug Inspector etc.) can initiate prosecution – Police has no jurisdiction to register FIR – FIR under D&C Act quashed as without authority [Paras 40-44, 88]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Sections 274 and 275 IPC – Held: Though FIR under IPC is maintainable, ingredients of offences not made out – Allegation of adulteration not supported by material – Joint inspection found product of standard quality at time of dispatch – Adulteration, if any, occurred after delivery to complainant – FIR under IPC also quashed [Paras 45-60, 66-85, 89]

Criminal Procedure – Limitation – FIR registered in 2019 for offences punishable with up to six months – No charge sheet filed within one year – No justification for delay – Bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C. applicable – Investigation continuation amounts to abuse of process – FIR quashed on this ground as well [Paras 86-87, 89]

Drugs Law – Loan Licencee – Manufacturing Responsibility – Petitioner only provided manufacturing facility under Loan Licence to Respondent No. 2 – Held: As per Rules 75A, 69A of D&C Rules and judicial precedents, Loan Licencee (Respondent No. 2) is deemed manufacturer and responsible for drug quality – Petitioners not liable under D&C Act [Paras 64-70]

Commercial Dispute – Civil Nature Given Criminal Colour – Allegations arose from failure of Respondent No. 2 to sell drugs in market – Parties had arbitration agreement – Nil award given holding likely tampering by Respondent – Held: Dispute purely civil/commercial – Criminal proceedings abuse of process [Paras 20-21, 82-84]

Decision:

FIR No. 053/2019 under Sections 274/275 IPC and Section 13 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, registered at PS Okhla Industrial Area, quashed – Observations confined to FIR proceedings only – Petition allowed [Paras 90-91]

Civil Procedure – Section 96 CPC – Registered Relinquishment Deed – Unilateral Cancellation Invalid – Appellant relied on unregistered “Deed of Cancellation” of 2010 relinquishment – Held: Such cancellation has no legal effect under Registration Act, 1908; remedy lies in separate cancellation suit, which is now time-barred – Exclusive ownership of Shop No.1/12 with respondent upheld [Paras 18-21, 25].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Pleading Requirement – General Allegations Insufficient – Plea of fraud in execution of relinquishment deed rejected – Court reiterated that fraud must be pleaded with full particulars under Order VI Rule 4 CPC; vague averments cannot invalidate a registered deed [Paras 20-22].

Benami Transactions – Section 2(9)(A)(b)(ii) and Section 4, Benami Act – Fiduciary Capacity Exception – Not Attracted – Claim that Shop No.1/13 was purchased benami by father in name of respondent – No evidence of fiduciary relationship or trust obligation – Exception under Section 2(9)(A)(b)(ii) inapplicable – Suit barred under Section 4 [Paras 26-31].

Partition – Preliminary Decree – Mangolpuri Property – Trial Court rightly declared 1/6th share each to six siblings in S-350, Mangolpuri – Local Commissioner appointed for metes-and-bounds partition – Status quo directed to continue pending final decree [Para 13, 32].

Joint Family Property – Proof of Common Funds – Sikandarabad Property – Appellant failed to produce documentary proof of purchase from joint family resources – Treated as self-acquired property of respondent [Para 32].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge affirmed holding respondent as exclusive owner of Shop No.1/12, rejecting benami claim to Shop No.1/13, and confirming preliminary decree for partition of Mangolpuri property – No interference warranted [Para 34].

Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Proof of Sale Transaction – Appeal Allowed – Plaintiff proved Ex. A1 agreement for sale of 11.538 cents at ₹70,000/cent and advance payment of ₹7 lakhs (87% of consideration); defendant’s plea of loan transaction rejected as unsupported by evidence – Held: Specific performance granted on deposit of balance with 8% interest [Paras 8–16, 19–21].

Sale Agreement – Authenticity – Defendant admitted signatures on Ex. A1 and endorsement Ex. A1(a); plea that payment of ₹2 lakhs was interest disbelieved as implying 40% rate – Court held additional ₹2 lakhs was further advance towards sale consideration [Paras 8–12].

Inadequacy of Price – Defendant’s plea that land was worth ₹5–8 lakhs/cent rejected – Evidence of DW2 valuer unreliable; Ex. A2 sale deed of 1991 showed value of only ₹16,900/cent – Price of ₹70,000/cent in 1995 held reasonable [Paras 13–15].

