Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dismissal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Accused Never Appeared – Magistrate dismissed complaints on 29.09.2014 and recorded acquittal despite accused not appearing from 2012 onwards – Continuous issuance of summons and warrants – Held: Section 256 Cr.P.C. contemplates acquittal when case is fixed for appearance/hearing and accused is before Court – Acquittal of an accused who never faced trial is patently illegal and contrary to scheme of summons trial [Paras 52-54].

Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Provision intended to protect accused from harassment when complainant defaults despite accused’s presence – Magistrate must consider whether complainant’s personal attendance was essential and whether adjournment justified – In present case, matter was not at hearing stage and accused never appeared – Invocation of Section 256 improper – Order dated 29.09.2014 illegal [Paras 46-49, 54].

Revision vs Appeal – Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. – Contention that remedy lay in appeal against acquittal rejected – Held: Where so-called acquittal is passed without trial and without evidence at post-cognizance stage, such order is grossly erroneous and amenable to revisional correction – Revisional court competent to set aside patently illegal order – No bar under Section 401(4) attracted in peculiar facts [Paras 56-57].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Sessions Court empowered to examine correctness, legality and propriety of order – Revisional interference justified where Magistrate exercised discretion arbitrarily and contrary to statutory scheme – Restoration of complaint by revisional court upheld [Paras 56-57].

Summons Trial – Scheme under Sections 251–255 Cr.P.C. – Presence of accused is foundational for framing substance of accusation and proceeding with evidence – Without accused’s appearance, trial cannot commence – Consequently, acquittal under Section 256 without accused facing trial unsustainable [Paras 50-53].

Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. – Dismissal for Non-payment of Process Fee – Record showed complainant continuously took steps for issuance of summons and warrants – Complaints not dismissed for default in process fee – Hence Section 204(4) not attracted [Paras 37-41].

Summoning Order – Challenge – Argument that cheque issued by company and company not impleaded – Complaint disclosed personal transaction and issuance of cheques by accused – No material to show cheques drawn on company account – Section 141 NI Act not attracted – Summoning order dated 25.02.2012 valid [Paras 31-32, 62].

Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. – Opportunity of Hearing – Allegation that accused not heard in revision – Record and conduct showed continuous evasion of process – No prejudice demonstrated warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 31, 56].

Expeditious Trial – Section 138 NI Act – Complaints pending since 2012 – Accused repeatedly avoided summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants – In light of Supreme Court directions in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act, trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Para 63].

Decision: All applications filed by accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Cumulative cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed payable to complainant within stipulated time – Application filed by complainant allowed – Trial Court directed to expedite disposal of all connected complaints in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Para 63].

NDPS – Regular Bail – Commercial Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 – Alleged recovery of 1,37,11,610 tablets weighing 5772.584 kg (with strips) – Petitioners alleged to be part of organised chain involving manufacture, marketing and diversion of NRx medicines through licensed and fictitious firms – Held: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted – Twin conditions cumulative and mandatory – No reasonable grounds shown to believe petitioners are not guilty – Bail declined [Paras 7, 10].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Scope and Application – Court reiterated that conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are in addition to general bail principles and both conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively – Satisfaction regarding “not guilty” requires prima facie assessment without conducting mini-trial – Condition regarding likelihood of re-offending to be assessed from entire factual matrix including role and antecedents – No case made out to dilute statutory embargo [Paras 7, 10].

Organised Diversion of Pharmaceutical Drugs – Licensed Entities as Facade – Petitioners contended that they were directors/proprietors of licensed pharmaceutical firms and transactions were lawful – Prosecution alleged large-scale diversion of NRx medicines through shell/fictitious firms and cancellation of licences – Held: Mere existence of licences or corporate structure does not ipso facto negate prima facie inference of organised illegal diversion – Commercial sophistication cannot shield criminal accountability at bail stage [Paras 9-9.2].

Section 67 NDPS Act – Voluntary Statements – Prima Facie Consideration – Statements under Section 67, disclosures regarding sale of crores of tablets to fictitious/inactive firms and coordination in supply chain placed on record – At bail stage, Court not to conclusively adjudicate admissibility or evidentiary value but may consider surrounding circumstances for limited purpose of Section 37 satisfaction [Paras 5, 9, 10].

Long Incarceration – Trial Delay – Effect under NDPS – Petitioners in custody ranging from December 2024 to May 2025 – 50 prosecution witnesses cited, none examined till date – Held: In view of seriousness of allegations, magnitude of recovery and organised nature of offence, incarceration period not such as to dilute statutory rigour under Section 37 – No case of inordinate delay attributable to prosecution so as to invoke Article 21 exception [Paras 7, 10].

