of the arresting authority must be based on pertinent material, and compliance with procedural safeguards is essential to uphold the legality of an arrest. [Para 61-66]

Constitutional Law – Right to Liberty and Fair Procedure – The Court reiterated the constitutional guarantee of individual liberty and the requirement for a fair and transparent procedure in matters of arrest and detention. It was held that non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements in the process of arrest infringes upon the fundamental rights of the individuals involved. The Court stressed the need for law enforcement Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC and PMLA 2002 – Illegal Arrest and Detention – Two petitions under Section 482 CrPC by Dilbag Singh and Kulwinder Singh were adjudicated, concerning their arrests under the PMLA 2002 – The legality of arrest orders, arrest memos, and remand orders was assessed in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings – Petitioners claimed they were illegally detained and arrested in violation of PMLA provisions [Para 1, 3-7].

Criminal Procedure – Illegal Detention and Arrest – Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 – The Court analyzed the compliance of Section 19 of the PMLA 2002 in the context of the arrest of the petitioners. The Court held that the arresting authorities failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 19, resulting in unlawful detention and illegal arrest of the petitioners. The Court observed that the authorities did not provide written grounds of arrest immediately after arrest and failed to forward the relevant materials to the Adjudicating Authority as mandated under Section 19(2). [Para 55-66]

Judicial Scrutiny of Arrest Procedure – The Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to statutory procedures in arrest cases, particularly under special acts like the PMLA. It was noted that individual liberty is a paramount right, and any arrest made in violation of prescribed legal procedures is liable to be set aside. The Court pointed out that the subjective satisfaction agencies to observe due diligence and procedural safeguards in executing their powers, especially under stringent statutes like the PMLA. [Para 3, 22-25]

Criminal Procedure – Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 – Territorial Jurisdiction and Compliance – The Court deliberated on two primary issues concerning Section 19(3) of the PMLA: the lack of judicial scrutiny regarding compliance with Section 19 in remand orders, and whether there was any basis to justify the Gurugram Court's jurisdiction prior to the remand on 09.01.2024. The Court found that the Special Court failed to appropriately apply its mind to ensure compliance with Section 19, including Section 19(3), and that the initial remand lacked a proper territorial jurisdiction basis. The Court recognized that the final decision on jurisdiction should be based on the entirety of the evidence presented during the trial. [Para 67-68]

Judicial Scrutiny and Application of Mind in Remand Orders – The Court emphasized the necessity of judicial scrutiny and proper application of mind by the Special Court in remand orders, particularly in ensuring compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA. The Court observed that a lack of such scrutiny in the initial stages renders subsequent proceedings invalid. [Para 67, 73-74]

Illegal Detention and Subsequent Proceedings – The Court held that the detention of the petitioners from 04.01.2024 to 08.01.2024 amounted to illegal arrest, which subsequently led to the violation of the provisions of Section 19 read with Section 167 of the CrPC. The Court concluded that all orders, including the remand orders arising out of the illegal arrest, were invalid and set aside. [Para 76(b)]

Violation of PMLA Provisions – The Court found violations of both Section 19(2) and Section 19(1) of the PMLA, deeming the actions of the Enforcement Directorate, including the arrest and remand orders, as illegal and warranting setting aside. [Para 76(c-d)]

Decision – Quashing of Arrest, Remand Orders, and Consequential Actions – Based on the findings, the Court allowed both petitions, quashed the arrest orders, arrest memos, remand orders, and all consequential orders – held - the arrest and subsequent remand orders as void due to non-compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA. It was held that the detention of the petitioners from the date of their initial confinement until their formal arrest was illegal, and all subsequent actions based on the illegal arrest were set aside. The Court ordered the release of the petitioners and directed the authorities to adhere strictly to legal provisions in future actions. [Para 53, 66 – 76, 78]

Incident and Conviction Background – Durga Prasad’s conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC for causing death by head injuries with brick pieces in a dispute over drainage clearing – Trial court’s life imprisonment sentence – Appellants challenged the judgment. [Paras 1-3, 36]

Prosecution Evidence and Testimonies – Reliance on testimonies of eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2), medical evidence (PW5), and other formal witnesses – Eyewitnesses recounted the incident, and medical officer confirmed the fatal injuries. [Paras 4, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 15-17, 19-21, 23-24, 30-31, 35]

Defence’s Contention and Lack of Evidence – Defence’s argument of accidental fall leading to injuries – No evidence produced by the defense to substantiate their claim. [Paras 5-6, 22, 25]

Assessment of Medical Evidence – Evaluation of injuries and their causation – Inferences drawn from post-mortem and medical reports – Determination of the nature of injuries and their impact. [Paras 8, 18, 20, 32-33]

Legal Principles on ‘Intention’ and ‘Knowledge’ – Analysis of the intent and knowledge aspects under IPC Sections 299, 300, 302, 304, 323, 324, 325 – Reference to Supreme Court precedents. [Paras 26-31, 34-35]

Modified Conviction – Alteration of conviction from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC – Sentencing to three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000, with compensation to the victim’s family. [Paras 36-37]

Discharge of Bail and Compliance – Instructions for surrender, discharge of bail, and compliance with the modified judgment. [Paras 37-38]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part with a modified conviction and sentence.