Specific Relief Act – Section 20 (Unamended) – Discretion – Plaintiff had paid 87% of consideration and was ready and willing; refusal would cause irreparable loss – Discretion exercised in favour of decree for specific performance – Amendment of 2018 held prospective, not applicable to 1995 contract [Paras 16–20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Trial Court decree set aside – Specific performance granted – Plaintiff to deposit balance with 8% p.a. interest from 16.01.1995 within two months; defendant to execute conveyance or same to be executed through court – Parties to bear own costs [Para 21].

Criminal Revision – Further Investigation – BNSS Ss. 438 & 442 – Petition Allowed – Petitioner, also victim of ₹50,000 job fraud, challenged Magistrate’s refusal to order further investigation despite final report (FRT) filed – Held: Magistrate retains discretion under S.173(8) CrPC to direct further probe at any stage before trial; impugned order set aside for fresh hearing [Paras 1–7].

Investigation – Lacunae and Defects – Court found serious lapses: failure to trace prime accused, inadequate inquiry into bank accounts and transactions involving multiple victims – Noted that I.O.’s conclusion of “no negligence” contradicted record; such defective investigation warrants judicial intervention for justice [Paras 2–6].

Principle of Law – Further Investigation vs. Re-investigation – Distinguished by Supreme Court: further investigation permissible even after cognizance; re-investigation requires higher scrutiny – Court reiterated that additional evidence can be gathered through supplementary report under S.173(8) CrPC to unearth truth [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Revisional application allowed – Magistrate’s order dated 30.07.2025 set aside – Matter remanded for fresh consideration of plea for further investigation, with direction to hear both parties and pass reasoned order uninfluenced by earlier observations [Para 7].

Domestic Violence Act – Section 12 Application – Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Petitioners sought to quash D.V. Case No. 1 of 2025 filed by daughter-in-law alleging dowry demand and domestic abuse – Held: Proceedings under Chapter IV of D.V. Act are civil in nature and do not constitute criminal proceedings until breach of protection order under Section 31 – Therefore, petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable to challenge such proceedings [Paras 1, 4, 24–25].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Full Bench of Madras High Court in Arul Daniel v. Suganya (2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5435) held that Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash Section 12 D.V. Act proceedings – Remedy lies in approaching Magistrate directly or by appeal under Section 29 of D.V. Act – Petitioners relied on Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158), but Supreme Court was not informed of earlier binding precedent in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan and Constitution Bench rulings [Paras 2, 5–11, 24].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Earlier Constitution Bench decisions in S.A.L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and four-judge ruling in Dargah Committee v. State of Rajasthan not considered by Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar – These decisions held that the character of proceedings depends on the nature of relief, not the tribunal – Hence, D.V. proceedings remain civil until Section 31 is invoked [Paras 13, 16–17, 23].

Remedies – Appropriate Forum – Reliefs such as protection, residence, compensation under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act are civil remedies – Appropriate recourse is to Magistrate under the Act or to file appeal under Section 29 – Challenge under Section 482 CrPC impermissible unless criminality under Section 31 arises [Paras 8, 18–22, 24].

High Court Practice – Directions to Registry – Registry directed not to entertain or number any petition under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash D.V. Act proceedings at a pre-cognizance stage – Orders of Full Bench in Arul Daniel to be followed strictly [Para 26].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition dismissed at SR stage – Held not maintainable under Section 482 CrPC as proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act are civil in nature and have not reached the stage of criminality under Section 31 – Petitioners directed to avail alternate remedies under the D.V. Act [Paras 24–25].

NDPS Act – Possession of 1 Kg Opium – Section 18 – Sentence Modified – Conviction affirmed – Appellant convicted in 2011 for offence under S.18 NDPS Act, sentenced to 2 years R.I. and ₹10,000 fine – Having already undergone over 3 months’ custody and trial prolonged for 21 years, High Court reduced sentence to period already undergone while enhancing fine to ₹30,000 – Held: Right to speedy trial, age, financial hardship and proportionality principles justified leniency [Paras 6–11].

Sentencing – Principles – Court reiterated that sentencing discretion must balance gravity of offence, proportionality, reformation, and deterrence – Reliance on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 257 (discretion in awarding sentence within statutory range) and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., AIR 2017 SC 1186 (sentencing serves social purpose) – Long pendency and minimal custody favoured modification [Paras 7–8].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Prolonged trial spanning 21 years taken into account as mitigating factor – Court emphasised that delay itself causes mental agony and social hardship and must weigh in sentencing [Para 10].

