Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 138 and 141 - Vicarious liability of Director - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner arraigned solely on account of his designation as a Director of the accused company - Complaint was completely silent regarding the role played by the petitioner in the affairs of the company his participation in the transaction his involvement in the issuance of the cheque or any overt act attributable to him - Trial Court proceeded against the petitioner - Revisional application filed for quashing the proceedings - High Court observed that Section 141 creates a legal fiction extending vicarious criminal liability requiring strict construction - Mandatory requirement of a specific averment that the accused was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the offence was completely absent - General statements without specifying who signed the cheque are insufficient - Allowing proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of process of law - Held - Proceedings against the petitioner quashed - Revisional application allowed - [Paras 1-23].

Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 141 - Essential averments in complaint - Sine qua non for invoking Section 141 is a specific averment that the accused was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business - Expressions was in charge of and was responsible to the company must be read conjunctively - Mere designation as a Director does not satisfy the statutory requirement - In the absence of specific role qua the participation of a director in the alleged transaction no director can be implicated by virtue of Section 141 - Held - Requirements under Section 141 are totally absent in the present complaint - [Paras 4-21].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – Proceedings of Case No. C-2371 of 2021 pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore are quashed in respect of the petitioner.

Service Law - Reservation in Promotion - Constitution of India - Articles 16(4A) and 335 - Consequential Seniority - Writ petitioners belonging to reserved categories were granted accelerated promotion to Loco Pilot Goods and Loco Pilot Passenger with consequential seniority - Promotions were effected after Railway Administration collected quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation and administrative efficiency - Private respondents belonging to unreserved category challenged these promotions before Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad which quashed the seniority lists - High Court reversed Tribunal order observing that post Eighty Fifth Constitutional Amendment consequential seniority is a legally permissible incident of reservation in promotion once parameters laid down in M Nagaraj case are satisfied - High Court noted that administration had correctly assessed cadre strength and compliance with constitutional requirements was established - Held - Grant of accelerated promotion and consequential seniority to petitioners is valid in law and cannot be disturbed - Impugned Tribunal orders quashed - Paras 1-24 and 38-39.

Service Law - Promotion against Unreserved Vacancies - Constitution of India - Articles 16(1) and 16(4A) - Own Merit Principle - Writ petitioners were considered for promotion to Loco Pilot Mail against unreserved vacancies based on their consequential seniority attained in the feeder cadre - Unreserved candidates contended that such promotion amounts to excessive reservation and requires fresh quantifiable data - High Court rejected this contention holding that promotion to Loco Pilot Mail is a continuation of existing promotional hierarchy and governed by inter se seniority prevailing in the feeder cadre - Held - Reserved category candidate is not disentitled from competing for or occupying an unreserved post merely because of belonging to reserved class - Candidates selected on their own merit cannot be counted against reserved quota - Paras 25-37.

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Orders dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench are quashed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Leakage of recruitment examination papers - Fourteen petitioners including Directors and officials of the outsourced examination agency intermediaries and candidates sought regular bail after being implicated in a massive conspiracy involving the leakage of question papers and supply of model answers for the Assistant Section Officer recruitment examination - The High Court was forced to cancel the main written examination due to the widespread malpractices - Investigation revealed collection of illegal gratification ranging from Rupees two lakhs to four lakhs from candidates retention of their original educational certificates and destruction of digital evidence by the accused - Several petitioners were also found to be implicated in similar question paper leak cases such as Sub-Inspector recruitment and OTET examinations demonstrating organized criminal activity - The socio-economic impact of the offence was considered massive as it deprived honest hardworking candidates of their livelihood and shattered public trust in meritocracy - Held - The offence constitutes a class apart and demands a different approach in matters of bail - The serious nature of the organized paper leak syndicate negligent service vendors and the illicit financial gains warrant denial of bail despite the petitioners having been in custody for some time - Further some petitioners suppressed their involvement in other criminal cases disentitling them to discretionary relief - All fourteen bail applications stand rejected - [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law - Bail in socio-economic offences - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Gravity of offence - Petitioners claimed entitlement to bail based on the completion of investigation filing of charge sheet and absence of direct evidence - State opposed citing massive illicit gains organized systemic corruption and destruction of digital evidence including formatting of laptops - The Court noted that competitive public recruitment exams demand the highest standards of integrity and transparency - Leakage of public recruitment exam papers is not merely a common criminal offence but a direct assault on the socio-economic fabric of society - Held - Mere length of custody cannot be the sole consideration for granting bail when the offence has the effect of undermining public trust in the education and recruitment system - Bail rejected - [Paras 4-8].

