Criminal Law – Suspension of Sentence – Condition to Deposit Compensation – Petitioners convicted under Section 138 NI Act sought suspension of sentence – Appellate Courts allowed suspension but directed 20% of compensation to be deposited – Petitioners challenged such conditions, citing financial incapacity or delay – Held: As per Division Bench ruling in Coromandel International Ltd., imposition of such condition is permissible but not mandatory – Deposit not a prerequisite to maintain appeal [Paras 2–3, 6–8]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Scope and Application – Court held that Section 148 empowers Appellate Court to direct deposit of 20% compensation during appeal – But non-deposit does not bar right to appeal – Failure to deposit may allow Appellate Court to vacate suspension of sentence, but such power must be exercised judicially and with due regard to liberty and hardship [Paras 7–8]

Right to Bail – Non-compliance with Deposit Condition – Petitioners argued that inability to deposit should not cancel bail – Court reiterated that liberty is paramount – Where sentence is suspended, and appeal is pending, non-payment alone cannot lead to automatic revocation unless due opportunity and judicial satisfaction is recorded [Paras 8–13]

BNSS – Applicability of Section 403 and 430 – Section 403 BNSS (bar on review) does not prevent reconsideration where legal error apparent or rights are affected – Section 430 BNSS (akin to Section 389 CrPC) governs suspension of sentence and empowers Court to impose reasonable conditions, but such power not to be exercised mechanically [Paras 7–10]

Division Bench Reference – Precedent – Larger Bench in Coromandel International Ltd. v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation, 2025 (4) RCR (Cri) 490, clarified that deposit under Section 148 NI Act is not mandatory for hearing appeal or continuing bail – Appellate Courts can waive or modify deposit in exceptional cases – Liberty cannot be sacrificed solely due to non-deposit [Paras 7–8]

Decision: All six petitions allowed in part – Orders directing deposit of 20% of compensation stayed temporarily – Matters remanded to respective Appellate Courts for fresh consideration in light of Coromandel International judgment – Appellate Courts to decide afresh within 15 days – Till then, condition of deposit to remain inoperative and bail not to be cancelled – Courts to prioritize hearing and disposal of appeals within 60 to 90 days, unless delay is attributable to complainant [Paras 9–15]

Criminal Law – Discharge – Magistrate’s Jurisdiction – Re-investigation – Magistrate discharged the accused petitioner after considering the police report which exonerated him – Simultaneously directed re-investigation without request or leave under Section 173(8) CrPC – Held: Magistrate became functus officio after discharge and lacked authority to order re-investigation suo motu – Direction for re-investigation unsustainable in law and contrary to settled legal position [Paras 1, 6, 10, 11, 15].

Criminal Law – Further Investigation vs. Re-investigation – Court distinguished between ‘further investigation’ permissible under Section 173(8) CrPC and ‘re-investigation’ which is impermissible without statutory sanction – Magistrate may permit further investigation only at prosecution’s behest and prior to discharge – No such application existed – Held: Only investigating agency may seek leave for further probe – Re-investigation order quashed but liberty given to police to proceed under law if new evidence emerges [Paras 10, 11, 14, 16].

Evidence – Absence of Prima Facie Case – FIR named three accused but charge-sheet was filed only against one – Communication from Assistant Commissioner Revenue exonerated petitioner of any role in the issuance of cheque – FSL report relied on by prosecution pertained to an unrelated matter – Held: Material on record failed to substantiate petitioner's involvement – Discharge order valid and based on judicial application of mind [Paras 4, 5, 12, 13].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Discharge of petitioner upheld – Magistrate’s direction for re-investigation set aside – Police permitted to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC if new material is discovered in accordance with law.

Goods and Services Tax – Appeal – Condonation of Delay – Petitioner filed appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act with a delay of six days beyond the statutory limit of 120 days – Appellate Authority rightly held it lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond prescribed period – High Court upheld finding that even discretionary extension is limited to 30 days beyond initial 3-month period [Paras 7–8.1]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction seeking direction to condone delay rejected by appellate authority – High Court held powers under Article 226 cannot override express statutory bar on limitation – Reference made to Supreme Court’s ruling in Glaxo Smith Kline and ONGC cases – Legislative intent behind limitation provisions must be respected [Paras 9–14]

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability – Challenge to Order-in-Original not entertained – Court held petitioner had already availed statutory appellate remedy and cannot seek to reopen matter through writ petition in absence of jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice – No exceptional circumstances shown to justify bypassing of statutory mechanism [Para 16]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Delay of six days in filing appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act held uncondonable – Appellate Authority order upheld – Challenge to Order-in-Original not entertained in view of alternative remedy already pursued – No costs awarded [Para 17]

Service Law – Medical Officers – Higher Studies – Sponsored DNB (Post MBBS) – Refusal of NOC – Discrimination – Article 14 – In-service Medical Officer of OMHS cadre denied NOC solely on ground of opting for Sponsored DNB – State policy dated 02.09.2022 distinguishing between Sponsored and Non-Sponsored DNB found arbitrary – No intelligible differentia established – Held: Denial of NOC violative of equality clause under Article 14 [Paras 19–24, 32–33, 39].