Gravity of Offence – Societal Impact – Court took note of Supreme Court precedents emphasising menace of drug abuse and organised trafficking – Held: Alleged offence involves large-scale commercial quantity affecting public health and youth – Discretion in bail to be exercised with heightened caution in such cases [Paras 7, 10].

Decision: All eight petitions dismissed – No ground made out to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – Observations not to be construed as opinion on merits – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Local Governance – Special Grade Town Panchayat – Applicability of Statute – Karumandisellipalayam being a Special Grade Town Panchayat is governed by the District Municipalities Act and Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and not by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 – Arguments based on Panchayats Act held misconceived – Statutory framework under Urban Local Bodies Act applicable [Paras 41–46].

Burial Ground – Long Standing Usage – Revenue Classification as Cart Track – Evidence including 2000 Panchayat Resolution, Government Grant, Cash Book, Road/Street Ledger and Collector’s Report establish existence of burial ground at least from year 2000 and usage for over 70 years – Mere classification in ‘A’ register as cart track does not efface factual and customary use as burial ground – Court holds burial ground exists in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 [Paras 50–54].

Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 – Section 172 – Registration and Licensing of Burial Grounds – Obligation of owner or person in control to register existing burial grounds – Council empowered to regulate and notify – Absence of notification prohibiting burial elsewhere renders plea for total prohibition untenable – Subjective satisfaction of Council required for ban under Section 172(3) [Paras 56–58].

Reclassification – Pending Resolution – Town Panchayat Resolution dated 14.10.2025 seeking measurement and reclassification as burial ground – Matter under consideration by Revenue Authorities – Court declines to interfere at this stage and rejects mandamus to prevent reclassification – Ongoing statutory process not to be interdicted [Para 60].

Right to Dignity – Dead Persons – Disturbance of Graves – Collector’s report reveals levelling of graves and disturbance of burial sites – Held: Right to dignity under Article 21 extends to dead – Temporal sanctity of grave violated – Authorities ought to have initiated criminal proceedings under BNSS/Section 297 IPC – State reminded of constitutional and statutory duty [Paras 62–65].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Access to Burial Grounds – Denial or destruction of burial sites of Scheduled Caste community amounts to violation of Article 17 and may attract penal consequences under SC/ST Act – District Collector empowered and obligated to act – Failure to protect burial rights deprecated [Para 66].

Municipal Duty – Constitutional Mandate – Article 243W read with XII Schedule mandates Town Panchayat to provide and maintain burial and cremation grounds – Section 172(4) obligates provision and maintenance within municipal limits – Local body directed to secure and maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage [Paras 61, 67].

Decision:

W.P.No.37501 of 2025 disposed of with directions –

(i) District Collector to ensure segregation and proper fencing of burial/cremation area in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 –

(ii) Town Panchayat to maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage –

(iii) Revenue authorities to act on resolution dated 14.10.2025 and exclude burial area from classification as cart track –

(iv) Collector to initiate action against persons responsible for levelling graves –

W.P.Nos.36402 of 2025 and 44377 of 2025 dismissed – No costs.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order V Rule 20 – Substituted Service – Prerequisites for invocation – Held: Substituted service is an exception to the normal mode of service. It can only be ordered if the Court, after applying its mind to the facts and circumstances, records a satisfaction based on material on record that the defendant is deliberately keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that the summons cannot be served in the ordinary manner. A mechanical order for publication without exhaustion of primary modes of service is legally unsustainable. [Paras 26, 27, 36]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order V Rules 17 and 20 – Sequential compliance – Interplay between affixture and publication – Held: The provisions of Order V Rule 17 and Rule 20 must be read conjointly. Before resorting to substituted service under Rule 20, it is mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 17 (service by affixture). Where there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that registered notices or process server summons were ever sent, refused, or that the defendant’s residence was identified for affixture, the Court cannot presume service to be sufficient merely on the basis of newspaper publication. [Paras 20, 28, 31]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 21 – Recalling ex-parte decree – Sufficient cause – Duty of the Appellate Court – The first appellate court allowed an appeal ex-parte after ordering substituted service despite the lack of evidence of service attempts by registered post or process server. The appellant moved to recall the judgment under Order XLI Rule 21. The lower appellate court rejected the recall, presuming knowledge based on the defendant's subsequent appearance. Held: Such reasoning is a figment of imagination and perverse. Knowledge of the appeal cannot be presumed from conduct if the mandatory provisions for service of summons are breached. The original suit having been dismissed on merits, the defendants were entitled to a fair opportunity to contest the appeal. Impugned order set aside. [Paras 40, 41, 42]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order V Rule 21 – Service on defendant residing outside jurisdiction – Appellate Court situated in Ghaziabad while defendant resided in Delhi – Held: Under Order V Rule 21, the Court ought to have sent the summons to the competent Court in Delhi for effecting service. Failure to adopt this procedure while simultaneously allowing an application for publication indicates a lack of due diligence and procedural impropriety. [Paras 29, 32, 33]

