Public Service Commission – Recruitment Process – The court examined the issue of whether the State Government could demand additional proof of practice experience from candidates already selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) for the posts of ADAs and DDAs. It was held that the State Government's demand for further evidence of six court appearances each year was an overreach and not supported by the relevant rules​​.

Selection and Appointment – Role of Public Service Commission – The court emphasized that the PPSC, being a constitutional body, has the primary authority to conduct the selection process. Once the Commission had completed its selection and forwarded the list of candidates, the State's role was limited to verifying the suitability of the candidates regarding their antecedents, medical fitness, and potential issues of impersonation or forgery​​.

Practice Experience – Certification and Verification – The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision that certificates issued by the Bar Association or Bar Council, indicating enrollment and practice at the Bar, were sufficient. The additional requirement of proving six court appearances each year was deemed unreasonable and unnecessary. It was concluded that self-attestation or an affidavit confirming the candidate's engagement in advocacy was adequate unless there was substantial doubt about the candidate's practice status​​.

Decision:

The appeals were dismissed, and the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld. The letters dated 02.06.2023 and 05.06.2023 demanding additional evidence of court appearances were quashed. The court directed the State to proceed with the appointments based on the existing certificates provided by the candidates and the recommendations of the PPSC​​.

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 132, 153A, 153C – Invalid Search and Seizure Proceedings – Quashing of Notices and Assessment Orders - Court examined the validity of search and seizure proceedings and subsequent assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Petitioner challenged the initiation of proceedings, search, and assessment order, asserting lack of authorization and procedural violations – Court held that without proper authorization and adherence to the prescribed procedure under Section 153C, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A were invalid and unjustified – Based on the evidence and precedents, the Court quashed the notices and assessment orders [Paras 1-36].

Income Tax – Search and Seizure – Procedural Compliance – Requirement of Authorization – Invalid Panchnama - High Court clarified that mere mention of a company’s name in a panchnama does not equate to authorization for a search under Section 132 – Reiterated the principle that procedural compliance is mandatory, and deviations render proceedings void – Emphasized the necessity of following Section 153C when incriminating materials of third parties are found during a search – Court found lack of compliance and quashed the assessment proceedings [Paras 25-30].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act – Petitioner contended that materials obtained from the cloning of a laptop were inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act – Court considered the arguments but primarily focused on procedural lapses under the Income Tax Act to quash the proceedings [Para 12].

Decision – Quashing of Notices and Orders – Held – The writ petition is allowed, notices dated 05.01.2018, and assessment orders and demand notices dated 07.02.2024 are quashed and set aside as nonest due to procedural violations and lack of jurisdiction. All pending applications stand disposed of, with no costs awarded. [Paras 35-36]

Bail in NDPS Cases – Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – The court addressed the issue of prolonged pre-trial detention for the petitioners, emphasizing that they had been in custody for more than three years (or approximately two and a half years for some) without significant progress in their trials. The court highlighted that such extended detention, without the completion of trial, violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution​​.

Delay in Trial – Procedural Difficulties – The court acknowledged that the delay in the trial was primarily due to procedural difficulties, such as the inability to produce the accused from various jails and the theft of case samples. These factors contributed to the lack of examination of prosecution witnesses despite charges being framed over a year prior​​.

Non-Admissibility of Disclosure Statements – The court noted that most petitioners were nominated based on the disclosure statements of co-accused, which are not admissible as evidence under the NDPS Act, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu​​.

Comparative Analysis and Parity – The court considered the grant of bail to a similarly placed co-accused (Avninder Singh @ Shanty) who was released on bail under similar circumstances. This precedent was used to argue for parity in granting bail to the current petitioners​​.

Section 37 NDPS Act – Application of Bail Conditions – The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments which highlighted that prolonged detention without trial and procedural delays could override the strict conditions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, thus warranting bail​​.

Decision- All six petitions were allowed. The petitioners were granted regular bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the trial court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. The court specified that the observations made were for the purpose of deciding the bail petitions and not on the merits of the cases​​.

Criminal Law - Post Settlement FIR - Mutual Settlement – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of Process Prevented - The matrimonial disputes between petitioner No.1 and Prabhjot Kaur, including spousal support and custody, were resolved in Australia, where both parties are citizens. Respondent No.2’s initiation of criminal proceedings in India was held to be an abuse of process, as mutual settlement released all liabilities in India and Australia – Held: FIR quashed as continuation of proceedings was vexatious and oppressive [Paras 7-10, 13].

Limitation for Cognizance – Section 468 CrPC – Proceedings Time-Barred - Alleged dowry harassment occurred around 2011, while the FIR was registered in 2019. The complaint was filed beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under Section 468 CrPC for offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years – Held: FIR barred by limitation; quashed [Paras 11-12].

Proxy Litigation in Matrimonial Disputes – Judicial Condemnation of Malicious Prosecution - The Court condemned the practice of initiating proxy litigation in India after settling matrimonial disputes abroad, as a means to harass relatives of the other party. Such actions are a clear abuse of judicial processes and clog an already overburdened justice system – Held: Judicial process cannot be used as an instrument of oppression; FIR quashed [Paras 13-14].

Role of Settlement in Matrimonial Cases – Restraint on Continuing Criminal Proceedings - Relying on precedents, the Court emphasized that once a settlement is reached and matrimonial disputes are resolved, continued prosecution is unwarranted. The principle of estoppel applies to parties who have accepted the terms of a settlement – Held: Criminal complaints post-settlement are unsustainable [Paras 8-9].

