Criminal Law - Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Summoning Order in prosecution under FSS Act – Dismissed – Petitioners, including Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., its nominees, Banaskantha District Co-op. Milk Producers’ Union Ltd., and CP Wholesale India Pvt. Ltd., sought quashing of summoning order dated 18.01.2021 in complaint for alleged sale of unsafe, sub-standard, and misbranded ‘Amul’ ghee – Petitioners claimed seized product was counterfeit, not supplied/manufactured by them, and proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 77 FSS Act – Court held that invoices, internal records, and counterfeit allegations are private documents requiring proof at trial; not a ground for quashing at summoning stage – Commissioner validly extended limitation under proviso to Section 77 citing COVID-19 lockdown and delayed responses – No exceptional ground made out – Petitions dismissed; summoning order upheld [Paras 42-46, 47-48].

Counterfeit Product Allegation – Evidentiary burden lies at trial stage – Petitioners’ reliance on batch distribution records and prior complaint against distributor to show counterfeit nature of seized goods cannot be conclusively accepted at pre-trial stage – Determination of genuineness of product is a matter of evidence [Paras 42-43].

Limitation under Section 77 FSS Act – Complaint within extended time – Though complaint filed beyond one year from seizure date (07.03.2019), Commissioner of Food Safety recorded reasons and granted extension up to three years under Section 77 proviso – Complaint filed on 03.09.2020 held within time [Paras 44-46].

Decision – No ground made out for quashing; petitions dismissed; summoning order dated 18.01.2021 sustained [Paras 47-48].

Service Law - Transfer Policy – Mass Transfers at behest of Public Representatives – G.O.Ms.No.23 (15.05.2025) & G.O.Ms.No.5 (12.06.2025) – Partial Allowance/Remand – Common order on batch WPs challenging 2025 transfers; Court finds large-scale recommendations by MLAs/MPs fixed both transfer and posting, undermining executive instructions; directs fresh counselling strictly per G.O.Ms.No.23 & 5 for erstwhile Kurnool & Krishna; petitions from other districts dismissed; plea against DAO’s jurisdiction rejected [Paras 22–25, 26–32].

Judicial Review of Transfers – Scope – Guidelines vs. Public Interest – Courts’ Restraint – Reiterated that transfer orders made in public interest/administrative reasons are ordinarily immune to interference, absent breach of statutory mandate or mala fides – Shilpi Bose; Major General J.K. Bansal cited [Paras 13–16].

Public Representatives’ Recommendations – Permissible Limits – Recommendation per se does not vitiate transfer (Mohd. Masood Ahmad; Sri Pubi Lombi) – but mass-scale postings dictated by such letters, fixing both transfer and destination, dehors the policy, are impermissible – present record shows exceptionally high numbers in erstwhile Kurnool & Krishna; interference warranted [Paras 23–29].

Transparency & Seniority Handling – Counselling Exercise and Station Seniority – First transfer since 2019 DSC appointments required heightened transparency; Kurnool/ Krishna counselling taken manually; options invited on 28–30.06.2025; orders issued same day; lists based on date of birth used for inter se order; exercise held wanting vis-à-vis G.O.Ms.No.5/Clause 8 [Paras 21–22].

Jurisdiction of Issuing Authority – District Agricultural Officer / Joint Director of Agriculture – Objection overruled: by G.O.Ms.No.35 (30.01.2020) JDA made appointing authority; by G.O.Ms.No.31 (26.02.2022) “District Agricultural Officer” used as generic designation; impugned orders not without competence [Para 30].

Directions / Disposition – (i) WPs from erstwhile Kurnool & Krishna allowed; fresh counselling to be conducted strictly under G.O.Ms.No.23 (15.05.2025) and G.O.Ms.No.5 (12.06.2025); (ii) WPs from other districts dismissed; (iv) No costs [Para 32].*

Civil Law - Review – CPC Order 47 Rule 1 / Section 114 – “Innocuous” Direction Procured by Suppression – Recall Justified – Common order dated 23/06/2025 in W.P. No. 22484/2025 directed CMDA to consider petitioner’s representation without notice to the affected builder; review applicant showed that material facts (consents/agreements, EC minutes, pending civil suit) were concealed, and the order was misused through public notices – Held: Non-disclosure amounts to unclean hands; error apparent; order reviewed and recalled; writ petition dismissed [Paras 3, 5–7, 13–18].

Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process – Public Notices Misrepresenting Relief – Writ petitioner sought only consideration of representation; yet issued newspaper notices projecting challenge to planning/building permissions – Such concealment/misrepresentation condemned; sufficient to dismiss writ at threshold [Paras 13–16].

Contractual Consent & Association Resolutions – Clauses Permitting Reconstitution/Phase-II and EC Minutes Allowing Construction – Clause 20 of construction agreement authorised plan amendments/reconstitution with neighbouring property and additional FSI/TDR; handing-over agreement Clause 8 recorded ingress/egress to Phase II and common amenities; EC minutes (31.07.2021 & 29.08.2021) permitted continuation of Phase II Block-4 – Non-disclosure vitiated writ relief [Paras 8–10].

Parallel Civil Proceedings – Pending Suit on Contractual Clauses – O.S. No. 74 of 2025 seeking declaration/injunction against access/amenities noted; had it been disclosed, parties would have been relegated to civil court – Another reason to review/recall [Paras 11–12, 15].

Process – No Prior Notice in Writ Due to Limited/“Innocuous” Prayer – Acceptable at admission stage; but once abuse surfaces, Court can correct course in review jurisdiction [Paras 3(ii)-(iii), 16–18].

Decision – Review allowed – Order dated 23/06/2025 in W.P. No. 22484/2025 reviewed and recalled – Writ petition dismissed – No costs – Connected WMPs closed [Para 18].*

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots – Suo Motu Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 401 CrPC – Acquittal Set Aside – The High Court initiated suo motu revision against the acquittal of four accused persons in a 1984 riots case involving the murder of Harbhajan Singh – Held: The Sessions Judge’s decision suffered from manifest legal error and serious lapses in trial and investigation – Acquittal set aside – Matter remanded for retrial [Paras 8–11, 20–21, 34–36, 38–44, 52, 68(a)-(b)].

Contradictory Testimony – Section 145 Evidence Act – Contradiction Not Proved – The Sessions Court relied on an unproven contradiction between the complainant’s written statement and oral deposition without confronting her as required under Section 145 – Held: The contradiction was not established per law and should not have formed the basis of acquittal [Paras 41–44].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Explained Circumstantially – The Court held that the 14-day delay in filing the complaint was justified in light of the large-scale displacement, violence, and trauma faced by the complainant – Held: Delay not fatal to the prosecution’s case [Para 45].

Testimony of Sole Eyewitness – Conviction Possible – No Rule Requiring Corroboration – The trial court erred in disbelieving the sole eyewitness without lawful basis – Held: Conviction can be based on a solitary witness if credible – Lack of corroboration not sufficient to discredit testimony [Paras 47–48].

Defective Investigation – No Ground for Acquittal – The Court found grave lapses in police investigation including failure to trace natural witnesses or collect material evidence – Held: Lapses in investigation cannot be taken advantage of by accused if other evidence supports conviction [Paras 49–51].

Revisional Powers – Power to Order Retrial – The Court clarified that while it cannot convert acquittal into conviction under Section 401(3) CrPC, it can order retrial in exceptional cases – Held: This was an exceptional case of manifest miscarriage of justice warranting retrial [Paras 52–58].

Further Investigation – CBI Directed – The Court exercised inherent and constitutional powers to direct the CBI to conduct further investigation due to shoddy and compromised initial probe – Held: CBI to proceed on a best-effort basis; Delhi Police to cooperate [Paras 59–67].

Decision – Acquittal Set Aside – Retrial Ordered – Further Investigation Directed – The Sessions Court judgment dated 28.05.1986 was set aside – Retrial ordered – Evidence recorded earlier to stand, but parties allowed to lead further evidence – Trial Court directed to decide case afresh uninfluenced by this judgment – CBI to conduct further investigation – Trial to conclude expeditiously [Paras 68–69].

Electricity Law - Electricity Undertaking Acquisition – Depreciation on Consumer-Funded Assets – Section 7-A(2) of Indian Electricity Act – Claim Rejected – The petitioner Board sought deduction of depreciation on works constructed at consumer/local body expense – Held: Such assets not funded by the licensee are excluded from book value for compensation; thus, depreciation on them also cannot be claimed – In line with Pilibhit Electric Supply Co. and other precedents [Paras 4-10].