Decision: Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 23.05.2024 is set aside. The application under Order XLI Rule 21 CPC is allowed. The ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.07.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 146 of 2011 is set aside, and the appeal is restored to its original number. The first appellate court is directed to decide the matter afresh on merits within four months. Parties directed to maintain status quo. [Paras 42-44]

Education Law – Medical PG Admission – NEET PG 2021 – Forfeiture of Fee – Respondents (Doctors) secured seats in initial allotments but surrendered them to participate in the Mop-Up round – They were required to pay/deposit 10% of the annual tuition fee (Rs. 1,57,500/-) as an "Exit Fee" per Clause 10-1.18 of the Prospectus (Ext. P1) – Single Judge directed refund/adjustment of said amount – Held: The respondents exited from seats allotted in the second phase or retained seats until the completion of the second phase with full knowledge of the Prospectus conditions. Clause 10-1.18 of the Prospectus explicitly provides that exit from seats already allotted is permitted only on forfeiture of 10% of the total annual fee. This condition is intended to prevent unnecessary exits that result in medical seats remaining vacant due to non-availability of candidates in subsequent rounds. [Paras 10, 15]

Administrative Law – Binding Nature of Prospectus – Challenge to Clauses – Respondents sought refund without challenging the validity of the forfeiture clause (Clause 10-1.18) in the Prospectus – Held: The guidelines in the Prospectus govern the admission process and are binding on the candidates. Since the respondents surrendered their seats to take a "calculated risk" for the Mop-Up round with full knowledge of the consequences, they are liable to forfeit the prescribed amount. In the absence of a specific challenge to the legality of the Prospectus clause, the Court cannot direct a refund that contravenes the stated admission guidelines. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects in the proper perspective. [Paras 7, 8, 15, 16]

Ratio Decidendi – In professional course admissions, forfeiture clauses in the Prospectus regarding exit fees are valid and enforceable to ensure seat discipline and prevent the wastage of specialized medical seats. Candidates who voluntarily surrender allotted seats to participate in subsequent counselling rounds must abide by the financial penalties prescribed in the governing Prospectus if they choose to exit after the cutoff phases. [Paras 12-16]

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No.16607 of 2023 is set aside, and the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Bar of Limitation – FIR under Section 304-A IPC – Alleged medical negligence leading to death during surgery – Incident dated 04.01.2015 – Challan filed in October 2019 – Offence punishable with maximum imprisonment up to two years – Petitioner contended cognizance barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as limitation period expired – Held that though challan filed beyond prescribed limitation, exclusion clause under Section 473 Cr.P.C. empowers Court to take cognizance after expiry if delay properly explained or required in interest of justice – Matter remitted to trial Court to consider plea of limitation before framing of charge – Petition disposed of with directions [Paras 5–14].

Limitation – Section 468 Cr.P.C. – Computation – For offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years – Period of limitation three years – In present case offence under Section 304-A IPC punishable up to two years – Cognizance ordinarily barred after expiry of limitation – However subject to Section 473 Cr.P.C. [Paras 10–11].

Extension of Limitation – Section 473 Cr.P.C. – Scope – Court may condone delay if satisfied that delay properly explained or necessary in interest of justice – Investigating Agency cited delay in obtaining Medical Board opinion regarding cause of death – Trial Court yet to apply mind to explanation furnished in final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – High Court declined to adjudicate issue at pre-cognizance stage – Appropriate course is to permit trial Court to decide question of limitation first [Paras 8, 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Exercise of Power – High Court held that at this stage it would not be appropriate to record findings on sufficiency of explanation under Section 473 Cr.P.C. – Parties granted liberty to avail remedies against order of trial Court, if aggrieved – No ground made out for quashing FIR at this stage [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Learned trial Court directed to hear parties on plea of limitation under Sections 468/473 Cr.P.C. before framing of charge and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay of 450 Days – Explanation of inability to contact counsel found unsatisfactory – However, considering that appeal involved important questions of law and fact relating to adequacy of compensation, delay condoned subject to payment of costs – Application allowed with condition of deposit of Rs.11,000/- in Junior Advocates Welfare Fund [Paras 1-3].

