Criminal Law - Dishonor of Cheque – Acquittal by Trial Court – Opportunity to Examine Bank Manager Denied – Matter Remanded – The complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the NI Act which was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the dishonor memos (Exts.P2 and P3) did not contain the cheque number – Held: As per Section 146 of the NI Act, bank’s dishonor memo is prima facie evidence, but it must contain the cheque number and related details – Trial Court erred in denying the complainant’s request to examine the Bank Manager to prove this crucial fact – Acquittal set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal after granting the complainant opportunity to examine the Bank Manager [Paras 6, 9-13].

Section 146 NI Act – Presumption of Dishonor – Applicability Explained – The Court clarified that while Section 146 creates a presumption based on the bank’s slip or memo, the memo must contain specific details like the cheque number, date, and amount to be effective evidence – In absence of these details, oral evidence through the Bank Manager is necessary to prove dishonor – Failure to permit such evidence amounts to violation of fair trial principles [Paras 9-11].

Natural Justice – Denial of Right to Adduce Evidence – Judgment Unsustainable – The dismissal of the complainant’s petition to summon the Bank Manager deprived him of a fair opportunity to prove his case – Held: Such denial vitiates the trial – Appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and remand the case for proper adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Judgment of Acquittal Set Aside – Matter Remanded – The judgment dated 06.02.2014 in S.T. No.10 of 2012 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Karunagappally is set aside – The complainant is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 01.07.2025 at 11:00 a.m. – Trial Court to dispose of the case afresh after permitting examination of the Bank Manager – Appeal allowed [Paras 13].

Criminal Law - Sections 27 and 29 of the NDPS - Sections 66(B), 65(A), 81, 116(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Appeal Against Acquittal – Alleged Possession of Liquor Without Permit – Acquittal Confirmed – Accused found with bottles allegedly containing English liquor – Investigating officer failed to send seized bottles for FSL analysis – No sample drawn or tested to establish contents as prohibited liquor – Held: Prosecution failed to prove nature of substance seized – Mandatory procedures not followed – Acquittal by Trial Court justified [Paras 9(i)-(v)].

NDPS Offence – Recovery of Marijuana – Non-Compliance of Sections 42 and 57 – Accused No.2 Deceased – No Proof of Ownership of Farm – Trial Court Rightly Disbelieved Prosecution – Held: Seizure procedure flawed – Investigating Officer did not ascertain ownership of farm or comply with procedural mandates of NDPS Act – No interference called for with acquittal [Paras 9(vi)].

Scope of Appellate Review – Acquittal Appeals – No Perverse or Arbitrary Findings – Reappreciation of Evidence Permissible – Held: As per SC decisions, appellate court must respect acquittal unless Trial Court’s view is manifestly erroneous or implausible – Present case does not warrant reversal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 7, 10].

Decision – Prosecution Failed to Establish Offences Under Prohibition Act and NDPS Act – Acquittal Based on Justifiable Grounds – No Interference Warranted – Held: Findings of Trial Court are reasoned, supported by record, and free from legal infirmity – Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment affirmed [Paras 10-11].

Civil Law - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Delay Condonation – Exorbitant Delay – Lack of Bona Fides – Delay Not Condoned – The petitioner sought to condone a delay of 4864 days in filing a revision petition against the dismissal of an application to implead legal heirs in a suit for specific performance – The only ground cited was ignorance of earlier proceedings due to residing at her matrimonial home – Held: No sufficient cause was made out – Delay attributed to a casual and negligent approach without due diligence or urgency to pursue legal remedy [Paras 2–6].

Specific Performance Suit – Legal Heirs and Procedural Diligence – Dismissal for Delay – Earlier revision filed by co-legal heirs was dismissed in 2020 for non-compliance of court directions – The petitioner, despite knowledge, did not act promptly even post-dismissal – Held: The conduct revealed a callous and indifferent attitude – Relief in equity-based suits like specific performance demands timely, diligent participation – Petition dismissed [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court held that the explanation offered for the inordinate delay was unsatisfactory and indicative of negligence – Delay of over 13 years (4864 days) was not condonable in the absence of genuine reasons – The petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and the unnumbered revision suit stood dismissed without costs [Para 6].

Civil Law - Debts Recovery – Cross-Examination – Denial of Opportunity – Tribunal Order Set Aside – The petitioner, a partner of the 1st defendant firm, contested liability for crop loans claimed by the bank and sought to cross-examine the bank’s witness – DRT rejected the application citing delay and the non-necessity of oral evidence from a bank official relying on records – Held: Given the contested liability and criminal proceedings against a former bank manager for fraud, denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice – Tribunal’s order quashed [Paras 1–13].

Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examine – Procedural Fairness Required – The Court held that though DRT proceedings are summary in nature, when core facts are disputed and liability is denied, cross-examination becomes essential to ensure fair adjudication – Discretion under Rule 12(9) of DRT Rules must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily – The Tribunal failed to consider relevant facts and misapplied delay as a ground to deny a substantive right [Paras 10–13].

Delay – Not Sole Ground to Deny Cross-Examination – Absence of Prejudice – The Court observed that the O.A. was pending since 2006, and no specific delay was attributable to the petitioner – The finding of delay as a tactic to protract proceedings was not supported by record – Court emphasized that delay alone cannot override the need for fair hearing when substantial prejudice is shown [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Tribunal Directed to Permit Cross-Examination – The High Court set aside the DRT’s order and directed it to allow cross-examination of the bank’s witness – Tribunal was further directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously, with final orders to be passed on or before 31.12.2025 [Para 13].

Service Law – Writ - Army Officer Dismissal – Refusal to Participate in Regimental Religious Rituals – Dismissal Upheld – Petitioner, a Christian Army officer, declined to enter the sanctum sanctorum of Mandir/Gurudwara during religious parades citing faith-based reasons – Held: His conduct constituted willful disobedience of lawful command under Section 41 of the Army Act and adversely affected military discipline and unit cohesion – Army’s action under Section 19 read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules is valid [Paras 1–5, 66–73].

Religious Freedom vs Military Discipline – Article 25 of Constitution – Restrictions Permissible – Held: Article 33 empowers Parliament to restrict fundamental rights of Armed Forces personnel to maintain discipline – Refusal to participate in regimental rituals by Commanding Officer undermines esprit de corps and was rightly treated as misconduct – Army’s secular fabric is preserved while expecting uniform compliance with military customs [Paras 43–44, 55–65, 73].

Court Martial – Not Mandatory – Rule 14 of Army Rules – Disciplinary Action Valid – Court held that it was impracticable and inexpedient to conduct a Court Martial due to the sensitive nature of religious issues – Show Cause Notice was duly issued and proper procedure followed – No arbitrariness found in administrative termination under Section 19 of Army Act [Paras 74–84].

Judicial Review – Scope Limited in Military Discipline Cases – Military Leadership's Discretion Prevails – Held: Court must defer to military judgment in matters affecting unit cohesion and morale – Petitioner's insistence on prioritizing personal faith over command directives was rightly treated as indiscipline – Courts cannot second-guess military standards absent manifest arbitrariness [Paras 70–73].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Delhi High Court upheld the Army’s decision to dismiss the petitioner from service, holding that the disciplinary procedure was compliant with law, and refusal to participate fully in religious parades was a valid ground for administrative termination [Para 85].

Land Acquisition – Challenge to Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act – Acquisition Upheld – Petitioners contended that the term “Multipurpose Scheme” was vague and not a valid public purpose under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Court held that "Multipurpose Scheme No.10" constituted a valid and specific purpose and satisfied the statutory requirements – Notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 were properly issued and published – Held: No vagueness or illegality in purpose of acquisition [Paras 14(i), 37-39, 54].

Opportunity of Hearing – Section 5A of the Act of 1894 – Compliance Found – Petitioners alleged denial of personal hearing under Section 5A – Court found that individual notices were served, and legal representatives appeared via advocates – Dispatch records, appearance registers, and Vakalatnamas produced – Held: Requirement of personal hearing and consideration of objections was duly complied with [Paras 14(ii), 29-30, 43-44].

Limitation – Declaration under Section 6 and Award under Section 11 – Proceedings Not Lapsed – Petitioners alleged that declaration under Section 6 was beyond one year from notification under Section 4 and that award under Section 11 was passed beyond two-year period – Court held that Section 6 declaration and Section 11 award were issued within prescribed timeframes from last publication dates – Held: No lapse under Sections 6 or 11A [Paras 14(iii)-(v), 31-32, 41-42].

Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 – Inapplicability – Petitioners argued deemed lapse due to non-payment of compensation – Court held Section 24(2) applies only where award predates 01.01.2009 by five years – Award in this case passed on 22.10.2009 – Held: Section 24(2) not applicable and compensation either paid or deposited with competent authority [Paras 14(vi)-(vii), 45-46].

Notice under Section 9 – Directory Nature – Non-compliance Not Fatal – Petitioners challenged proceedings due to alleged non-service of Section 9 notices – Court held that even if notices were not individually served, provision is directory in nature – Held: Absence of notice under Section 9 does not vitiate acquisition [Paras 14(iv), 48-49].

Discrimination and Equitable Treatment – Allegation Unsubstantiated – Petitioners alleged discriminatory treatment in exclusion of some lands – Court held no factual foundation or evidence to support claims – Held: No discrimination made out in land selection [Paras 14(viii)-(ix), 47].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petitions Filed Post-Award – Challenge Barred – Writ Petitions were filed in 2012, years after award passed in 2009 – Court held challenge was delayed without sufficient explanation and barred by laches – Held: Petitions not maintainable on account of delay [Paras 16(i), 50-53].

