Capacity determination of Rice Mill – Retrospective application of instructions – Petitioner installed Rice Mill in 2007 – Capacity determined as 4 MT based on 2007 guidelines – Subsequent modification in 2010 disallowing leased land for capacity determination – Respondent re-determined capacity as 2 MT in 2022 – Petitioner challenged the order – Whether 2010 instructions can be applied retrospectively to an already installed mill – Held, executive instructions cannot have retrospective effect – Capacity cannot be determined based on 2010 instructions – Impugned order quashed to the extent of land – Joint verification of plant and machinery ordered – Fresh order to be passed expeditiously after verification.(Para No. 7-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Bail application - Grant of Bail - Prolonged incarceration - Slow pace of trial - Balance between accused's right to liberty and societal interest - Constitutional parameters - Right to speedy trial - Stringent bail conditions - Prima facie determination of guilt - Special enactments - Right under Article 21 of the Constitution - Unjust imprisonment - Overcrowded jails - Deleterious effects of prolonged incarceration - Balance of interests - Speedy conclusion of trial - Application of Section 436A of CrPC - Expediting the process - Special Acts and rigour imposed - Need for stricter compliance - Bail conditions under special enactments - Bail granted. [Para 1 to Para 25]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Right to Liberty - Prolonged incarceration - Unjust imprisonment - Overcrowded jails - Deleterious effects - Balance between societal interest and individual rights - Speedy conclusion of trial - Bail conditions under special enactments - Balance of interests - Right to speedy trial - Application of Section 436A of CrPC - Expediting the process - Stricter compliance - Bail granted under Article 21. [Para 7]

Speedy Trial - Right to speedy trial - Prolonged incarceration - Balance of interests - Special enactments with stringent bail conditions - Prima facie determination of guilt - Application of Section 436A of CrPC - Speedy conclusion of trial - Expediting the process - Stricter compliance - Bail granted. [Para 14, Para 16]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 436A - Application of Section 436A to Special Acts - Speedy conclusion of trial - Expediting the process - Stricter compliance - Bail conditions under special enactments - Special enactments and rigour imposed - Bail granted. [Para 20]

Special Enactments - NDPS Act - Section 37 - Bail conditions - Stringent bail provisions - Balance between societal interest and individual rights - Speedy conclusion of trial - Prima facie determination of guilt - Expediting the process - Stricter compliance - Bail granted. [Para 17, Para 20]

Unjust Imprisonment - Right to Liberty - Prolonged incarceration - Overcrowded jails - Deleterious effects - Special enactments with stringent bail conditions - Speedy conclusion of trial - Bail granted - Balance of interests - Stricter compliance. [Para 21, Para 22]

Constitutional Parameters - Right to speedy trial - Right under Article 21 of the Constitution - Prolonged incarceration - Overcrowded jails - Deleterious effects - Special enactments with stringent bail conditions - Speedy conclusion of trial - Bail granted - Balance of interests - Stricter compliance. [Para 20, Para 21]

Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Writ Petition challenging the order of the Special Court for trial of NIA cases – Petitioner accused No. 1 alleged biased and illegal investigation – Seeking production of CCTV footage and call detail recordings (CDRs) – Allegations of ill-treatment on accused No. 18 – Special Court dismissed the application – Petitioner’s right to seek CCTV footage and call recordings considered.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 91 – Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution – Application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., seeking CCTV footage and CDRs – Petitioner accused No. 1 claiming biased and illegal investigation – Allegations of ill-treatment on accused No. 18 – Special Court dismissing the application – Court considering petitioner’s request for inspection of CCTV footage.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 – Allegations of ill-treatment on accused No. 18 – Special Court recording confession statement under Section 164 – Subsequent complaints of ill-treatment – Examination of accused No. 18’s allegations and medical records – Special Court dismissing application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 124 and 126 – Request for production of call detail recordings (CDRs) – Privileged communication between NIA officials and advocate – Confidentiality and secrecy of official communications – Court dismissing request for CDRs.

