Criminal Law - Confiscation Proceedings – Death of Accused – Trial Abated – Property to be Released – Appellant’s predecessor died before conclusion of corruption trial – Trial abated without conviction – Court held confiscation contingent on conviction and continuation thereof post-abatement is unconstitutional – Held: Confiscation not sustainable, property to be released under Section 19 of the Act [Paras 18-22].

Section 19 Orissa Special Courts Act – Scope – Not Limited to Acquittal or Appellate Modification – Application Maintainable after Death – Authorized Officer wrongfully refused jurisdiction – High Court clarified that Section 19 permits release even if no conviction occurs due to death – Held: Officer retains power even if confiscation was based on anticipation of conviction [Paras 19-20].

Legal Doctrine – Deemed Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence – Applies on Death Before Verdict – Trial’s abatement equated to ‘not convicted’ status – High Court held accused must be treated as innocent posthumously – Retention of confiscated property without adjudicated guilt offends constitutional rights of heirs [Paras 21-22].

Jurisdiction of Authorized Officer – Not Functus Officio – Power Continues for Property Release – Court rejected State’s argument that Officer had no power post-confiscation – Held: Power under Section 19 exists independently of appellate modification or acquittal – Matter remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 19, 23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order of Authorized Officer Set Aside – Case Remanded for Fresh Decision under Section 19 – Officer to consider release of confiscated property in accordance with law [Para 24].
 

Civil Writ - Public Employment – Recruitment Process – Junior Accountant Selection Challenge – Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners assailed the selection process and final appointments of Junior Accountants, raising grievances related to the merit list, document scrutiny, and transparency – The Court held that unless there is proven illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, judicial review of recruitment decisions is limited – No violation of Articles 14 and 16 was established – Held: Petitions dismissed with no case for interference in finalized selection and appointment process [Paras 23–30].

Discharge Application – Absence of Sanction – Cognizance Invalid – Prosecution Barred – Petitioner, a retired official, was prosecuted without obtaining sanction under Section 197 CrPC for IPC offences – Court held cognizance taken without required sanction is procedurally defective and unsustainable – Impugned order rejecting discharge application set aside [Paras 5–9, 27–28, 33].

Delay in Prosecution – Cognizance After 14 Years – Right to Speedy Trial Violated – Court noted extraordinary delay from FIR in 2003 to cognizance in 2017, despite earlier closure report – Held: Such delay without protest petition or justification violates Article 21 of the Constitution and vitiates trial [Paras 10, 13–18, 23–26, 30–32].

No Criminal Intent – Administrative Lapse Not Criminal Misconduct – Charges Unsubstantiated – Petitioner involved in contract processing with no personal gain – Closure report filed recommending departmental action – Held: No prima facie case under PC Act; mere procedural lapses don't establish criminality [Paras 7–8, 14, 29].

Double Standards – Closure Accepted in Parallel Case – Discriminatory Prosecution – Same facts led to closure in VGR No. 35 of 2003, but cognizance taken in VGR No. 29 of 2003 – Court held inconsistent treatment undermines fairness of prosecution [Paras 21–22, 33].

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – Order Rejecting Discharge Set Aside – Prosecution against Petitioner Quashed – Cognizance taken without sanction and after excessive delay held invalid [Paras 34–35].
 

NDPS Act – Section 29 Conspiracy – Aggregation of Quantities – Bail Denied – Although the individual quantity of Ganja recovered from the petitioner was only 1.990 kg (below commercial quantity), bail was denied due to prima facie evidence of conspiracy involving multiple accused jointly transporting 27.7 kg of Ganja – CDRs showed frequent communication between petitioner and co-accused; location data confirmed coordinated travel and presence at site of recovery – Held: Material supports prima facie inference of conspiracy, justifying invocation of Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 4–6, 16–30].

Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Two-Pronged Test Not Satisfied – Judicial Discretion Limited – Bail cannot be granted unless both conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are satisfied: (i) the Court must be satisfied that the accused is not guilty, and (ii) not likely to re-offend – On facts, neither condition was met – Mere clean antecedents and age of petitioner not sufficient to override statutory bar [Paras 21–23, 30].

Telecommunication & Location Evidence – CDRs and Travel Patterns – Sufficient for Prima Facie Conspiracy – High frequency of calls among accused in days before arrest and their synchronized movement from Cooch Behar to Delhi held sufficient to establish prima facie conspiracy – Court relied on Delhi precedents holding that conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial conduct even where recoveries are made separately [Paras 24–28].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court upheld trial court's rejection of bail based on prima facie material suggesting conspiracy to traffic commercial quantity – Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act held attracted [Paras 31–33].

Service Law – Pay Scale Revision – Parity with Punjab Pattern – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner appointed as Draftsman in 1989 under the UT Administration pay pattern, but claimed entitlement to Head Draftsman scale of Rs. 2000–3500 after CITCO adopted the Punjab pattern in 1992 – Held: Original post held by petitioner aligned with Junior Draftsman in UT Administration and Punjab Government; petitioner was granted revised pay scale of Rs. 1800–3200 in 1995 post upgradation of his role, but not entitled to Head Draftsman scale – Adoption of Punjab pattern did not entitle petitioner to claim a particular scale unless discrimination shown [Paras 6-10].

Pay Anomaly – Upgradation of Post – Scope and Effect – Upgradation of petitioner’s post from Draftsman to Head Draftsman resulted in pay scale revision to Rs. 1800–3200 – Held: Employer has discretion to upgrade posts and revise scales – No right vested in employees to demand specific pay unless disparity is established – Previous appointment and revisions consistent with policy [Paras 7-9].

Relied Precedents – Inapplicability of Earlier Case – Judgment in Suveena Chaudhary case distinguished – Held: Petitioner's reliance misplaced as the facts differ significantly – In Suveena Chaudhary, pay anomaly was admitted and relief was restricted to date of notification; in present case, post was upgraded through structured process and scale fixed accordingly [Para 9].

Decision – No Infirmity in Pay Fixation – Petition Dismissed - The High Court found no legal infirmity in the respondent-CITCO’s pay revision and rejected petitioner’s claim for further scale enhancement [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR -  Medical Negligence – Criminal Liability – Applicability of Bolam Test – FIR Quashed – The petitioners, associated with Vasundhara Hospital, faced criminal proceedings under Section 105 BNS arising from allegations of medical negligence following the death of a patient post fibroid surgery – The State and District Medical Expert Committees, after reviewing clinical records and protocols, found no prima facie evidence of gross negligence or recklessness – Held: Allegations did not meet the threshold for criminal negligence under Section 105 BNS – The FIR and proceedings were quashed [Paras 11-12, 20-21, 31-33].

Medical Negligence – Role of Expert Opinion – Absence of Prima Facie Case – The Court emphasized that in the absence of an independent expert opinion attributing culpable negligence, continuation of criminal prosecution would constitute abuse of process – Cited binding precedents including Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital [Paras 12, 17, 19, 31].

Vicarious Liability – Private Hospital Directors – No Active Participation in Treatment – Petitioners in CRLMP No. 7770/2024 were hospital functionaries not directly involved in clinical decisions – Held: In absence of wilful neglect or supervisory failure, criminal vicarious liability could not be imputed – Quashing justified [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Petitions Allowed – FIR Quashed – Criminal Proceedings Held Unsustainable – The Court found that the treating doctors acted within the acceptable bounds of medical judgment under clinical exigencies – Neither intent nor gross recklessness was established – FIR No. 388/2024 and all proceedings therefrom were quashed as continuation would be an abuse of legal process [Paras 31-33].