Criminal Law - Interim Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Medical grounds of family member - Petitioner Himansu Sekhar Dash sought interim bail for the medical treatment of his sister - Medical documents revealed the sister was already receiving treatment at major hospitals with her mother signing as attendant while the petitioner was in custody - Held - The detention of the petitioner is not a hindrance to the ongoing medical treatment of his sister - No merit in the alternative plea for interim bail - [Para 9].

Decision: Fourteen bail applications of the petitioners stand rejected – A soft copy of the judgment directed to be immediately transmitted to the Court in seisin over the matter for reference.

Civil Law - Partition - Title Deeds - Preliminary Decree - Suit for partition by sole legal heirs based on a Will - Trial court granted preliminary decree for plaint schedule property and counter claim item No 2 but declined partition for counter claim item No 1 holding that defendant failed to prove its existence - High Court observed that the property is covered under title deed Ext.B9 from which various conveyances were admittedly made - High Court reasoned that if any portion of the property remains after excluding the conveyed portions that remaining extent can be incorporated in the counter claim schedule and partitioned equally - Held - decree of trial court declining partition of counter claim item No 1 is set aside - in final decree proceedings the property covered under Ext.B9 and conveyances therefrom shall be identified and the remaining extent if available shall be partitioned - [Paras 2-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Decree and judgment of the trial court modified – The declining of partition with respect to counter claim item No 1 is set aside – Directions issued for identifying and partitioning the remaining extent of the said property in the final decree proceedings.

Civil Law - Locus Standi - Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 41(j) - Suit against unauthorized construction - Appellants being social workers and residents of the locality filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against alleged unauthorized construction by the respondents - NDMC submitted status report confirming sealing and demolition actions on the subject property - Trial Court dismissed the suit holding the reliefs to be either satisfied or premature - First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal noting that the plaintiffs lacked personal interest in the suit property as they did not reside adjacent to it and showed no infringement of their easementary rights - High Court upheld the findings of the lower courts stating that mere apprehension of congestion does not confer locus standi to file an injunction suit without demonstrating any injury to legal rights - Held - courts below correctly appreciated the facts and law in observing that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to continue the suit - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-40].

Civil Law - Public Nuisance - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 91 - Institution of suit - Appellants claimed public cause for filing the suit against illegal construction - High Court observed that a suit against public nuisance under Section 91 of the Code requires it to be filed by at least two persons with the leave of the court - Appellants failed to obtain such leave and the averments in the plaint did not establish a case of public nuisance - Held - suit was not properly instituted under Section 91 of the Code - [Paras 22-33].