Inspection of CCTV Footage – Court instructing Central Project Coordinator and technical team to inspect FSL and NIA offices – Verification of storage capacities and availability of footages – Potential use of footages during trial if available – Request for call detail recordings rejected due to legal restrictions.

Next Hearing – Matter listed for further hearing on 27^th July 2023.

 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order dated 13.03.2023 present at Annexure-F passed by the Hon’ble 49th Additional City Civil and Session Judge (Special Court for trial of NIA cases) at Bengaluru in Spl.C.No.123/2023 and consequently appreciate the application filed by the petitioner under section 91 of Cr.P.C., at Annexure-D and direct the respondent agency to produce the CCTV footage of Madiwala FSL office dated 06.11.2022 and NIA office between 07.11.2022 to 14.11.2022 before the Hon’ble court, direct NIA officials i.e. Shri  Shanmugan, Shri Mahesh and Shri Manjunath and concerned advocate to provide  details of their official and personal mobile number with their service provider, which they were using between 07.11.2022 till the filing of charge sheet consequently it  may directed to concerned service provider to extract and furnish the CDRs of given number of above mentioned persons to trial court and etc.

 This Writ Petition, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, Sreenivas Harish Kumar J.,  made the following:

Motor Accident Compensation – Appeal against quantum of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Appellant sought enhancement of compensation – Accident resulting in multiple injuries to appellant, including fractures and muscle tears – Appellant underwent extensive medical treatment in various hospitals – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,21,500/- along with interest – Appellant contended compensation was inadequate, sought enhancement.

Medical Expenditure – Tribunal rightly considered medical bills and treatment records from Apna Hospital, Kurukshetra, and S.P.S. Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana – Compensation of Rs. 3,21,500/- granted for medical expenses – Held, no interference required. (Para 12)

Permanent Disability – Appellant suffered 41% disability in knee, ankle, and muscle wasting in the left leg – Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- for permanent disability – Court considered appellant’s profession and extent of disability – Enhanced compensation for permanent disability awarded – Appellant entitled to additional Rs. 94,000/-. (Para 13)

Pain and Suffering – Accident occurred in 2006 – Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded for pain and suffering – Tribunal’s decision justified, no change required.

Loss of Income and Other Expenses – Appellant’s shopkeeping profession affected due to injuries – Compensation awarded for loss of income, attendant charges, transportation, and special diet – Tribunal did not consider these aspects – Enhanced compensation granted for these factors. (Para 15)

Future Medical Treatment – Appellant claimed compensation for potential future medical treatments – No supporting evidence presented – No compensation awarded for future medical treatment.

Total Compensation – Overall compensation increased to Rs. 5,60,500/-, including interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the appeal till realization.

CRIMINAL APPEAL – Bail application – Accused charged with offenses under Sections 326 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code – Chart annexed to the charge-sheet containing details of mobile numbers and subscribers – Prosecution’s claim regarding the applicant’s connection to the seized bag – Lack of supporting material in charge-sheet – Court finding materials quoted insufficient for further detention – Applicant granted bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond – Conditions imposed for attendance and non-interference with prosecution witnesses – Observations to not influence trial court – Bail application disposed of. (Para 1-10)

Selection of Athletes for International Sporting Events - Scope of Judicial Review – Discretion of National Sports Federation – Exemption from Selection Trials – Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) exempted elite wrestlers (Respondents No.3 & No.4) from selection trials for the upcoming Asian Games to prevent injuries based on their performance in world wrestling events – Court held that the decision of selecting athletes for international events is best left to the experts of the National Sports Federation – Judicial review limited to examining arbitrariness, capriciousness, or perversity in decision-making process – Court cannot sit in appeal over the decisions of Expert Committees – Writ court will not interfere in the exercise of discretion of the National Sports Federation unless the discretion is shown to be arbitrary or contrary to settled principles or practices. (Para 21)

Discretionary Remedy under Article 226 - Court’s Jurisdiction – Issuance of a writ is a discretionary remedy – Court can refuse to exercise jurisdiction even if the petitioner may have a claim in law – Court’s power of judicial review limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision itself. (Para 20)

