Service Law – Recruitment – Non-Joining Vacancies – Claim for Appointment from Merit List – Petitioner secured marks below cut-off and not selected – Claimed appointment against vacancies caused due to non-joining of selected candidates – State policy mandates carry forward of such vacancies to next recruitment – Held: No right accrues to non-selected candidate to claim appointment from exhausted select list [Paras 29–31, 35].

Waiting List / Select List – Nature and Operation – Select list cannot be treated as perpetual reservoir for appointment – Once recommended candidates equal to advertised vacancies are appointed, selection process ends – Vacancies arising thereafter treated as fresh vacancies – Held: No mandamus to fill such vacancies from same merit list [Paras 17, 18, 35].

Policy Decision – Carry Forward of Vacancies – Clause 16 of Government Resolution dated 16.07.2007 provides that vacancies arising due to non-joining shall be carried forward to next recruitment – Consistent policy since 1977 upheld – Held: Policy valid and binding, cannot be interfered with [Paras 17, 26, 35].

Participation in Selection – Estoppel – Petitioner participated in selection process knowing rules and policy – After being unsuccessful, cannot challenge recruitment process or policy – Held: Challenge barred by principle of acquiescence and estoppel [Paras 31–34].

Right to Appointment – No Indefeasible Right – Mere participation or inclusion in merit list below cut-off does not confer right to appointment – State not bound to fill all vacancies unless decision is arbitrary – Held: No arbitrariness shown [Paras 29, 35].

Subsequent Recruitment – Effect – Subsequent advertisements issued and recruitment process completed/underway – Earlier select list loses significance – Held: Relief cannot be granted at belated stage [Paras 30, 35].

Distinction – Cases where waiting list operated – Supreme Court precedents allowing filling of vacancies from waiting list distinguishable – In present case, no waiting list prepared and policy mandates carry forward – Held: Petitioner not entitled to benefit [Paras 20–24, 35].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction for appointment – Pending applications dismissed.

Criminal Law – Section 528 BNSS – Quashing of Charge-sheet – Cognizable Offence Disclosed – Application Dismissed – FIR lodged by informant (aged 73 years) alleging that Applicant No. 1 (his former driver) along with others forcibly entered his house, misbehaved with him and outraged the modesty of his daughter-in-law by tearing her clothes – Charge-sheet filed under Sections 354-Kha, 452, 352, 323, 504, 506 and 448 IPC – Applicants contended that the dispute was civil in nature arising from a builder's agreement, that the FIR was a counterblast to their own FIR dated 04.08.2023 against the informant, and that there were material contradictions in witness statements – Held: Prima facie cognizable offence is made out from contents of FIR; question of counterblast and contradictions in witness statements are matters for the trial court; inherent power under Section 528 BNSS cannot be exercised to evaluate evidence; application dismissed [Paras 11-14].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 528 BNSS – Scope and Limitations – High Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) may be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court, to give effect to an order under the Code, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice – Power must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases – Court cannot conduct a mini trial or evaluate evidence in such proceedings – Pendency of civil case has no bearing on continuation of criminal proceedings where cognizable offence is disclosed [Paras 8, 12-14].

Decision: Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed – Charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order not quashed – Matter to proceed before trial court.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC – Reversal – Prosecution case based on alleged assault by accused with sticks and hoe – Majority of eye-witnesses turned hostile and did not support prosecution – Medical evidence inconsistent and case papers indicated “accidental injuries” – FIR and subsequent statement doubtful due to absence of medical certification of fitness and inconsistencies in recording – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 19–28].

Evidence – Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Material Contradictions – Eye-witnesses (PW3, PW10, PW11, PW12) denied seeing assault and only found deceased lying in pit – Medical evidence showed simple injuries initially and later multiple injuries with complications including gangrene – Hospital records described injuries as accidental – Held: Serious inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence renders prosecution case unreliable [Paras 6, 7, 19, 27].

FIR and Dying Declaration – Reliability – FIR recorded in hospital without doctor certifying mental fitness – Only thumb impression taken despite alleged consciousness – No dying declaration recorded though deceased survived for several days – Subsequent statement introduced new weapons and injuries – Held: FIR and further statement lack credibility and cannot be safely relied upon [Paras 16, 24, 26].

Witnesses – Interested Witnesses – Lack of Independent Corroboration – Testimony of son, brother, and nephew of deceased not corroborated by independent witnesses – Independent witnesses present at scene turned hostile – Held: In absence of reliable corroboration, interested testimony cannot sustain conviction [Paras 14, 28].

