Civil Law - Review – CPC Order 47 Rule 1 / Section 114 – “Innocuous” Direction Procured by Suppression – Recall Justified – Common order dated 23/06/2025 in W.P. No. 22484/2025 directed CMDA to consider petitioner’s representation without notice to the affected builder; review applicant showed that material facts (consents/agreements, EC minutes, pending civil suit) were concealed, and the order was misused through public notices – Held: Non-disclosure amounts to unclean hands; error apparent; order reviewed and recalled; writ petition dismissed [Paras 3, 5–7, 13–18].

Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process – Public Notices Misrepresenting Relief – Writ petitioner sought only consideration of representation; yet issued newspaper notices projecting challenge to planning/building permissions – Such concealment/misrepresentation condemned; sufficient to dismiss writ at threshold [Paras 13–16].

Contractual Consent & Association Resolutions – Clauses Permitting Reconstitution/Phase-II and EC Minutes Allowing Construction – Clause 20 of construction agreement authorised plan amendments/reconstitution with neighbouring property and additional FSI/TDR; handing-over agreement Clause 8 recorded ingress/egress to Phase II and common amenities; EC minutes (31.07.2021 & 29.08.2021) permitted continuation of Phase II Block-4 – Non-disclosure vitiated writ relief [Paras 8–10].

Parallel Civil Proceedings – Pending Suit on Contractual Clauses – O.S. No. 74 of 2025 seeking declaration/injunction against access/amenities noted; had it been disclosed, parties would have been relegated to civil court – Another reason to review/recall [Paras 11–12, 15].

Process – No Prior Notice in Writ Due to Limited/“Innocuous” Prayer – Acceptable at admission stage; but once abuse surfaces, Court can correct course in review jurisdiction [Paras 3(ii)-(iii), 16–18].

Decision – Review allowed – Order dated 23/06/2025 in W.P. No. 22484/2025 reviewed and recalled – Writ petition dismissed – No costs – Connected WMPs closed [Para 18].*

Criminal Law - Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Summoning Order in prosecution under FSS Act – Dismissed – Petitioners, including Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., its nominees, Banaskantha District Co-op. Milk Producers’ Union Ltd., and CP Wholesale India Pvt. Ltd., sought quashing of summoning order dated 18.01.2021 in complaint for alleged sale of unsafe, sub-standard, and misbranded ‘Amul’ ghee – Petitioners claimed seized product was counterfeit, not supplied/manufactured by them, and proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 77 FSS Act – Court held that invoices, internal records, and counterfeit allegations are private documents requiring proof at trial; not a ground for quashing at summoning stage – Commissioner validly extended limitation under proviso to Section 77 citing COVID-19 lockdown and delayed responses – No exceptional ground made out – Petitions dismissed; summoning order upheld [Paras 42-46, 47-48].

Counterfeit Product Allegation – Evidentiary burden lies at trial stage – Petitioners’ reliance on batch distribution records and prior complaint against distributor to show counterfeit nature of seized goods cannot be conclusively accepted at pre-trial stage – Determination of genuineness of product is a matter of evidence [Paras 42-43].

Limitation under Section 77 FSS Act – Complaint within extended time – Though complaint filed beyond one year from seizure date (07.03.2019), Commissioner of Food Safety recorded reasons and granted extension up to three years under Section 77 proviso – Complaint filed on 03.09.2020 held within time [Paras 44-46].

Decision – No ground made out for quashing; petitions dismissed; summoning order dated 18.01.2021 sustained [Paras 47-48].

Quashing of FIR - Criminal Misconduct – Misappropriation of SGRY rice – Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) P.C. Act and Sections 465, 471, 409, 120B IPC – Quashment and discharge denied – Petitioners accused of conspiring with Panchayat Secretary to forge beneficiary committee minutes, create fictitious beneficiary lists, and obtain sanction for release of 46,573 kg of rice under SGRY project, later misappropriated without executing works – FSL report indicated forged signatures and handwriting attributable to 2nd petitioner – Court held prosecution materials disclose prima facie case warranting trial; quashing/discharge cannot be granted on conjectures or witness silence in 164 Cr.P.C. statements [Paras 6-7].

Role of Accused – FSL evidence – Handwriting match sufficient for prima facie case – Even if petitioner’s name absent in some annexures, evidence of his role as Standing Committee Chairman who obtained sanction and forged records links him to offence; individual participation in conspiracy need not be proved at pre-trial stage [Paras 9-15].

Decision – Petitions dismissed; interim order vacated; Special Court directed to conclude trial within four months [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Compliance with Supreme Court Directions – Accused not arrested during investigation – Charge-sheet filed without custodial interrogation – Applicant seeks protection from judicial remand on appearance before trial court – Held: In line with settled law in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, Sushila Aggarwal, Siddharth, Satender Kumar Antil, and Musheer Alam, accused not arrested during investigation cannot be remanded to custody merely upon filing of charge-sheet or issuance of summons – Trial court shall permit appearance and acceptance of bail bond without insistence on anticipatory or regular bail application [Paras 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 21, 33.1, 38(i)-(iii), 50].