NDPS - Bail - Gurpreet Singh, arrested for possession of 26.790 kgs of Cannabis, seeks bail citing procedural irregularities and trial delays [Paras 1, 5, 7, 16, 25].

Bail Justification on Grounds of Trial Delay – Applicant's counsel arguing for bail based on significant delay in trial progress, citing various Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents emphasizing the importance of speedy trial. [Para 5, 16-21, 24]

Sampling Procedure Non-Compliance – Allegations of prosecution's non-compliance with the prescribed sampling procedure for narcotics, as per Standing Orders No.1/88 and 1/89, leading to a contention of non-fulfillment of stringent bail standards under Section 37 of NDPS Act. [Para 6, 14-15]

State's Counter-Arguments – Emphasis on the seriousness of NDPS Act offences and the necessity of stringent bail conditions under Section 37. Arguments against considering trial delay as a sole reason for granting bail and asserting that Standing Orders are advisory, not mandatory. [Para 8-11]

Court's Analysis and Decision – Court acknowledging the necessity to satisfy conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act for bail but recognizing the rights under Article 21 for protection of liberty in face of trial delay and non-compliance with sampling procedure. Applicant granted bail considering these factors and set conditions. [Para 12-15, 22-28, 29]

Bail Granted - Under strict conditions including not leaving the country without court permission, appearing for hearings, and not indulging in criminal activity [Para 29].

Unconditional Stay on Arbitral Award – Granting – Arbitration Petition for Exclusive Marketing Agreement – Arbitrator awarded damages without proof of actual loss, contradicting settled law – Court finds award perversely and patently illegal, granting an unconditional stay. [Paras 1-37]

Principles of Damages in Contractual Breaches – Applicability and Proof – Held – In claims for damages, proof of actual loss is essential – Arbitrator’s decision awarding damages without such proof contravenes established principles, rendering award legally flawed. [Paras 32-33, 36-37]

Marketing and Distribution Agreement (MDA) – Arbitral Award Analysis – Damages for non-purchase of product under MDA – Award based on product price, not actual loss – Award fails to consider necessary deductions such as manufacturing costs. [Paras 6-7, 34]

Decision – Unconditional Stay on Arbitral Award – Arbitral award granting damages without proving actual loss found patently illegal and perverse – High Court stays award unconditionally, expedites hearing of the arbitration petition. [Paras 37-40]

Criminal Law - Petitioner's Arrest and Prosecution – Seizure of foreign liquor leading to petitioner’s arrest – Allegation of unlawful possession, storage, and non-payment of duty – Raid by Bidhannagar Excise Department on 31.10.2018 – Prosecution under Bengal Excise Act, 1909 and West Bengal (Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1998. [Paras 5-7, 15]

Defense of the Petitioner – Liquor as free samples for promotion, not for sale – Import and storage by Duomo Distribution Pvt. Ltd., petitioner's company – Contention that no excise duty applicable on non-sale items. [Paras 8-10, 17, 20-21]

Legal Principles for Prosecution of Company Directors – Supreme Court Precedents - Reliance on Supreme Court decisions establishing that directors or principal officers cannot be held vicariously liable for offences unless the company itself is part of the proceedings. Emphasized the mandatory prosecution of a company for holding its directors or officers liable. [Para 12, 30]

Analysis of Facts and Evidence – Seizure of Liquor and Defence of Samples - Scrutiny of the prosecution's claim of illegal possession, storage, and transport of foreign liquor against the petitioner's defence that the seized liquor was not for sale but samples, as evidenced by supporting documents. [Para 15-27]

Lack of Company as an Accused – Violation of Legal Procedure - absence of the company as an accused in the proceedings, which is a legal requirement for prosecuting its directors or principal officers, as per Section 46B of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. [Para 29-35]

Decision – Quashing of prosecution report and proceedings against petitioner – Absence of company as an accused – Proceedings deemed not in accordance with law and an abuse of the process. [Paras 36-38]

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order for FIR registration and its subsequent quashing – Dismissal of petition based on detailed investigation and material collected – Observations made not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. [Para 9, 16]

Criminal Breach of Trust and Conspiracy – Sections 406/120B IPC – Allegations of dishonest inducement and retention of payment for air tickets – Detailed investigation substantiating the charges against the petitioners – Quashing of FIR and chargesheet not warranted. [Para 11, 14, 16]

Judicial Vigilance – Magistrate's duty in scrutinizing allegations and issuing directions – Necessity of application of judicial mind in matters of criminal complaints – Reference to precedent cases outlining the principles for Magistrates' approach to criminal complaints. [Para 4, 5]