Investigation – Lapses and Doubtful Conduct – Investigating Officer present at scene even before formal complaint – Failure to produce station diary/logbook – No proper recovery of weapons proved as panch witnesses turned hostile – Failure to seize soil or corroborative forensic evidence – Held: Investigation suffered from serious infirmities creating doubt in prosecution case [Paras 23–24].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Not Proved – Panch witnesses did not support recovery – Chemical analysis showing blood stains insufficient without proof of recovery and linkage to accused – Held: Discovery evidence alone cannot sustain conviction [Paras 13, 24].

Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Jurisprudence – Where contradictions, unreliable evidence, and investigative lapses exist, accused entitled to acquittal – Held: Trial Court failed to properly appreciate evidence and conviction unsustainable [Paras 7, 28].

Decision: Appeal No. 649 of 2003 allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted – Appeal No. 1484 of 2003 (State for enhancement) dismissed.

Property Law – Title vs Adverse Possession – Competing claims – Plaintiff established title through registered sale deed and release deed – Defendants claimed title through agreement of sale and long possession – Held: Agreement of sale does not confer title – Registered title prevails [Paras 20, 24]

Adverse Possession – Essential Requirements – Possession originating under agreement to sell – Held: Such possession is permissive/derivative and not hostile – Cannot ripen into adverse possession without clear repudiation of true owner’s title – No evidence of hostile animus [Paras 22-23, 32-33]

Limitation – Article 65 – Suit for possession based on title – Limitation begins when possession becomes adverse – Held: In absence of proof of adverse possession, limitation under Article 65 not attracted [Paras 25, 34]

Limitation – Articles 58 & 59 – Declaration and cancellation of instruments – Right to sue accrues when cause of action first arises – In case of fraud, limitation begins from date of knowledge – Suit filed upon discovery of fraudulent gift deeds held within limitation [Paras 28, 34]

Registered Documents – Effect – Registration constitutes notice and confers legal sanctity – Title flowing through registered instruments upheld over unregistered agreement-based claims [Paras 24, 30]

Adverse Possession – Burden of Proof – Mere long possession insufficient – Must establish nec vi, nec clam, nec precario and hostile assertion to knowledge of true owner – Earlier litigations only sought protection of possession and negated hostility [Paras 31-32]

Cause of Action – Accrual – Execution of impugned gift deeds and attempted construction in 2010 constituted clear threat to plaintiff’s rights – Suit held within limitation [Paras 26-29, 34]

Concurrent Findings – Trial Court – Declaration of title and cancellation of gift deeds upheld – Suit for adverse possession rightly dismissed [Paras 10, 34-35]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court upheld – Plaintiff entitled to declaration, possession and cancellation of gift deeds – Defendants’ claim of adverse possession rejected.

Criminal Law – Challenge to Remand Order - Production before Magistrate – Article 22(2) – Accused to be produced within 24 hours excluding travel time – Minor delay of 25 minutes beyond 24 hours explained by circumstances – Held: Not fatal and does not vitiate remand [Paras 8, 9, 10]

Arrest – Computation of 24 Hours – Time to be reckoned from official arrest and not mere apprehension – Arrest panchanama showed arrest at 5:00 p.m. – Production at 5:25 p.m. next day – Held: Delay marginal and justified [Paras 7-8]

Fundamental Rights – Violation of Article 22(2) – Allegation of illegal detention – Held: Exclusion of travel time and administrative circumstances permissible – No violation where delay is properly explained [Paras 9-10]

Remand – Validity – Non-production within exact 24 hours – Held: Slight deviation does not ipso facto invalidate remand if explanation is reasonable and no prejudice caused [Paras 10-11]

Bail vs Technical Grounds – Attempt to secure release on procedural irregularity after rejection of bail – Held: Petition under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used to indirectly secure bail when no substantive illegality shown [Paras 7, 11]

Criminal Law – Serious Offence (Murder for Supari) – Gravity of offence relevant – Technical plea of delay cannot override substantive prosecution case [Paras 3, 5]

Judicial Precedents – Travel time exclusion – Courts consistently hold that time necessary for journey must be excluded in computing 24 hours [Paras 9.3, 9.5, 9.6]

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Remand order upheld – No violation of Article 22(2) – Delay in production held justified – No ground for release of petitioner.

NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 21 and 25 – Quantity Below Commercial Threshold – Section 37 Not Applicable – Applicant arrested on 28.03.2025 for alleged recovery of 6.08 grams of heroin from speedometer of his motorcycle – Challan filed – 11 out of 19 witnesses examined – Trial not likely to conclude in near future – Multiple prior NDPS cases registered against applicant but no conviction in any – Bail applications earlier dismissed by this Court as withdrawn and by Special Court – Held: Quantity recovered does not fall within commercial quantity and therefore rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted – Registration of multiple prior cases without conviction cannot justify indefinite pre-trial custody – Bail cannot be refused as a matter of punishment – Pre-trial punishment prohibited under law – No useful purpose served by continued custody – Apprehensions regarding tampering and reoffending can be addressed through conditions – Bail granted [Paras 11-17].