Education Law – Post Graduate Medical Admission – DNB (Post MBBS) – Sponsored Category – NBEMS Regulations – No distinction under NMC or NBEMS between Sponsored and Non-Sponsored DNB – State cannot create artificial classification inconsistent with central regulatory framework – Differential treatment of similarly situated in-service doctors impermissible [Paras 20–22, 31–33].

Service Rules – Study Leave – Odisha Service Code – Rule 179 – Applicability to Medical Officers – Rule 179 binding on State Government – State cannot deny benefit of study leave/NOC contrary to statutory service rules framed under Article 309 – Policy decision inconsistent with statutory rules unsustainable [Paras 8–10, 34–36].

Administrative Law – Policy Decision – Judicial Review – Limits – While State has discretion in service policy, such discretion subject to constitutional limitations – Policy dated 02.09.2022 lacked reasons for excluding Sponsored DNB – Reasons cannot be supplemented by affidavits – Decision must stand on reasons contained therein – Held: Policy clause refusing NOC for Sponsored DNB arbitrary and unreasonable [Paras 30–38].

Constitution of India – Equality before Law – Manifest Arbitrariness – Differential treatment of OMHS doctors opting for Sponsored DNB versus Non-Sponsored DNB – Both governed by same service conditions – No rational nexus with object sought to be achieved – Policy struck down as violative of Article 14 [Paras 22–24, 39].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – State directed to grant No Objection Certificate to petitioner to enable participation in Centralized Merit Based Counselling for Sponsored DNB (Post MBBS) 2025 – NOC to be issued by 02.01.2026 – Consequential participation in counselling permitted – No order as to costs [Para 40].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Non Bailable Warrants – NDPS Prosecution – Legality of Arrest Warrants – Proclaimed Offender Declaration – Petitioner not named in FIR but implicated through second disclosure of co-accused pharmacist – Initially placed in column No.2 of the charge-sheet – Non-bailable warrants issued by Magistrate and petitioner declared proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Held: In absence of proper service of notice or summons, declaration of proclaimed person is illegal – Further held that Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to issue such warrants under Section 36-A(1)(b) NDPS Act at investigation stage – Impugned orders quashed subject to costs [Paras 1, 2, 5].

Criminal Law – Disclosure Statement – Evidentiary Value – Petitioner named only in co-accused’s custodial disclosure – Held: Disclosure of co-accused not substantive evidence – Cannot form basis for prosecution without independent corroboration – Reliance placed on settled precedent including Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [Paras 2, 5].

Criminal Procedure – Section 73 Cr.P.C. – Arrest Warrant for Aid of Investigation – Challenge to issuance of arrest warrant in absence of cognizance – Held: Warrants cannot be issued merely to aid investigation – Any such power must be exercised strictly as per law – Trial court’s action coram non judice [Para 2].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 26.09.2023, 16.10.2023, 30.11.2023, 06.01.2024, 06.02.2024 and 28.03.2024 and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs.5,00,000 as costs with four institutions – On compliance and appearance before Trial Court within 10 days, petitioner to be released on bail during trial – Protection from arrest for 10 days granted – Failing compliance, order stands recalled and petition deemed dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Petitioners (A2, A6, A7) sought bail in a case involving 200 kg of ganja – Prosecution relied on confessional statements of co-accused and antecedents of A2 and A6 – A7 had no criminal record – Held: Given commercial quantity and habitual nature of offence, rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act attracted – Bail rightly denied [Paras 4, 5, 19, 20, 23].

Arrest and Remand – Communication of Grounds – Petitioners claimed violation of Article 22(1) and Section 47 of BNSS due to non-furnishing of grounds of arrest – Court held arrest memos and remand reports reflected communication – Petitioners legally represented and applied for bail promptly – No demonstrable prejudice – No merit in plea [Paras 10, 13, 14, 21].

Admissibility – Confessional Statements of Co-Accused – Petitioners argued that reliance on co-accused’s confession was barred under Tofan Singh – Court found statements corroborated by seizure and chemical analysis – Prima facie case made out – Bail declined [Paras 4, 5, 22].

Procedural Lapse – Sampling and Forensic Reliability – Petitioners alleged improper sampling and seizure protocols – Court held such grounds require trial scrutiny – Not a ground to override bar under Section 37 NDPS Act [Para 7].

Constitutional Safeguards – Delay in Production – Alleged delay in producing petitioners before Magistrate found unsubstantiated – Arrest and remand held lawful [Para 6].

Judicial Discretion – Societal Impact of Narcotics Offences – Court reiterated that trafficking of commercial quantity poses serious societal threats – Petitioners failed to show they are not guilty or would not reoffend – Bail justifiably denied [Paras 19, 20, 23].

