Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Accused not named in FIR but arrested along with co-accused from whose possession 40 motorcycles were allegedly recovered – No videography of recovery conducted as required under Section 105 BNSS – Co-accused Shoeb and Owais granted bail on similar grounds – Held: Applicant entitled to bail on grounds of parity and lack of procedural compliance [Paras 3, 5-6]

Evidence – Search and Seizure – Non-Compliance with BNSS – Recovery of motorcycles not recorded via audio-video means as mandated under Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 of UP BNSS Rules, 2024 – No independent witnesses or uploading on E-Sakshya portal – Held: Creates serious doubt on prosecution version – Non-compliance may benefit accused at bail and trial stages [Paras 12-13, 16, 18]

Police Conduct – Procedural Safeguards – Lack of SOP – Despite clear statutory mandate, no SOP issued by DGP under Rule 18(5) of UP Rules – Court directs DGP to issue detailed SOP for mandatory video recording during seizure – Non-compliance may lead to disciplinary action against erring officers [Paras 17, 19]

Judicial Directions – Systemic Compliance – Registrar (Compliance) directed to forward copy of judgment to DGP, U.P., for issuance of SOP and ensuring compliance with Section 105 BNSS and Rule 18 UP Rules – Objective is to prevent false implication and ensure fair investigation [Paras 19-20]

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant to be released on furnishing personal bond and two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation in trial and prevent misuse of bail – Court emphasizes mandatory procedural compliance in future seizures.

Service Law – Promotion – Non-Communication of APAR – Belated Communication in One Lot – Respondent communicated APARs for years 2008–09 to 2011–12 together in April 2013 just prior to DPC – Benchmark of 21/25 under Rules, 2012 not met – Held: Inordinate delay in communication frustrates object of APAR system – Violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 – Action arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 12, 17-18].

APAR – Purpose of Communication – Improvement and Representation – Supreme Court in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh held every entry, whether adverse or not, must be communicated within reasonable time – Communication enables employee to improve performance and make effective representation – Belated communication defeats both objects – Sending APARs in one lot amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity [Paras 10.1-10.3, 11-14].

Benchmark for Promotion – Introduction under Rules, 2012 – 21 out of 25 for E-3 to E-4 based on last 5 years’ APARs – Though employer entitled to change rules and prescribe benchmark – However, employee cannot be prejudiced by employer’s failure to timely communicate APARs – Held: Benchmark cannot be applied to petitioner in circumstances of unfair conduct [Paras 8-8.1, 15, 18.4].

Natural Justice – Fairness in Administrative Action – Rules of natural justice flexible – Test is whether authority acted fairly – Inordinate delay without justification in communicating APARs amounts to unfair action – Right to be considered for promotion infringed due to arbitrary conduct of employer [Paras 11, 15-16].

Prejudice – Denial of Opportunity to Improve – Petitioner’s subsequent APARs (2012–13 onwards) graded ‘Very Good’/‘Outstanding’ after regular communication – Demonstrates importance of timely communication – Court held that earlier timely communication could have enabled petitioner to achieve benchmark – Employer’s lapse cannot operate to petitioner’s detriment [Paras 14, 18.2-18.3].

Right to Promotion – Distinction – No fundamental right to promotion but right to be considered is fundamental – When consideration denied due to arbitrary and unfair action of employer, Court can intervene under Article 226 – Held: Petitioner’s right to be fairly considered stood violated [Paras 15, 18.3].

Relief – Direction to DPC – Respondent directed to convene DPC within one month – Consider petitioner for promotion from E-3 to E-4 without applying benchmark under Rules, 2012 – If found eligible, grant promotion from date junior promoted with notional benefits and continuity but without monetary benefits [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Belated communication of APARs held arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and principles of natural justice – Respondent directed to reconsider petitioner’s case for promotion without applying benchmark of 21/25 under Rules, 2012 – Notional benefits granted if found eligible.

Civil Law - Compromise Decree – Lok Adalat Award – Bar of Appeal – First appeal filed under Section 96 CPC challenging compromise decree passed in Lok Adalat on ground of fraud – Held: Appeal not maintainable in view of Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat award deemed to be a decree and final – No appeal lies therefrom [Paras 2, 8].

Challenge to Lok Adalat Compromise – Permissible Remedies – Law reiterated that a compromise decree passed in Lok Adalat can be challenged only before the same court under Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC or by invoking writ/supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution on limited grounds – Separate suit or appeal expressly barred [Paras 7(i)–(vi), 8].

Third Party to Compromise – Right to Challenge – Even a third party to the suit cannot maintain a regular appeal against a Lok Adalat compromise decree – Remedy confined to writ jurisdiction or appropriate statutory procedure as settled by Apex Court precedents [Paras 7, 8].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – District Judge erred in rejecting application seeking dismissal of first appeal as not maintainable – Impugned order found contrary to settled legal position – Revisional court justified in interfering under Section 115 CPC [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Civil Revision Allowed – Impugned order dated 06.03.2023 set aside – Application for rejection of appeal allowed – RFA No.40 of 2006 dismissed as not entertainable – Liberty granted to appellant to approach appropriate forum as per law to challenge compromise decree dated 21.03.1993.