Pre-Trial Detention – Prolonged Custody – Pendency of Trial – Applicant in custody since 28.03.2025 – Trial not likely to conclude in near future given pace of recording of evidence – Prior registration of cases without conviction cannot be a ground to keep accused in judicial custody for indefinite period – State made no effort to seek cancellation of bail in any of the other registered cases – Bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount – Subject to conditions of regular attendance, non-tampering with evidence, no inducement or threat to witnesses, and no travel outside India without prior permission of Court – State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions [Paras 17-21].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Plaint – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Trial Court allowed amendment without assigning reasons – Impugned order cryptic and non-speaking – Held: Judicial orders must disclose reasons – Order liable to be set aside [Para 7]

Amendment of Pleadings – Time-Barred Claim – Amendment sought to declare sale deeds (dated 24.01.2007 and 23.03.2016) as null and void – Relief relating to 2007 sale deed beyond limitation of 3 years – Held: Amendment introducing time-barred claim which divests accrued rights cannot be allowed [Paras 9, 8]

Limitation – Deemed Knowledge – Registered documents – Plaintiff claimed lack of knowledge of sale deeds – Held: Registration constitutes deemed notice – Party cannot extend limitation by pleading ignorance of registered documents [Paras 10-12]

Amendment – Change in Nature of Suit – Original plea based on sale transaction – Amendment sought to convert transaction into mortgage/security – Held: Amendment fundamentally altering nature of suit and cause of action impermissible [Para 13]

Amendment Principles – Supreme Court Guidelines – Court relied on LIC v. Sanjeev Builders – Amendment to be refused if it introduces time-barred claim or changes nature of suit – Liberal approach subject to absence of prejudice and limitation bar [Para 8]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Articles 226/227 – Interference with discretionary order – Where Trial Court exercises discretion arbitrarily without reasons and contrary to settled principles, High Court justified in interfering [Paras 7, 14]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 03.04.2018 set aside – I.A. No. III for amendment rejected – No order as to costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 145 – Affidavit Evidence – Accused Cannot File Evidence-in-Chief by Way of Affidavit – Section 145(1) expressly enables only the complainant to give evidence-in-chief on affidavit in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act – The provision uses the word "complainant" and does not extend the same liberty to the accused – Legislature's deliberate omission of the word "accused" from Section 145(1) cannot be supplied by the Court – Section 145(2) is merely a procedural provision enabling the Court to summon and examine any person who has already given evidence on affidavit and does not confer upon the accused a right to adduce evidence-in-chief by affidavit – Held: The accused in a Section 138 proceeding cannot lead defence evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit – Impugned order of the SDJM discarding the affidavit evidence of the defence is consistent with law and calls for no interference [Paras 12, 13, 17, 18].

Precedent – Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore – Scope and Applicability – The Supreme Court in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. categorically held that Section 145(1) provides for the complainant to give evidence on affidavit and does not extend the same right to the accused – The accused's evidence is in the nature of rebuttal of presumptions and is not necessarily documentary, unlike the complainant's evidence which is largely documentary – Indian Bank Association v. Union of India did not overrule or dissent from Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. and the reference therein to the earlier decision was only by way of reiteration – Held: The ratio in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. remains good law and governs the field [Paras 14, 15, 16].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 18.07.2025 of the SDJM, Bhubaneswar in ICC Case No. 6557 of 2013 upheld – Interim order, if any, vacated.

Property Law – Article 300-A – Forcible Dispossession by State – Mandatory Injunction – Right to Compensation – Respondent/plaintiff, title holder of suit land, found that State had constructed National Highway through his land without following due process of law or paying compensation – Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction decreed partly by Trial Court directing defendants to acquire portion of suit land and pay due compensation within two years – First Appellate Court affirmed – Held: No person can be forcibly dispossessed of his property without legal sanction and without following due process of law – State being a welfare State governed by rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution – State produced no document to show consent of respondent for construction of road through his land – Plea of oral consent held unsustainable – Concurrent findings affirmed – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-20].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – State's Plea Rejected – State contended that claim was stale and highly belated and that respondent had orally consented – Held: Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of continuing cause of action – Being the owner of the suit property, plaintiff was well within his right to file a suit for injunction and mandatory injunction at any stage until the right is defeated by perfection of title through adverse possession – State cannot shield itself behind delay and laches when it has utilised land of a citizen without adopting due process of law – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice [Paras 14-19].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second appeal unless the finding is based on inadmissible evidence, is in ignorance of relevant admissible evidence, is based on misreading of evidence, or is perverse – First Appellate Court is the final court of fact – No substantial question of law arises in the present case – No merit in the appeal [Paras 21-26].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit – Concurrent findings of Courts below upheld – State directed to acquire suit land and pay due compensation in accordance with law [Para 26].