Judicial Trends – Misuse of Remand Process – High Court censures routine insistence by trial courts in Uttar Pradesh on judicial custody for accused not arrested during investigation – Judicial system burdened by repeated bail applications and unwarranted incarceration – Supreme Court directions flouted despite clear rulings and repeated compliance orders [Paras 9 to 18, 33.2 to 33.10, 34, 36, 37].

Bail Conditions – Requirement of Two Sureties – Constitutionality and Practicality – High Court reviews historical circulars mandating two sureties and finds them inconsistent with present legal framework – Supreme Court judgments emphasize that inability to furnish sureties must not result in prolonged incarceration – Held: Accused shall be released on a single surety considering socio-economic condition – If surety not arranged within 7 days, Jail Superintendent to inform DLSA to assist in release [Paras 39 to 46].

Legal Awareness and Compliance Mechanism – Directions Issued – District Judges to ensure accused not arrested during investigation are not remanded upon appearance – Personal bond to suffice – Trial court must inform accused of such right – Monthly compliance reports required – Training for judicial officers and legal awareness programs mandated – Registry to review and revise outdated circulars on sureties [Paras 38(i)-(xi), 47, 52].

Decision – Application allowed with directions – Applicant permitted to appear before trial court and furnish bail bond without being remanded – Non-bailable warrants, if issued, to be set aside – Applicant may raise all legal contentions before trial court at appropriate stage [Paras 50, 53].

Banking Law - Wilful Default – RBI Master Circular – Borrowed Funds Requirement – Appeals Dismissed – Appellant banks challenged Single Judge orders setting aside wilful-defaulter declarations against respondents – Allegations centred on diversion/siphoning through investments in subsidiaries – Court held that the Master Circular applies only if borrowed funds are involved; lenders’ own Final Restructuring Scheme recorded investments were from internal cash surpluses/FCCB proceeds, not borrowings – Forensic Audit Reports admitted non-verification of source of funds – No evidence of intentional default – Appeals dismissed [Paras 38-44, 47].

Procedural Non-Compliance – Identification and Review Committees – Clauses 2.1.3 and 2.2 of the Master Circular require objective determination based on track record and intent – Committees relied entirely on unverified forensic audit material and ignored contemporaneous lender records – Such non-application of mind vitiates the entire process [Paras 26(viii)-(x), 33-36, 41-42].

Corporate Debt Restructuring Context – Lenders’ Knowledge of Investments – At the CDR stage, lenders acknowledged investments as strategic and funded from surpluses; borrower classified in Category B (no diversion) – No change of management or forensic audit ordered then; later allegations of diversion inconsistent with the record [Paras 40, 43(i)-(ii)].

Mens Rea – Requirement of Intentional, Deliberate, Calculated Default – Multiple audits, monitoring through TRA accounts, and criminal court discharge of respondents negate any finding of wilfulness [Paras 36-37, 43(iii)-(vi), 45].

Decision – Division Bench affirms Single Judge’s reasoning – LPA 396/2024 dismissed with no order as to costs – All connected appeals (LPA 294/2024, LPA 357/2024, LPA 398/2024) also dismissed with no orders as to costs [Paras 47, 113].

Criminal Law  – NDPS Act s.20(b)(ii)(B) – 810 g charas recovery – Hostile panch witnesses – Contradictions and seal/link-evidence objections – Appeal Dismissed – Held: Recovery proved through consistent police testimony – chain of custody intact – minor discrepancies immaterial – conviction and sentence under s.20(b)(ii)(B) sustained [Paras 2, 4, 12–21, 30–41, 43–44].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Signatures on Seizure Memo – Prosecution Not Derailed – Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2) turned hostile yet admitted signatures on seizure memo – Held: hostility by itself insufficient; dependable parts can be relied upon when corroborated – Hanif Khan; Sat Paul applied [Paras 12–16, 18].

Police Witness Credibility – No Presumption of Unreliability – Consistent Recovery Evidence – Sole/official testimony, if cogent and credible, can sustain conviction; presumption of regularity of official acts applies – testimonies of PW-3, PW-13, PW-14 found reliable [Paras 19, 25–29].

Contradictions/Discrepancies – Passage of Time – Not Material – Differences arose given statements recorded years after incident; only material contradictions matter – Goverdhan reiterated [Paras 20–21].

Chain of Custody – Non-Production of Physical Seal Not Fatal – Intact Seals, Matching Impressions, FSL Report – Specimen seal impressions and NCB-I form available; FSL noted seals intact; law does not mandate producing the sealing device – Frederick George; Varinder Kumar; Surinder Kumar followed [Paras 30–35, 38–40].

Sentencing – Adequacy – No Enhancement Absent State Appeal – 5 years RI for 810 g charas considered inadequate on proportionality, yet no enhancement without State’s appeal [Para 41].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Upheld under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act [Paras 43–44].

