Criminal Law - Customs Act – Alleged Possession of Contraband Gold – Acquittal Upheld – The accused was charged with unlawful possession of 1000 tolas of primary gold under the Customs Act, 1962, and Gold (Control) Act, 1968 – Prosecution relied heavily on the confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act and testimony of DRI officials – No independent witnesses or corroborative evidence presented – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the accused's conscious possession of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal upheld [Paras 10-13].

Confessional Statement – Retraction and Lack of Corroboration – Benefit of Doubt Given – The accused retracted her confessional statement alleging coercion and language barriers – The statement, recorded in English and signed in Urdu, lacked corroboration from independent witnesses – Held: Retraction cast serious doubts on voluntariness and reliability of the confession, benefiting the accused with acquittal [Paras 11-12].

Burden of Proof – Evidence Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Failure of Prosecution – The Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish sole occupancy of the premises or conscious possession by the accused – Lack of independent witnesses, unavailability of panchas, and procedural gaps weakened the case – Held: Prosecution did not meet the burden of proof, leading to dismissal of the appeal [Paras 10-11].

Decision – The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court's judgment acquitting the accused was upheld – The accused was given the benefit of doubt due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 13-14].

Civil Writ - Excise Law – Re-processing of Expired Liquor Stock – No Express Provision in Odisha Excise Act or Rules – Permission Granted – The petitioner, a distillery, challenged the rejection of its application for re-processing expired liquor stock on the grounds that no specific provisions exist in the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 or the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017. The State relied on the Supply Chain Management Policy, 2020, which mandated destruction of such stock and barred reprocessing. The Court held that the policy was not applicable to the petitioner and emphasized that the chemical report confirmed the stock was fit for human consumption. The absence of explicit statutory provisions was insufficient to deny permission. Directions were issued for granting permission for re-processing within four weeks [Paras 5-7].

Administrative Law – Discretionary Powers – Misuse of Authority – Reprocessing Rejection Overturned – The Court observed that the State Excise Department's refusal to allow re-processing due to a lack of statutory provisions was arbitrary. The State's own actions, such as ordering chemical tests that confirmed the stock’s viability, implied acknowledgment of the stock’s suitability for consumption. Held: The authority's reliance on the policy and rules was misplaced, and denial of permission was unjustified. The writ petition was allowed [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Directions for Compliance – Opposite Party No. 2 Directed to Grant Permission – The Court directed the Excise Commissioner to forthwith grant permission for re-processing the stock and ensure compliance within four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order [Para 7].
 

Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC – Wife Living Separately – Right Upheld - The respondent wife was awarded maintenance of Rs. 6,000 per month for herself and Rs. 5,000 for her minor daughter. Despite the petitioner obtaining an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the Court held that the wife had justifiable grounds to live separately due to alleged harassment – Held: Maintenance rightly awarded, and decree under Section 9 HMA does not preclude wife’s entitlement [Paras 8-10, 15].

Ex-parte Decree Under Section 9 HMA – Limited Effect in Maintenance Cases - The Court reiterated that an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically bar maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The wife’s reasons for separation, including allegations of harassment, must be independently examined – Held: Ex-parte decree insufficient to deny maintenance; respondent wife justified in living separately [Paras 10-12].

Quantum of Maintenance – Determination Based on Husband's Financial Status - The petitioner’s claim of unemployment was not supported by evidence, while the wife demonstrated her inability to maintain herself and her child. The awarded maintenance reflects a balance ensuring neither extravagance nor penury – Held: Maintenance amount reasonable and aligned with husband’s financial capacity [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Precedents on Maintenance – Guidance for Adjudication - The Court relied on precedents like Babita v. Munna Lal (Delhi High Court) and Avedesh Kumar Tiwari v. Chitra Tiwari (MP High Court), emphasizing that maintenance cannot be denied solely based on an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights – Held: Maintenance orders must focus on substantive justice and socio-economic balance [Paras 10-15].

Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Family Court’s order awarding maintenance, and held that the petitioner’s ex-parte decree under Section 9 HMA does not bar maintenance claims. Pending applications were also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Offence under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – Bail Granted – The petitioner, accused of receiving Rs. 65,00,000 on the promise of arranging a job in Australia and failing to fulfill the promise, resulting in the suicide of the complainant, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court held that the applicability of Section 108 of the BNS requires further investigation, and no conclusive observations were made on the merits. However, considering the petitioner’s detention period and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the Court allowed the bail application subject to stringent conditions. The petitioner was directed to execute a bond and comply with conditions to ensure proper investigation and compliance [Paras 6-10].

Bail Jurisprudence – Principle of Bail as Rule and Jail as Exception – Applicability – Bail Allowed – The Court reaffirmed the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, wherein it was held that denial of bail in deserving cases violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that continued detention of the accused was unwarranted and allowed the bail application [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Observations – Conditions for Bail – Safeguards to Prevent Abuse – Directions Issued – The Court imposed conditions, including the requirement to cooperate with the investigation, prohibition on leaving the country without prior permission, and assurance of good conduct, to prevent misuse of bail and to safeguard the investigation process. It was further directed that any violation of these conditions could lead to cancellation of bail by the jurisdictional court. Held: Bail granted with stringent conditions to ensure balance between personal liberty and the integrity of the investigation [Para 10].

Civil Law - Review - Maintainability – Review Petition by Change of Counsel – Without "No Objection" – Review Filed Invalidly – Review petition filed by a new counsel without obtaining a "No Objection Certificate" from the counsel who argued the original writ petition – Held: Filing of review petition without proper authorization violates settled principles – Review dismissed as improperly filed [Paras 5.6-5.22].

Review Scope – Reargument of Decided Matters – Petition Barred – The grounds raised in the review petition seek to reargue matters already decided – No error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated – Reopening of adjudicated issues not permissible under the guise of review – Review petition dismissed [Paras 5.23-5.32].

Delay in Filing – No Sufficient Cause – Application for condonation of delay dismissed – Petitioners failed to provide sufficient cause for condoning 152 days of delay in filing the review – Alleged incapacity of counsel's clerk due to an accident not substantiated by evidence – Delay deemed unjustifiable [Paras 6.1-6.14].

Fraud Allegations – Misuse of Review Petition – Unsupported Claims – Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation raised in review proceedings without prior basis in writ petition – Such claims seen as an abuse of judicial process – Dismissal warranted [Para 7.4].

Decision – Review Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – The Court rejected the plea to condone the delay in filing the review petition and dismissed it on grounds of procedural impropriety, suppression of material facts, and lack of merit – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on the petitioners to be deposited with the High Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund, Cuttack, within four weeks [Paras 8-10].
 

Civil Writ - Unauthorized Construction – Conversion of Parking Space – Demolition Upheld – Sanctioned Plan Violated – The appellants contested the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation's demolition order of a flat constructed on land designated as parking space in the sanctioned plan – The Court held that neither the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 nor the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007 permits conversion of parking spaces into residential flats – Demolition order found lawful and properly reasoned [Paras 11-16].

Natural Justice – Hearing Provided – Order Valid – The appellants were heard before the Commissioner passed the demolition order – Inspections were also conducted – Held: No breach of principles of natural justice was established [Paras 11, 16].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal Mechanism Available – Writ Not Maintained – Appellants bypassed the statutory appeal process and approached the writ court – The Court emphasized that appellate proceedings allow a broader scope for evidence reappraisal than writ petitions – Held: The appellants’ writ petition was rightly dismissed [Para 17].

Parking Spaces – Common Area Protection – Legal Prohibition on Conversion – Referring to Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 536, the Court reiterated that parking areas are common facilities under housing regulations and cannot be converted to residential use [Para 15].