Civil Law - Easementary Rights - Easement Act 1882 - Sections 15 and 33 - Rights of a neighbour - Appellants claimed illegal construction would cause parking problems and congestion - High Court held that an illegal construction in itself does not give a legal right to a neighbour to seek injunction unless their easementary right to air and light is materially affected - Such right must be shown to have been enjoyed for twenty years - Infraction must materially diminish the value of dominant heritage causing substantial damage and physical discomfort - Appellants failed to plead or establish any infringement of easementary rights - Held - appellants have no right to seek injunction solely on the ground of illegal construction of a neighbour without proving easementary disturbance - [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Concurrent findings of the lower courts upheld - Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law - Termination of Service - Constitution of India - Article 311 - Fraud in securing employment - Respondent appointed as Bandi Rakshak in 1992 under Scheduled Tribe category - Physical verification in 2007 revealed the caste certificate was forged and never issued by the competent authority - Show cause notice issued but respondent failed to participate in proceedings despite multiple opportunities including newspaper publication - Appellant dismissed respondent from service - Single Judge quashed dismissal holding that long delay of 15 years barred action and full disciplinary proceedings were necessary as misconduct pertained to pre employment stage - Single Judge also held Lodh and Lodhi castes as synonyms entitling ST benefits - Division Bench reversed finding noting that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and renders appointment void ab initio - When appointment itself is illegal and non est due to forged certificate no regular departmental disciplinary proceedings are required - Delay in verification cannot validate fraud or estop the State - Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction in determining caste classification in service matters - Held - Appointment obtained by fraud is non est and termination without detailed enquiry is valid - Appeal allowed - [Paras 3-27].

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Constitution of India - Article 311 - Protection against dismissal - A person who secures appointment in reserved category by playing fraud and producing a false caste certificate cannot be said to hold a post validly - Such person cannot claim constitutional guarantee or protection of regular disciplinary enquiry prior to dismissal - Principles of natural justice sufficiently complied with through show cause notices - Held - Since the initial appointment order was illegal the requirement to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings prior to passing dismissal order was unnecessary - [Paras 14-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Single Judge set aside and writ petition dismissed – Impugned termination order affirmed – Salary and emoluments already paid to the respondent during the pendency of the appeal pursuant to his working shall not be recovered.

Criminal Law - Summoning of additional accused - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 - Section 14-A(1) - Appellant filed appeal against trial court order rejecting application to summon opposite party no 3 being the son of the chargesheeted accused - Initial FIR and statement under Section 161 CrPC named both father and son but Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet only against the father finding no evidence against the son - During trial injured witness PW-3 stated only the father was taken to hospital and denied presence of anyone else while PW-2 was not an eyewitness - Trial court refused to summon opposite party no 3 observing no specific role assigned and lack of presence at spot - High Court observed that power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and requires evidence stronger than mere probability of complicity - Held - Trial court reasoning does not suffer from any error or illegality warranting interference - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 5-18].

Criminal Law - Power to summon additional accused - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Discretionary and extraordinary power - Must be exercised sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against other persons - Evidentiary standard requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity and must be more than a prima facie case though short of satisfaction for conviction - Held - Trial court rightly rejected the application as no strong and cogent evidence surfaced against the opposite party no 3 during trial - [Paras 11-15].

Professional Ethics - Conduct of Advocates - Adjournments - Advocates sought adjournment in High Court citing engagement in District Courts - High Court noted none of the three engaged counsel appeared to assist the court - Held - Seeking repetitive adjournments on the pretext of pendency before subordinate courts shows lack of respect towards professional duties and towards the High Court - Dispensation of justice by the Court is a duty that can proceed even without assistance from advocates if they refrain without just cause - Lawyers requested to refrain from seeking adjournments on frivolous grounds which artificially increases pendency - [Paras 1-4 19-20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Trial court order rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC affirmed - Remarks passed advising members of the Bar to refrain from seeking adjournments in the High Court on grounds of being engaged in subordinate courts.

Civil Law - Partition - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Section 96 - Joint family properties versus self acquired properties - Appellants challenged the trial court decree which partly decreed the partition suit holding only schedule A properties as joint family properties while dismissing claims over schedules B to E - Trial court relied on earlier claims to hold that properties were self acquired by the karta and another son - High Court reevaluated evidence and previous admissions in connected suits - High Court found clear admission by the contesting respondent in cross examination and prior pleadings that certain schedule properties were joint family properties - Burden shifts to the party claiming self acquisition when a sufficient joint family nucleus is established - Contesting respondents failed to prove that properties were purchased by the maternal grandfather - Admissions made by parties in pleadings operate proprio vigore - Trial court misread evidence and erroneously dismissed claims for partition of other properties - Held - Common judgment of the trial court set aside - Suit decreed allotting 1/7th share to each of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 in respect of joint family properties - Appeals allowed in part - [Paras 36-93].