Costs – Welfare Oriented Directions – Court directed deposit of costs in “Junior Advocates Welfare Fund for purchasing Law Books” – Recognizing financial hardships faced by first-generation and young lawyers – Costs utilized for purchase of law/online books to support junior advocates below 28 years of age having practice between 1 to 5 years [Paras 4-9, 15-16].

Judicial Directions – Institutional Support for Young Advocates – Court issued comprehensive directions to Rajasthan High Court Bar Association to create separate bank account in SBI High Court Branch – Disbursement mechanism of Rs.5,000/- per eligible junior advocate on first-come-first-serve basis – Compliance report directed [Paras 15, 19-20].

Policy Directions – Scheme for Aid to Purchase Law Books – State Government, Bar Council of Rajasthan and Bar Associations directed to frame “The Rajasthan Advocates (Aid to Purchase Law Books) Scheme” – Provision for constitution of Purchase Committee, recovery mechanism in case of misuse, inspection of library, and voluntary contribution by senior advocates – Fund to be utilized exclusively for welfare of junior advocates [Para 18].

Access to Justice – Strengthening Legal System – Court emphasized that supporting young advocates through financial aid, mentorship, seating facilities and welfare measures is essential for strengthening justice delivery system – Welfare measures not charity but necessity for institutional growth [Paras 4-14].

Decision: Delay of 450 days condoned subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in Junior Advocates Welfare Fund – Appeal to be restored upon production of receipt – Directions issued for creation and implementation of welfare scheme – Matter listed for compliance.

Constitution of India – Freedom of Expression and Democratic Protest – Use of Loudspeakers – Trade Union sought permission to conduct mobile awareness campaign using two autorickshaws fitted with loudspeakers – Police rejected application citing presence of educational institutions, hospitals, no-honking zones and senior citizens – Court held that awareness campaign is a facet of democratic process and cannot be unreasonably restricted – Blanket rejection without considering imposition of reasonable conditions amounts to arbitrariness – Impugned endorsement set aside [Paras 1–4].

Administrative Law – Reasonableness – Exercise of Discretion by Police Authorities – While regulating use of loudspeakers falls within police powers, authority must consider whether concerns can be addressed by imposing conditions rather than outright denial – Noted that similar permissions were granted in other sub-divisions subject to safeguards – Failure to examine comparable circumstances rendered decision unreasonable [Paras 2–4].

Public Order and Noise Regulation – Conditional Permission – Court balanced competing interests by directing permission subject to safeguards including non-obstruction of traffic, avoidance of educational institutions and hospitals, compliance with noise pollution norms, prohibition on defamatory content, use of box loudspeakers (not DJs), and restriction beyond 10 PM – Held: Reasonable regulation permissible but not total prohibition [Para 3, Order].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Respondent No.2 directed to permit use of two autorickshaws with loudspeakers on 12.02.2026 subject to specified conditions – Liberty reserved to petitioners to produce certified copy for immediate compliance.

Criminal Law – Murder vs Culpable Homicide – Sudden Fight Between Brothers – Altercation over Construction of House – Trial Court convicted appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Evidence of sole eye witness (wife of deceased) showed initial scuffle between brothers – Accused were initially unarmed and later brought sword and baluwa – No prior enmity except dispute over house construction – No evidence of premeditation – Accused did not flee and were arrested at spot – Held: Ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC satisfied – Act committed in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel without premeditation and without undue advantage – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 45–60, 64–66].

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability – For attracting Exception 4, prosecution must show absence of premeditation, sudden fight, heat of passion, and no undue advantage – Court relied upon Arumugam v State, Surain Singh v State of Punjab and Pulicherla Nagaraju v State of A.P. – Mere fact that deadly weapon used does not ipso facto attract Section 302 if surrounding circumstances indicate sudden quarrel and lack of prior intention – Each case to be tested on facts to ascertain intention [Paras 38–41, 50–56].

Evidence – Sole Eye Witness – Related Witness – Testimony of wife of deceased found consistent regarding scuffle preceding assault – Medical evidence corroborated sharp-cut injuries on vital parts – However, background facts established sudden quarrel between close family members – Absence of documentary proof of partition and immediate escalation supported theory of sudden fight [Paras 48–56].

Section 324 IPC – Assault on Informant – Injury report proved simple injury on left arm of informant – Conviction of appellant Somra Oraon under Section 324 IPC upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 23, 63].

Sentence – Period Undergone – Appellants in custody for more than twelve years – Considering modification of conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC, sentence reduced to period already undergone – Direction for release forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 64–65].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Conviction under Section 324 IPC affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellants directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.