Relief Granted – Time to Vacate – The Court granted the appellants two months to vacate the premises before demolition, considering the peculiar facts of the case [Later portion].
 

Sexual Assault Allegations – Bail Granted – Delay in Filing Complaint – The petitioner, a well-known film actor and director, faced allegations of sexual assault committed 17 years prior – The Court noted the significant delay in filing the complaint and absence of compelling prima facie evidence to deny bail – Held: Bail granted subject to conditions to ensure cooperation in the investigation [Paras 2-8].

Delay in Complaint – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – The Court observed that the 17-year delay in filing the complaint affects the petitioner’s right to dignity and fair trial – Held: Bail cannot be denied based solely on unsubstantiated allegations made after such an inordinate delay, particularly when the petitioner’s cooperation in the investigation is evident [Paras 6-8].

Principle of Bail – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – Reiterating Supreme Court guidelines, the Court emphasized that bail should not be denied arbitrarily, even in serious cases, unless justified by factors like custodial necessity or potential interference with the investigation – Held: Bail application allowed, considering the principle of personal liberty [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions – The petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation with the investigation and non-interference with witnesses or evidence [Paras 11].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal - Eyewitness Testimony – Single Dock Identification – Credibility Doubted – Conviction Overturned – The Court noted that the sole eyewitness (P.W. 15) identified the accused a year after the incident during dock identification without prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) – The prolonged time lapse and absence of corroboration raised doubts about the witness’s reliability – It was observed that P.W. 15 might have had opportunities to see the accused in Court prior to identification – Held: Failure to conduct TIP was fatal to the prosecution’s case – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 36-47].

Discovery of Weapons – Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – Inadmissibility of Recovery Evidence – Conviction Overturned – The Court found no direct link between the accused and the recovered weapons allegedly used in the murders – The prosecution failed to establish authorship of concealment or connection to the crime – Held: Mere recovery of weapons without proof of possession or use by the accused cannot establish guilt – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 48-52].

Call Detail Records (CDRs) – Procedural Lapses – Certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act Absent – Conviction Overturned – The prosecution relied on CDRs to establish conspiracy but failed to furnish a valid certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act – Held: The CDRs were rendered inadmissible, and no conclusive proof of conspiracy was established – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 61-64].

Circumstantial Evidence – Conspiracy – Standard of Proof Not Met – Conviction Overturned – The Court observed that the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, including slogans and pamphlets, failed to conclusively establish the accused's involvement in the conspiracy – The pamphlets and slogans lacked evidentiary value under Sections 62-67 of the Evidence Act – Held: The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 65-72].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – The Court held that the discrepancies in evidence, reliance on inadmissible evidence, and failure to meet the burden of proof necessitated giving the benefit of doubt to the appellants – Held: All appellants acquitted of charges and directed to be released forthwith – Decision: Appeals allowed, appellants acquitted [Paras 73-79].
 

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Agreement – Clause 70 of Contract – Disputes Arising During the Currency of the Contract – Arbitrator Appointed – Disputes arose due to changes in the scope and design of the project by the respondents, delaying project completion and increasing costs – Clause 28.1.4(c) of the MES Manual allows arbitration during the contract period under exceptional circumstances – Held: The contention of respondents that arbitration cannot proceed until project completion is unsustainable in light of contractual provisions permitting arbitration during the contract’s pendency – Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate disputes [Paras 5-8].

Delay in Work Completion – Attribution of Responsibility – Respondents at Fault – 70% of the contract work was completed on time, but delays occurred due to design changes introduced by the respondents and their failure to provide revised specifications promptly – 11 extensions were granted to the petitioner without any objection from the respondents, further demonstrating their responsibility for delays – Delay not attributable to the petitioner [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Sole Arbitrator Appointed – Disputes Referred for Arbitration – Petition allowed – Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora, DG (Pers), MES Department, appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties – Arbitrator’s fees to be borne equally by both parties – No second arbitration to be pursued post-contract completion [Paras 9-10].