Importance of Expertise in Sports Selection - Sports Selection Criteria – Importance of considering various factors in selecting sportspersons for international events – Court’s lack of expertise to review selection decisions – Court cannot substitute its own view with that of Expert Committees unless decisions are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. (Para 16)

Limited Scope of Judicial Review - Judicial Review – Mere error or mistake insufficient to invoke powers under Article 226 – Court’s review restricted to ascertaining arbitrariness, procedural impropriety, or defiance of logic or moral standards in the decision-making process – Court cannot interfere with discretionary powers of administrative authorities unless exercise of discretion is shown to be perverse or illegal. (Para 20)

Disputed Documents in Judicial Proceedings - Veracity of Documents – Court declined to consider certain disputed documents due to lack of ascertainable veracity – Disputed documents can only be proved in a suit by leading oral/documentary evidence. (Para 22)

Impact of Litigation on Sports Preparation and Performance - Disruption due to Litigation – Court acknowledged the potential disruption and impact of litigations on the preparation and performance of players in international sports events – Encouraged circumspection in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to prevent hindrance to athletes’ mental and emotional preparedness. (Para 24)

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) – Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) – Violation of – Seizure of cash from petitioner’s cloth store – Show Cause Notices issued alleging contravention of FERA provisions – First Show Cause Notice set aside in appeal – Second Show Cause Notice issued after the first one was set aside – No substantial evidence to prove petitioner guilty – Appellate Tribunal’s judgment and order dated 24^th March 2004 set aside by High Court.

Fair opportunity to defend – Impugned order passed in petitioner’s absence – Petitioner unable to attend hearing due to financial constraints – Unjust approach by Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) in issuing a second Show Cause Notice after the first one was set aside.

Refund of seized amount – High Court directs respondent to refund Rs.1,48,000/- seized on 12^th May 1988 – Simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of seizure to be paid to the petitioner.

(Para No. 2, 5, 21, 25, 28, 32)

Mutation of Names – Property Law – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – Declaration of Title – Permissibility of Mutation based on Will – Mutation entries in revenue records do not confer ownership – Mutation entries relevant only for land revenue purposes – Competent civil court required for declaration of title.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Petition filed against order of Additional Commissioner, Revenue Division, Rewa – Appeal for mutation of names based on a Will – Partial allowance of application by Tehsildar – Appeal allowed by SDO Huzur, District Bhopal – Petitioners filed appeal before Commissioner for modification – Respondents filed application for impleadment in pending appeal – Application allowed by Additional Commissioner.

Supreme Court Decisions – Mutation entries not conferring or extinguishing title – Entries relevant only for the purpose of land revenue collection – Title to property can only be decided by competent civil court – Mutation on the basis of Will held per se illegal.

Jurisdictional Error – Petition filed against interim order – No jurisdictional error found – Petition dismissed.

Property Rights – Will-based mutation impermissible – Petitioners advised to seek declaration of title through competent civil court.

Importance of Civil Court – Mutation entries not creating or extinguishing title – Title to property to be determined by competent civil court.

Impermissibility of Mutation on the Basis of Will – Mutation entries not conferring ownership rights – Legal position established by series of Supreme Court decisions. Proper Approach to Establish Title – Petitioners to seek a declaration of title through a competent civil court – Mutation not a valid means to establish ownership based on a Will.

Mutation Entries – Fiscal Purpose Only – Mutation entries relevant for land revenue collection – No ownership conferred based on such entries. Dismissal of Petition – Petition seeking mutation on the basis of Will dismissed – Mutation based on Will held to be per se illegal.

Mental Health Act, 1987 – Section 76 – Appeal against order allowing appointment of psychiatrist to ascertain mental capacity of plaintiff – Disputed alienation of property – Plaintiff represented by next friend claiming unsound mind and mental disorder – Application filed under Section 50(1) and (4) of Mental Health Act, 1987 read with Section 151 of CPC – Trial Court considering NIMHANS report and previous psychologist assessment – Expert report sought for – Compliance with Section 50 of Act evident – Procedure followed – Appellant’s argument of relief under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 rejected – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court directed to dispose of matter within one year. (Para 1-8)