Service Law - Regularization of Service – Food Corporation of India – Appeal against regularization order – Petitioner employed since 1986 on various temporary and contingent bases, performing duties without full-time status or proper pay scale – Single Judge directed regularization as Safaiwala/housekeeping staff from 06.09.2002, with all benefits – Appellant’s contentions regarding lack of full-time status and post for regularization rejected by court due to long-term service extraction and significant duties performed by respondent [Paras 2-20].

Employment Law – Requirement for Regularization – Qualifications and Age – Court dismisses Corporation’s argument against regularization based on respondent’s age and educational qualifications (only completed 5^th standard) – Regulations allow age relaxation and do not require high qualifications for the respondent’s role – Court criticizes Corporation for not acting sooner and for ignoring previous court mandates and government policy directives on regularization [Paras 13-19].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court’s decision. The High Court concluded that the petitioner’s service merited regularization based on her substantial and sustained contributions to the respondent corporation. The court noted the lack of justification for opposing regularization and mandated compliance with regularization norms to uphold the dignity and rights of long-serving employees [Para 22].

Civil Procedure – Return of Unmarked Documents – Dispute on Impounding Documents for Insufficiency of Stamp Duty and Registration – The petitioner, after the dismissal of her suit for a permanent injunction (O.S.No.181 of 2024), sought the return of unmarked documents which the trial court refused due to insufficiency of stamp duty and lack of registration. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh examined precedents governing the return and impounding of such documents. [Paras 1-3, 18-19].

Legal Principles – Impounding of Documents – Application of Stamp and Registration Acts – The court reviewed various judgments to determine if unmarked, improperly stamped, or unregistered documents could be returned to the parties without impounding. It was concluded that documents not tendered in evidence could not be impounded and should be returned, as their impounding only arises at the stage of marking documents as exhibits during trial. [Paras 5-17].

Decision – Allowing the Civil Revision Petition – Held: The Court directed the return of the documents listed in I.A.No.704 of 2023 to the petitioner, overruling the trial court’s decision. This decision was supported by a conjoint reading of Sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Stamp Act and relevant case law indicating that the duty to impound arises only when documents are tendered in evidence. [Paras 18-20].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner accused of conspiracy under Sections 341, 307, 120B read with Section 34 IPC – Incident occurred on 11.03.2023 near Saibaba Temple, Anantapuramu, involving physical assault by unidentified assailants – Petitioner’s involvement cited as conspiratorial without direct participation in the assault – Bail granted considering petitioner’s severe physical disability and low likelihood of interfering with the investigation [Para 1-7].

Physical Disability Consideration – Petitioner with 90% disability including impaired mobility and grip – Court considers inability to interfere with investigation due to physical condition – Anticipatory bail granted with conditions of surrender, executing a personal bond, and appearing before the investigation officer as required [Para 7].

Investigation Oversights – Mention of unsubstantiated involvement of petitioner in official remand report noted – Incorrect statements in remand report acknowledged by court without further action on investigating officer – Highlights issues in prosecution’s case against petitioner [Para 6].

Decision: Granting of Anticipatory Bail – Court grants anticipatory bail to petitioner on executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two like sureties – Directed to surrender within two weeks and cooperate with ongoing investigation [Para 7-8].

Bail – Cancellation – Suppression of Material Facts – The respondent Indira Kumari @ Tanu secured bail by suppressing material evidence against her, specifically the statements of last seen witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The bail was granted under the false premise that there was no evidence against her. This concealment and misrepresentation amounted to an abuse of judicial process. The court, upon discovering this suppression, recalled the bail order dated 07.03.2024 and directed her arrest. [Paras 1-22]

Principle of Parity – Negative Parity – Bail Application – The co-accused Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj sought bail on the ground of parity with Indira Kumari. The court rejected their bail applications, emphasizing that the principle of parity is based on positive equality and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. The court highlighted that parity cannot be claimed when the initial bail was obtained by suppressing material facts. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Bail Cancelled – Bail Applications Rejected – The bail granted to Indira Kumari on 07.03.2024 was recalled and cancelled. The bail applications of Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj were rejected. Directions were issued for the immediate arrest and detention of Indira Kumari. [Paras 22, 30-31]
 

Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – Petitioner seeks review of dismissal order, arguing substantial questions of law were raised but not considered by the court – Review petition examined under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review permissible on grounds of discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or other sufficient reason [Paras 1-22].

Error Apparent on Face of Record – Definition and Scope – Review jurisdiction confined to patent errors not requiring elaborate argument or reappreciation of evidence – Error must be self-evident and not subject to different interpretations or extensive reasoning – Prior case laws including Parsion Devi and Lily Thomas reiterated [Paras 10-17].

Previous Adjudication – No New Grounds – Petitioner’s arguments largely reiterate points already considered and rejected in the initial appeal – No new evidence or error apparent demonstrated – Review petition found to be an attempt to reargue the case on merits [Paras 19-23].

Judicial Precedents – Analysis and Application – Review jurisdiction principles from Apex Court judgments applied – Review not an appeal in disguise, meant to correct manifest errors only – Precedents from Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon, S. Nagaraj, and others discussed to emphasize limited scope of review [Paras 15-21].

Decision:

Review Petition Dismissed – No grounds for review found within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Original order dated 10.10.2023 upheld, dismissing the appeal for lack of substantial questions of law – Petitioner's arguments considered repetitive and unconvincing [Paras 23-24].