Civil Nature of Disputes – Differentiation between civil and criminal disputes – Consideration of the nature of the dispute in the context of criminal proceedings – Rejection of the argument that the dispute is purely civil based on the facts of the case. [Para 14]

Investigation Process – Role of investigating authorities in collecting evidence – Collection of statements and material demonstrating the commission of alleged offenses – Importance of thorough investigation in criminal proceedings. [Para 14]

Power of High Court – Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC – High Court's authority to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure justice – Criteria for exercise of such powers in the context of criminal cases. [Para 15]

Trial Proceedings – Directions to expedite trial proceedings – Order for timely completion of trial in light of the age of the FIR. [Para 20]

Decision – Petition dismissed, FIR and chargesheet upheld – Court directed expedited trial proceedings, clarifying observations made were only for adjudicating the present petition, not a comment on merits of the case [Paras 16-23].

Property Ownership Dispute – Will of Mahant Narsingh Dass – Bequeathing property to Chela Har Narain and Chela Budh Ram – Chela Budh Ram's subsequent agreement relinquishing rights, challenged in court. [Paras 1-8, 66-68, 70-77]

Validity of Compromise/Relinquishment Deed – Compromise Deed executed by Chela Budh Ram favoring Chela Har Narain – Deed on plain paper, unregistered, and unproved – Inadmissible as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. [Paras 9, 66-68, 70-77]

Jurisdiction and Scope Under Article 227 – Challenging Judgments in Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) – Petition under Article 227 challenging judgments in RCT and Additional Rent Controller (ARC) regarding eviction upheld under section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by High Court under Article 227 is circumscribed to issues of law and relevant facts for appreciating legal issues. [Paras 64, 82]

Documentary Evidence – Admissibility and Registration Requirements – Compromise Deed/Relinquishment Deed central to property ownership dispute not registered and not proved in accordance with law, thus inherently inadmissible as evidence. Reliance on such unregistered and unproved documents in judgments by ARC and RCT held to be misplaced. Necessity of registration under Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 emphasized. [Paras 66-77, 80-81]

Effect of Inadmissible Evidence on Judicial Decisions – Decisions based on inadmissible evidence (Compromise Deed/Relinquishment Deed) are unsustainable. Conclusions drawn on such evidence by lower courts in eviction proceedings must be disregarded. Case remitted to RCT for fresh decision excluding inadmissible evidence. [Paras 80-83]

Remand for Fresh Adjudication – Case remitted to RCT for fresh adjudication based on findings of inadmissible evidence. RCT may direct fresh evidence if necessary. [Para 83]

Disposition – Petition disposed of with directions to RCT for fresh adjudication without order as to costs. [Para 84]

Rent Law - Eviction Order Challenged - Petitioner/tenant Mohd Irfan challenged the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller regarding shops No. 4 & 5 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The order was based on the landlord's (respondents) need for the premises for a boutique business. Petitioner argued the cessation of bona fide need due to respondent no. 2’s marriage to a Pakistani national [Para 1, 4, 4.1, 4.2].

Bona Fide Requirement - The Court upheld the landlord's requirement as bona fide. Emphasized that the crucial date for considering bona fide requirement is the date of the institution of the eviction petition. Marriage of the landlady (respondent no. 2) post-petition and potential migration does not extinguish her requirement or her rights as an Indian citizen [Para 4, 4.1, 4.2].

Ownership and Jural Relationship Established - The Court noted that the ownership of the premises and the jural relationship of tenancy were established through undisputed rent receipts. The petitioner/tenant’s contention under the Enemy Property Act was dismissed [Para 3.4, 5.1].

Alternate Accommodation - The Court agreed with the Rent Controller that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of alternate accommodation. The respondents/landlords proved the lack of suitable alternate accommodation for running a boutique [Para 5.2].

Conclusion - The High Court found no infirmity in the impugned order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner/tenant [Para 6].

Dishonour Cheque - Quashing of Complaint Case No.19930/2016 under Section 138 NI Act - Petitioner, Neeta Gupta, seeks quashing of complaint filed by Suman Anand, alleging dishonored cheque of Rs.20,00,000/- - Petitioner claims no involvement as the cheque was signed solely by her late husband and she did not receive the statutory demand notice - Respondent alleges refusal by petitioner to accept notice - Matter of receipt of notice deemed suitable for trial [Paras 3-5].

Legal Framework under Section 138 NI Act - Criteria include cheque drawn for discharge of any debt or other liability, dishonored by the bank, and subsequent failure to pay post statutory demand notice - Not applicable if cheque not signed by accused in joint accounts - Supreme Court rulings in Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Alka Khandu Avhad v. Amar Syamprasad Mishra cited for not prosecuting joint account holder who hasn’t signed cheque [Paras 6-10].

Decision - Petition allowed, criminal complaint against petitioner quashed due to absence of her signature on the cheque - Application of Section 138 NI Act deemed misuse of legal process in this context [Para 11].