Civil Law  – Recovery Suit – Bonds – Jurisdiction, Limitation & Interest – OSA No. 3/2016 allowed; OSA No. 5/2015 dismissed – Plaintiffs (H.P. State Co-operative Bank) subscribed to UPSFC SLR Restructured Bonds worth Rs.9.5 crores in 2005 with 8% p.a. interest, guaranteed by the State of U.P. – Interest of Rs.76 lakhs for Aug 2006 and Feb 2007 instalments unpaid – Trial Court partly decreed suit for Rs.76 lakhs without pendente lite interest – Jurisdiction objection rejected as part of cause of action arose at Shimla where interest was earlier remitted – Limitation plea rejected, suit held within 3 years under Art. 25, Limitation Act – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 8% p.a. on Rs.76 lakhs from date of suit (07.04.2009) till realisation – Defendant’s appeal dismissed [Paras 23-40].

Jurisdiction – Section 20(c) CPC – Place of Payment – Part of cause of action arose at Shimla – Even though bonds mentioned “interest payable at Kanpur”, no exclusive jurisdiction clause ousting other courts – Cheques for interest earlier sent to plaintiff’s Shimla office – Held: HP High Court had jurisdiction to entertain suit [Paras 23-33].

Limitation – Article 25 Limitation Act – Suit for recovery of money payable as interest – Period of limitation is three years from when interest becomes due – Unpaid instalments of Aug 2006 and Feb 2007 formed cause of action – Suit filed on 07.04.2009 within limitation – Acknowledgment letters further extended limitation under Section 18 Limitation Act [Paras 34-35].

Interest – Section 34 CPC – Commercial Transaction – Interest on principal sum adjudged – Plaintiffs entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 8% p.a. on Rs.76 lakhs from date of suit till realisation – Reliance placed on Central Bank of India v. Ravindra – V. Kala Bharathi distinguished [Paras 36-40].

Decision: OSA No. 3 of 2016 (Plaintiff’s appeal) allowed – decree modified to grant pendente lite and future interest @ 8% p.a. on Rs.76 lakhs – OSA No. 5 of 2015 (Defendant’s appeal) dismissed – Amount deposited to be released to plaintiffs along with interest as directed.

Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability Despite Section 35 BNSS – Sessions Court Erred in Disposing Petition – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act – Sessions Judge declined to decide the bail plea, instead referring petitioner to approach the police citing a prior High Court judgment – Held: Such abdication of judicial responsibility is impermissible – Anticipatory bail is maintainable even with existence of Section 35 of BNSS/Section 41A CrPC [Paras 1–3, 8–9, 27–29].

Right to Life and Liberty – Fundamental Nature – Court Emphasises Judicial Duty – The High Court strongly reiterated that the right to liberty under Article 21 cannot be subjected to arbitrary police discretion – Sessions Courts cannot refuse to decide anticipatory bail pleas merely because a notice under Section 35 BNSS may be issued – Such refusal undermines constitutional rights and statutory remedies [Paras 15–18].

Judicial Accountability – Dereliction by Sessions Court – The Court held that the Sessions Judge’s failure to decide the anticipatory bail application amounted to dereliction of duty – Such acts defeat the purpose of pre-arrest bail provisions and constitutional guarantees – Directions issued for judicial education and circulation of judgment [Paras 29, 32].

Doctrine of Co-existence – Section 35 BNSS and Section 438 CrPC – Harmonised Interpretation – The Court clarified that the statutory scheme contemplates simultaneous applicability of safeguards under Section 35 BNSS and remedies under Section 438 CrPC – Issuance of notice under Section 35 does not extinguish the apprehension of arrest [Paras 21–23].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – The High Court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions – Directed dissemination of judgment to all Judicial Officers and Police Officers in Bihar for compliance and training [Paras 30–33].

Criminal Law – Revision Against Rejection of Discharge Application – Prima Facie Case – Allegations of Fraudulent Audit Reports – Revision Dismissed – The applicant, a Chartered Accountant, was accused of preparing misleading audit reports of M/s. Sai Infosystem (India) Ltd. for FYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 – The reports allegedly inflated debtor balances and enabled wrongful disbursement of ₹51.62 crores by Allahabad Bank – Held: Prima facie material supports allegation of conspiracy and fraudulent intent – Discharge rightly rejected by trial court [Paras 7, 10–14].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 397 CrPC – Limited Nature – No Interference Warranted – Revisional powers cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or conduct a mini-trial – Held: No jurisdictional error or perversity in trial court’s order – High Court refused to interfere with the trial court’s exercise of discretion [Paras 8, 13, 15].

Framing of Charge – Standards at Discharge Stage – Presumption in Favour of Prosecution – At the stage of discharge, court must assume prosecution’s material as true – Held: Documents and witness statements in the charge sheet disclose existence of ingredients of alleged offences – Charge can be framed without evaluating defence evidence [Paras 7–9, 12].

Auditor’s Responsibility – False Certification and Conspiracy – Accountability of Chartered Accountant – The applicant allegedly affirmed inflated debtor lists without verification and knowingly facilitated the company’s access to greater drawing power – Held: Auditor's conduct prima facie shows more than professional negligence – Charge under IPC and PC Act sustainable [Paras 11–14].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application dismissed – Order dated 30.12.2024 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural), rejecting discharge application, confirmed – Rule discharged [Para 16].