Supreme Court Precedents – Relief also guided by Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 – Sentences can be moulded to period undergone when justice so demands [Para 10].

Decision – Conviction under Section 18 NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced to already undergone (3 months 20 days) – Fine enhanced from ₹10,000 to ₹30,000 payable within 3 months, failing which appellant to undergo 3 months R.I. – Appeal partly allowed with modifications; bail bonds discharged [Paras 11–12].

Bail – BNSS Ss. 480 & 483 – Grant of Bail with Stringent Conditions – Petition Allowed – Accused allegedly conspired with co-accused to steal phones, debit card, confine complainant, attempt strangulation, and extort money; already faced multiple arrests in connected crimes in 2024–25 – Held: Considering detention of 67 days, completion of major investigation, examination of 14 witnesses, and fixed residence, bail granted with strict conditions to prevent absconding or witness intimidation [Paras 8–11].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – Court noted that bail cannot be denied as punishment at pre-trial stage; while gravity of offences considered, the period of custody and progress of investigation weighed in favour of bail – Previous dismissal of pre-arrest bail not a bar once investigation substantially complete [Paras 8–10].

IPC & IT Act Offences – Allegations involved conspiracy to administer sedatives, extortion using stolen digital devices and bank cards, and attempt to murder complainant by strangulation; however, custody beyond 67 days not justified when prosecution already examined key witnesses – Custodial interrogation no longer necessary [Paras 2, 8–9].

Bail Conditions – Accused directed to execute bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties; weekly appearance at PS; not to leave Andhra Pradesh without permission; surrender passport; refrain from threats or inducements to witnesses; cooperate with investigation; not to indulge in any future offence – Conditions aimed to balance liberty of accused with integrity of investigation [Para 10].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 enlarged on bail with conditions as specified; non-compliance to entail cancellation of bail [Para 11].

Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Beneficial Construction – Limitation – Award of Enhanced Compensation – Maintainability – Applicability of Banwari v. HSIIDC, 2025 AIR (SC) 165 – Section 28-A is a beneficent provision intended to remove inequality among landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification – Limitation of three months under Section 28-A begins from the date of the award relied upon and not from any earlier award subsequently set aside – Applications filed within three months from Reference Court’s award dated 30.01.2016 held within limitation – Order of SLAO dated 17.02.2022 granting redetermination at Rs.108/- per sq. mtr. with statutory benefits upheld – KUMS’ plea of limitation and non-maintainability rejected – Reliance placed on Banwari (supra), Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, and Hansoli Devi – Beneficial interpretation applied [Paras 7.1–7.22, 8(a)–(e)].

Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Section 28-A – Purpose and Object – Equality in Compensation – Landowners under same notification entitled to equal treatment – Provision to be construed liberally to extend benefit to inarticulate and poor landowners – Earlier contrary ruling in Ramsingbhai v. State of Gujarat held per incuriam – Pradeep Kumari followed as binding precedent [Paras 7.11–7.13, 7.19–7.22].

Limitation – Commencement – Date of Award Relied Upon – Not from Earlier Set Aside Award – KUMS’ contention that time ran from 1990 award untenable as that award was quashed in appeal – Cause of action arose only upon Reference Court’s 2016 award upheld finally by Supreme Court – Applications filed on 26.04.2016 within limitation [Paras 7.4–7.6].

Interest and Statutory Benefits – Re-determined Compensation – Collector empowered to grant solatium, additional amount, and interest as per Act – No illegality in award of such benefits – Financial burden on public body no ground to deny statutory compensation [Paras 7.9–7.10, 7.18].

Equitable Compensation – Equal Treatment to Similarly Situated Landowners – Constitutional and Statutory Duty of State – Section 28-A to be read in light of Article 31 and principle of distributive justice – Denial of benefit on technical grounds amounts to discrimination [Paras 7.17–7.22].

Decision – Leading Writ Petition Allowed – Connected Petitions by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Dismissed – SLAO’s Order dated 17.02.2022 Upheld – KUMS directed to deposit enhanced compensation at Rs.108/- per sq. mtr. with solatium, additional compensation, and interest within six weeks – In default, interest at 12% per annum from date of default till payment [Paras 9(i)–(v), 11].