Criminal Law - Sexual Offences – Conviction under Section 354 IPC – Unreliable Testimony – Acquittal Ordered – Trial court convicted appellant for outraging modesty of a minor after framing of rape charge under Section 376 IPC – Victim’s father denied lodging FIR and was declared hostile – Victim disowned her statement under Section 164 CrPC and failed to identify appellant – Medical evidence did not support sexual assault – Held: Prosecution failed to establish offence under Section 354 IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 9–17]. 

Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Not Substantive Evidence – Victim Disowned Prior Statement – Victim testified that she signed Section 164 statement under police instruction – High Court reiterated that such statements are only corroborative and cannot be sole basis for conviction – In absence of corroboration, no evidentiary value could be attached – Held: Conviction without substantive evidence is untenable [Paras 12, 16]. 

Prosecution Lapses – FIR Not Proved – Hostile Witnesses – No Independent Corroboration – Complainant did not support FIR, mother denied knowledge of occurrence, scribe of FIR not examined – No effort to establish chain of events or motive – Investigating officer failed to examine material witnesses or visit crime scene – Held: Investigative lapses fatal to case [Paras 10–13, 16]. 

Standard of Proof – Criminal Trial – Serious Contradictions and No Credible Evidence – Contradictions between medical evidence and testimonial accounts created serious doubt – Victim’s claim of assault unsupported by any forensic or ocular evidence – Held: Charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal justified [Paras 15–17]. 

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction under Section 354 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Discharged from bail bond under Section 481 BNSS after six months [Paras 17–19]. 

NDPS Act – Suspension of Sentence – Procedural Irregularities in Seizure – Bail Granted Pending Appeal – Appellant convicted under Sections 8/15(c) and sentenced to 12 years RI – Trial court's judgment challenged – Court observed serious discrepancies: seizure conducted 101 km away from interception site, samples taken without presence of Magistrate, and uniform samples drawn from multiple bags – Held: Procedural lapses such as violation of Section 52-A NDPS Act and questionable sanctity of seizure and sampling warranted suspension of sentence – Bail granted pending appeal on personal bond and sureties [Paras 5–9].

Tenancy Law – Section 32R – Non-Cultivation Not Equivalent to Abandonment – Eviction Quashed – The tenant-purchaser’s failure to cultivate due to old age and illness, without handing possession to third parties, was not a wilful breach warranting eviction – Held: Section 32R must be invoked sparingly and not for every lapse – Beneficial legislation protecting tenant rights must be interpreted purposively – Failure must be serious, prolonged, and indicative of abandonment, which was not established in this case [Paras 24–38, 47–49, 56].

Procedural Fairness – Eviction Order Based on Illiterate Tenant’s Statement – Held Invalid – Statement admitting non-cultivation recorded without legal assistance or proper inquiry – No evidence of explanation of legal consequences or consideration of mitigating factors – Held: Informed and voluntary waiver of ownership not established – Violation of Section 32P(1)’s requirement of a “formal inquiry” and natural justice principles [Paras 58–65, 66–72].

Delay and Laches – Condonation of Delay in Appeal Final – Cannot Defeat Substantive Rights – Petitioners challenged 1975 eviction order decades later – Delay condoned by Sub-Divisional Officer in 2013 and never challenged – Held: Delay cannot bar relief under agrarian reform legislation once condonation attains finality [Paras 16, 73–74].

Binding Precedent – Applicability of Amrut Bhikaji Kale – Tenant’s Ownership Right Cannot be Defeated by Ignorant Statements – Tenant had become a deemed purchaser under Section 32G and 32M – Reliance on Kale upheld – Statutory right cannot be waived by mere admission of hardship – MRT’s decision ignoring Kale held to be legally unsustainable [Paras 75–78, 82–84].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – MRT Judgment Set Aside – Eviction Order Quashed – Bombay High Court quashed 2019 MRT judgment and 1975 eviction orders – Held: Tenant’s non-cultivation was not deliberate or legally sufficient for divesting ownership – Restored tenant-purchaser’s rights under the Tenancy Act – Rule made absolute [Paras 85–89].