Decision: Criminal Petitions dismissed – Bail rejected – Petitioners failed to meet statutory conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – No violation of arrest procedure shown – Custody lawful.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Disproportionate Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality – Article 14 – Petitioner, a Head Constable in CID, was punished with permanent forfeiture of two annual increments for not informing seniors promptly about the loss of a service animal – Inquiry established that petitioner was not responsible for the animal's disappearance – Held: There was only a minor lapse in timing of communication – The punishment was disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct – Modified from permanent to temporary forfeiture of two increments [Paras 6, 9-10].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Arbitrary and Excessive Penalty – Violation of Equality Clause – Citing Om Kumar v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court reiterated that excessive or mechanical punishment without commensurate misconduct is violative of Article 14 – Court observed that State authorities acted mechanically and without justification in inflicting harsh penalty [Paras 7-8].

Administrative Law – Avoidance of Remand – Delay and Lapse of Time – Judicial Economy – Though normally the matter would be remanded to reconsider the quantum of punishment, the Court exercised discretion to modify punishment directly given the lapse of over two decades – Remand would only prolong litigation unnecessarily [Para 10].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect modified to temporary effect – Respondents directed to pay arrears arising from modified punishment within six months, failing which interest @7.5% p.a. will apply – Petition disposed of [Paras 10, 12-13].

Tenancy Law - Lease Agreement – Genuineness – Burden of Proof – Lease agreement (Ext-1) produced by plaintiff was alleged to be forged by defendants – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found Ext-1 to be genuine, notarized, and bearing signatures of defendants – Defendants failed to depose or challenge their signatures and withheld best evidence – Held: Agreement validly executed and trustworthy – Alternative version (Ext-B) filed before GST authority held to be inadmissible being self-serving admission under Section 21 of Evidence Act [Paras 10–11].

Arrear Rent – Quantum and Interest – Once Ext-1 held genuine, monthly rent of ₹4,00,000/- (excluding GST) accepted – Arrears correctly calculated from April 2020 to February 2021 – However, as lease agreement did not specify rate of interest for default, interest of 12% awarded by Trial Court reduced to 7.5% per annum by High Court as per prevailing bank rate [Paras 12–13, 19].

Damages – Unauthorized Occupation – Penal Clause in Lease – Clause 25 of lease allowed damages at double the rent upon breach – Trial Court awarded ₹27,000/- per day as damages relying on this clause – High Court held such penal clauses are subject to Section 74 of Indian Contract Act – Courts must award reasonable compensation, not necessarily the penalty – Damages revised to 10% of monthly rent per month from March 2021 to September 2024 [Paras 14–18].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Defendants challenged that additional documents filed in appeal were not considered – High Court noted that documents (Ext-B and Ext-C) were formally admitted during second appeal by separate order dated 05.12.2025 – Hence, substantial question of law on this count became academic [Paras 8–9].

Appeal Outcome – Second Appeal partly allowed – Eviction decree and arrear rent upheld – Interest rate modified to 7.5% per annum – Damages reduced to 10% of monthly rent per month for unauthorized occupation – No order as to costs [Paras 19–20].

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Partition suit based on plea of acquisition from joint family funds – Defendants sought rejection of plaint for no cause of action and limitation – Held: plaint pleaded foundational facts and limitation was a mixed question – rejection refused – appeal dismissed [Paras 20-39].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC – “Cause of action” test – Court to undertake meaningful reading of plaint as a whole and documents relied upon – Truthfulness of allegations not to be examined – Only whether averments disclose right to sue – Plaint cannot be dissected sentence-wise and read in isolation – Defence in written statement/application irrelevant [Paras 20-23, 25, 27-28].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit barred by law – Bar must be evident from plaint statements – Where limitation/statutory bar not ex facie apparent and requires evidence, plaint not rejectable – Continuation termed abuse only when bar is apparent on face of plaint [Paras 22, 25, 36-38].

Partition – Pleadings – Joint family / hotchpotch plea – Requirement of material particulars – Distinguishing prior Delhi High Court precedents – Where plaint specifically pleads source of acquisition as joint family funds and sale proceeds of पिता’s properties, foundational facts sufficient – Sagar Gambhir and Sunny (Minor) distinguished as plaint there lacked essential particulars like creation of HUF, succession chain etc. [Paras 30-33].

Limitation – Partition suit – Article 113 Limitation Act – Right to sue accrues upon refusal of demand for partition – Cause of action recurring so long as joint status subsists – Plaint averred partition discussions in 2018 and refusal thereafter – At Order VII Rule 11 stage, such averments to be accepted – Suit not barred on face of plaint [Paras 35-37].

Partition v. Challenge to title documents – Defendants argued suit indirectly challenges old registered documents – Held: plaint did not seek to set aside title deeds – Plaintiff asserted share on basis of joint family funds – Relief remains partition, not cancellation – Limitation objection therefore not determinable at threshold [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order declining rejection of plaint upheld – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rightly dismissed [Paras 38-39].