Criminal Law – Section 311 CrPC – Re-examination of Witness – Petitioner accused in a cheque dishonour case sought recall of complainant for further cross-examination on the ground that previous counsel failed to put material questions – Trial Court and Revisional Court rejected the application citing prior extensive cross-examination on three occasions – Held: Change of counsel is not a valid ground to permit recall of a witness – Such power cannot be exercised merely due to alternate legal strategy of new counsel [Paras 5-8, 13-16, 18]

Section 311 CrPC – Scope and Discretion – Reaffirmed that the power to recall witnesses must be exercised judiciously and only when their further examination is essential to the just decision of the case – Cannot be allowed to fill lacunae or delay trial – Recall cannot be routine or based on mere change of strategy or counsel – Abuse of process of law if invoked without valid reason [Paras 11-12, 15-17]

Fair Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Rights of the Accused and Victim – Emphasis placed on the balance of interests between the accused, the victim, and societal interest – Repeated recall of witnesses would cause undue hardship and hamper the trial process – Fairness of trial cannot be interpreted to allow repeated cross-examinations without compelling justification [Paras 17, 19]

Delay – Belated Application – Application filed two years after original cross-examination concluded – No sufficient explanation offered – Held: Such delay shows lack of diligence and supports inference that the application was intended to delay proceedings [Paras 9, 14, 15]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Court found no merit in the request to recall the complainant under Section 311 CrPC – Prior opportunities for cross-examination had been adequately availed – Change of counsel or different trial strategy not sufficient ground for recall – No interference warranted with impugned order of Revisional Court [Paras 18-20]

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Husband alleged wife was quarrelsome, threatened to poison his blind parents, took his ATM card and money, and deserted him – Evidence led by husband found to be uncorroborated and lacking documentary support – In contrast, wife produced uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence including cybercrime and police complaints against the husband for uploading semi-nude images, digital abuse, and dowry-related harassment – Held: Cruelty not established by husband – Instead, cruelty by husband proved based on wife’s credible evidence [Paras 20, 40-44]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Allegation by husband that wife deserted him since 19.05.2020 – Wife demonstrated she left due to cruelty, threats, and unsafe environment – Evidence showed she was compelled to leave due to abuse – Held: No voluntary or unjustified desertion by wife – Desertion not proved – Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act applied – Husband cannot take benefit of his own wrongdoing [Paras 33-37, 45-49]

Family Law – Perversity of Judgment – Husband claimed judgment of Family Court was perverse – High Court held trial court considered evidence thoroughly including respondent's uncontroverted witnesses and criminal proceedings substantiating her case – Held: No perversity or legal error – Family Court’s findings well-supported – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 51-52]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Divorce denied – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No proof of cruelty or desertion by wife – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Personal Search – Non-Compliance with Section 50 – Conviction Set Aside – Accused allegedly found in possession of 450 grams of charas during personal search on a bus – IO failed to inform accused of right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Held: Violation of Section 50 vitiates conviction – Recovery rendered suspect and inadmissible – Conviction set aside [Paras 16–25].

Investigation – Anticipatory Mention of FIR Details – Recovery Memo Prepared Before FIR – FIR number and NDPS section mentioned in recovery and search memos even before registration of FIR – Casts serious doubt on authenticity and timing of documents – Documents appear to be prepared post-facto – Judicial scrutiny finds prosecution version doubtful [Paras 17–22].

NDPS Act – Evidentiary Standards – Higher Degree of Proof – Supreme Court decisions in Noor Aga and Ranjan Kumar Chadha reiterated – Strict procedural compliance required due to stringent nature of punishment – Courts must ensure individual liberty and fair trial rights not compromised [Paras 18, 23].

Trial – Fairness and Procedural Safeguards – Section 50 Compliance Mandatory – Constitutional mandate of fair trial requires strict adherence to statutory safeguards – Casual or defective investigation cannot form basis of conviction under NDPS Act – Recovery held unreliable [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court set aside – Accused acquitted of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act – Bail bonds discharged – Direction to furnish bond under Section 437-A CrPC for appearance before Supreme Court if required.

Tenancy – Termination – Monthly Tenancy – Public Premises – Lease initially granted in 1970 for 3 years – No fresh lease deed executed thereafter – Respondent continued in possession on monthly rent – Held: After lease expired by efflux of time, respondent became month-to-month tenant under Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act – Validly terminated by 15-day notice under Section 106 – 90-day clause in expired lease deed not applicable – Appellate court erred in holding termination invalid [Paras 11–18].