Civil Law - Admission in Pleadings - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 17 and 18 - Evidentiary value of admissions - A litigant cannot take contradictory statements in the same case though they may take different stands in different proceedings - Admissions made by a party in pleadings are admissible against them proprio vigore - Contesting respondent admitted in written statements in connected suits and in cross examination that schedule B and C properties were joint family properties - Held - Such admissions are binding and sufficient to conclude the joint nature of the properties - [Paras 45.6-50].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Joint Hindu Family - Presumption of jointness - There is no presumption that a family because it is joint possesses joint property - The person alleging the property to be joint must establish that the family possessed sufficient nucleus with the income of which the property could be acquired - Once such nucleus is established the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of joint family funds - Held - Plaintiffs successfully discharged their initial burden whereas the contesting respondents failed to prove independent purchase - [Paras 43.1-70].

Civil Law - Transposition of Parties - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 23 Rule 1A - Withdrawal of appeal by original plaintiffs - Transposed parties cannot blow hot and cold by taking a stand contrary to their original pleadings in the suit - In a partition suit every party is deemed to be a plaintiff and defendant - If original plaintiffs withdraw any defendant claiming a share can continue the suit - Held - Transposed respondents are estopped from resiling from their original claim that properties are joint family properties - [Paras 78-88].

Civil Law - Additional Evidence in Appellate Court - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Application to receive certified copy of plaint from another suit filed in 2025 as additional evidence - No averment of due diligence in the affidavit - Documents sought to be filed do not assist the appeal as the properties are already part of the schedule properties in the present suit - Held - Application for additional evidence lacks merit and dismissed - [Paras 27-32].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part - Common judgment and decree passed by the trial court set aside - Suit decreed allotting 1/7th share to each of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 without costs - Interim orders if any stand vacated.

Criminal Law - Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Sections 15 17 18 18-B 19 20 and 43-D - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 120-B 201 419 and 471 - Arms Act 1959 - Sections 25 54 and 59 - Appeal against order of Special Judge NIA Court dismissing bail application of appellant accused of harbouring members of a designated terrorist gang and providing money - Prosecution alleged co-accused were apprehended with illegal firearms and appellant sheltered them at the instance of a designated terrorist - Trial Court rejected bail - High Court observed no prima facie link evidence to show money was deposited or withdrawn on whose instructions nor intent to commit terrorist act merely from photographs together - Appellant in custody for over two years and half with only one out of 56 witnesses examined and trial end not in sight - High Court held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without likelihood of speedy trial violates Article 21 and overcomes the statutory embargo under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA - Held - Impugned order set aside and appellant granted regular bail subject to strict conditions - [Paras 2 3 7 8 12-16 29-31].

Constitutional Law - Right to Speedy Trial - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - Interplay between fundamental right to life and liberty and restrictive bail provisions under special statutes - Accused has a fundamental right to speedy trial which cannot be negated by Section 43-D(5) embargo - Constitutional Court can exercise jurisdiction to release an accused on bail who has been incarcerated for a long period when trial completion is unlikely in the near future - Held - Once it is apparent that a timely trial is not possible and accused has suffered significant incarceration the Court is obligated to enlarge them on bail to prevent pre-conviction detention from becoming punishment - [Paras 17-21 32 33].

Criminal Law - Terrorist Act and Harbouring - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Sections 15 and 19 - Prima facie assessment - Prosecution relied on disclosure statements and joint photographs of appellant with co-accused to establish harbouring - No recovery of incriminating material like mobile phone linking appellant to the designated terrorist or showing money trail - Held - Merely being found in photographs with co-accused does not establish intent to commit a terrorist act or advocate abet or incite terrorism - Prosecution failed to bring worthwhile material on record to justify continued detention - [Paras 14-15 27 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned order dated July 16, 2024 set aside - Appellant ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10 lakh with two sureties and compliance with other conditions including surrender of passport and regular appearance before the Trial Court.