Final Decision – Acquisition Proceedings Found Legal and Valid – No Constitutional or Procedural Violation – The High Court held that acquisition proceedings were carried out in accordance with law, with compliance to statutory mandates and procedural safeguards – No grounds made out for interference – Held: All intra-court appeals dismissed [Paras 55-57].

Muslim Law - Wakf Administration – Direct Management – Mismanagement and Irregularities – Resolution Upheld - Petitioner, elected as President/Mutawalli, challenged the Wakf Board’s resolution dated 11.05.2022 assuming direct management of the mosque – Allegations included non-maintenance of accounts, unauthorized construction of minara, and fund misappropriation – Held: Material on record showed persistent irregularities; assumption of management justified [Paras 6–14].

Natural Justice – Enquiry Conducted – No Violation Shown – Audit Report Access Not Essential - Petitioner contended denial of opportunity to peruse audit report – Court held that petitioner was given due notice and participated in enquiry – Audit-based action taken under Section 48 of Wakf Act, no mandatory requirement to supply copy unless specifically sought – No breach of natural justice found [Paras 12–16].

Mutawalli’s Responsibility – Cannot Deny Liability – Mismanagement During Tenure - Petitioner attempted to blame past administrations – Held: As Mutawalli from 10.11.2019 to 09.11.2022, petitioner bore duty to rectify and report financial irregularities – Continued payment for minara construction after takeover shows defiance – Special Resolution of 27.07.2022 removing committee went unchallenged [Paras 7–11].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Tribunal's Order Affirmed - The Waqf Tribunal's order upheld – Resolution assuming direct management deemed valid – Petition and connected CMPs dismissed without costs [Paras 17–18].

Civil Writ - Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Disagreement with Inquiry Officer – Show Cause Notice Deficient – Punishment Quashed - Petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer on charges related to supervision of school building construction – Disciplinary Authority disagreed and imposed minor penalty without stating reasons in show cause notice – Held: The second show cause notice failed to disclose tentative reasons for disagreement as required under Rule 15(10)(i)(b), rendering the process unfair and violative of natural justice – Punishment order quashed [Paras 6–17].

Natural Justice – Procedural Safeguard – Right to Representation Undermined - The show cause notice merely mentioned decision to punish without offering grounds for differing from Inquiry Officer’s findings – Held: Such notice was an “empty formality” that deprived the petitioner of meaningful opportunity to respond – Cited judgments in Ram Kishan v. Union of India, Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, and Yoginath D. Bagde to affirm requirement for reasons in notice [Paras 9–14].

Post-Retirement Status – No Remand Ordered – Punishment Set Aside - As the petitioner had already superannuated and the punishment was not enforced due to interim stay, Court declined to remand the matter – Final order dated 09.02.2016 quashed [Paras 17–19].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Punishment Order Quashed – No Remand - Writ petition allowed – Impugned order quashed – No costs awarded [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Law – Challenge Illegal Arrest – Non-production Before Magistrate Within 24 Hours – Arrest Declared Illegal – The petitioner was detained at Delhi airport on 17.05.2025 at 17:30 hours and was produced before the magistrate only on 18.05.2025 at 22:45 hours – Court held this exceeds the statutory 24-hour limit under Section 58 of BNSS and violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution – Held: Petitioner’s arrest is vitiated and illegal [Paras 21, 24, 30].

Failure to Notify Grounds of Arrest – Section 48 of BNSS – Violation of Statutory Duty – Grounds of arrest were not communicated to any nominated person as mandated – Instead, the petitioner’s father, also a complainant, was wrongly informed – Held: This is a clear violation of Section 48 of BNSS and further renders the arrest illegal [Paras 26, 29].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 and 22(2) – Right to Liberty Violated – Detention beyond 24 hours without magistrate’s sanction, and failure to inform nominated person of arrest, amount to breach of fundamental rights – Held: Continued custody of petitioner is unconstitutional – Immediate release ordered [Paras 30, 32].

Malafide Arrest – Familial Civil Dispute – FIR Lodged at Odd Hour – FIR filed post-midnight and Look Out Circular (LOC) issued same day – WhatsApp chats showed pressure to settle family dispute using custody – Held: Arrest made with undue haste, misuse of police process observed – However, no comment made on trial merits [Paras 25, 31].

Decision: Petition Allowed – Arrest declared illegal for non-compliance with Section 48 and 58 of BNSS and violation of Articles 21 and 22(2) – Petitioner ordered to be released forthwith – Observations confined to the arrest issue and shall not affect merits of the case [Paras 32–33].