Public Premises – Unauthorised Occupation – Valid Termination – Scope of Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act – Once tenancy validly terminated, respondent’s occupation rendered unauthorised under Section 2(g) – Entitled to eviction and damages under Sections 4 and 7 – Estate Officer’s order restored [Paras 18–19].

Transfer of Property Act – Section 112 Waiver – Forfeiture – Not Applicable – Respondent paid arrears of rent after termination notice – No clause of re-entry pleaded or proved – Waiver under Section 112 not attracted – Termination under Section 111(h) not affected [Paras 16–18].

Damages – Quantification – No Evidence in Rebuttal – Estate Officer accepted applicant’s evidence on damages @ ₹6,900 per month plus 9% simple interest – Appellate court reversed order only on issue of validity of termination – No finding against quantification – Held: Once termination is upheld, estate officer’s award of damages to be restored [Paras 7, 15, 19].

Civil Revision – Scope – Jurisdictional Error – Interference Warranted – Appellate court misapplied law regarding lease termination and forfeiture – Ignored settled principles under TP Act – Held: Findings perverse and require correction in revision [Paras 17–20].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Order of Appellate Court dated 29/07/2009 set aside – Order of Estate Officer dated 05/03/2008 restored – Applicant entitled to recover damages from 1st May 2001 till 23rd March 2023 at ₹6,900 per month with 9% simple interest.

Industrial Law – Housing Society – Maintainability – Ex-manager filed applications under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act and Payment of Gratuity Act – Petitioner society contended it is not an ‘industry’ or an ‘establishment’ under relevant statutes – Held: Cooperative housing society not engaged in systematic commercial activity is not an ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) of ID Act – Personal services rendered to members do not amount to industrial activity – Presence of telecommunication towers or club house for members does not convert society into an industry [Paras 18–30]

Labour Law – Payment of Gratuity – Establishment under Maharashtra Shops Act – Held: A cooperative housing society not carrying on trade, business or profession does not qualify as an ‘establishment’ under Section 2(4) of the Maharashtra Shops Act – Consequently, provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act not applicable to such society – Activities confined to managing residential premises and services for members are non-commercial in nature [Paras 31–40]

Jurisdiction – Labour Court and Controlling Authority – Dismissal of society’s applications challenging maintainability of labour proceedings was improper – Labour Court and Controlling Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain claims against a non-commercial residential society – Orders set aside [Paras 28, 30, 40, 42]

Contract Labour – Distinction – Benefits extended to contract workers by their commercial employers cannot be equated to claims by direct employees of a residential housing society – Statutory obligations arise from employer’s status as an ‘industry’ or ‘establishment’ – Petitioner society not falling within those definitions [Para 39]

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Orders dated 17 January 2024 passed by Labour Court and Controlling Authority set aside – Applications filed by respondent under Section 33-C(2) of ID Act and for gratuity under PG Act dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 42–43]

Civil Writ - Revenue Records – Mutation Proceedings – Delay and Laches – Exercise of Power after Long Lapse of Time – Revenue authorities entertaining claims after an inordinate delay of 71 years from initial transactions and 26 years from issuance of pattadar pass books held impermissible – Even in absence of prescribed limitation, statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time – Entertaining stale claims unsettles settled rights and violates rule of law [Paras 10–13].

Revenue Authorities – Jurisdiction – Title Disputes – Limits – Where complicated questions of title and possession arise, revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes – Role of revenue authorities confined to maintenance of records – Civil Court alone competent forum for adjudication of title – Joint Collector exceeded jurisdiction by virtually deciding title on basis of administrative report [Paras 3–4, 6, 14–16].

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 – Section 8(2) – Bar of Suits – Scope – Where entries in record of rights deny title, aggrieved party must seek declaration before Civil Court – Revenue remedies not substitute for civil adjudication – Party deliberately bypassing Civil Court cannot seek relief under ROR Act [Paras 14–15].

Mutation Entries – Evidentiary Value – Finality – Long Standing Revenue Records – Revenue entries standing unchallenged for decades carry high evidentiary value – Mutation and pattadar pass books issued after due enquiry cannot be unsettled after prolonged silence – Doctrine of settled rights applies [Paras 9–11].

Suo Motu / Revisional Powers – Reasonable Time – Doctrine of Fair Play – Exercise of revisional or supervisory powers after decades held arbitrary and oppressive – Reliance placed on precedents of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court – Administrative action after long delay violates fairness and certainty in land rights [Paras 10–12].

Joint Collector – Impugned Order – Arbitrary and Without Jurisdiction – Order setting aside RDO’s decision and directing alteration of revenue entries based solely on report held illegal – Joint Collector acted beyond statutory authority – Order liable to be quashed [Paras 4, 16].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned Order No. D.Dis.No.3630/2015/D4 dated 19.09.2017 passed by the Joint Collector set aside – No order as to costs – All pending miscellaneous applications closed.