Stores and Spare Parts – Independent Valuation Under Section 7-A(2)(iii) – Inclusion Justified – The Special Officer rightly considered value of spare parts separately based on physical verification and store records – Claim of double inclusion by Board not substantiated – No interference warranted [Para 11].

Advance Collections – Rs. 2,50,000 Collected Revenue Not Deductible – Amount was not an advance from Board to Ex-Licensee but revenue collected on its behalf – Properly excluded from deductions under Section 7-A(5)(a) – Board’s objection rejected [Para 12].

Railway Siding Charges – Challenge Not Pressed – Petitioner waived argument on this head – Findings of Special Officer on this issue upheld without detailed discussion [Para 13].

Consumer Advances – Claim of Rs. 8,75,393.59 – Already Reflected as Contribution – Amount adjusted in accounts as consumer contribution and excluded from book value – Not separately deductible – Special Officer’s finding upheld [Para 13].

Employee Dues – Gratuity, Leave, SC Awards – Not Payable Absent Actual Disbursement – Gratuity or leave encashment claims not substantiated with proof of payment – Special Officer correctly held no deferred liability existed at takeover date – Claim rightly disallowed [Paras 14-15].

Development Reserve – No Deduction When Utilized in Undertaking – Section 7-A(5)(h) – Special Officer found entire reserve invested in fixed assets transferred to Board – Nothing remained in balance with Ex-Licensee – No error in denying further deduction – Supported by SC precedent in Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. [Paras 16-17].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Challenge against specific components of Award dated 12.07.1982 found without merit – Award upheld – Petitioner directed to pay interest on principal amount as per statute within 6 months [Para 18].

Bail – NDPS Act – Section 36A(4) Default/Statutory Bail – 184 kg Ganja – Petition Allowed – Prosecution failed to file PP’s report seeking extension beyond 180 days; charge-sheet not filed; custody since 11.02.2025 – Held: Accused acquired indefeasible right to bail under Section 36A(4); enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions [Paras 5–9].

Seizure & Allegations – Commercial Quantity – Non-bar to Default Bail – Recovery of 94 packets (184.00 kg) of ganja during raid on 11.02.2025; investigation largely completed; witnesses official – Gravity of offence no ground to defeat statutory right when extension not sought [Paras 2, 5–7].

Conditions of Bail – Stringent Safeguards Imposed – Personal bond ₹50,000 with two sureties – Weekly appearance before SHO (Saturdays 10:00–17:00) till cognizance – Not to leave district without permission – No offences/inducement – Cooperate with investigation – Surrender passport/affidavit if none [Para 8].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.7 enlarged on bail on conditions stated [Para 9]

Civil Law  – RDB Act ss.2(g), 17, 18, 19 & 31 – Transfer of pending bank suit to DRT after amalgamation – Petition Dismissed – HDFC Ltd.’s recovery suit (2007) became a bank’s claim post-amalgamation with HDFC Bank Ltd.; held: “debt” under s.2(g) covers liabilities claimed as due by a bank during its business (including assigned/amalgamated claims); s.18 bars civil court jurisdiction; s.31 read purposively to effectuate the bar; transfer to DRT proper – Writ petition dismissed; interim protection continued for six weeks [Paras 2–5, 10–24, 29–30].

Definition of “Debt” – Claim by Bank during business – Includes assigned/amalgamated loans – RDB Act s.2(g) – Court rejects argument that only amounts originally advanced by a bank qualify; plain text covers any liability “claimed as due… by a bank… during the course of” its business; recovery of loans taken over via assignment/amalgamation falls within s.2(g) [Paras 14–15].

Section 31 vs Sections 17 & 18 – Purposive Construction – Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Ousted – Though the case may not literally fit s.31’s transfer text (suit filed after DRT establishment), s.18’s negative bar and s.17’s conferral of exclusive jurisdiction require pending matters falling within DRT’s remit to go to DRT; s.31 is procedural and reinforces this bar [Paras 16–23].

Amalgamation v. Assignment – Effect on Party Status & Forum – On amalgamation, the transferor company loses its entity; present plaintiff prosecutes not as assignee but as successor, strengthening DRT jurisdiction post-merger – Saraswati Industrial Syndicate applied [Paras 25–28].

Precedents – Delhi DB in Kotak Mahindra supports transfer to DRT after assignment; SC in United Bank of India and Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank emphasise DRT’s exclusive domain – Division Bench (Delhi) held suits become non-maintainable on original side after assignment to a bank; Supreme Court explains s.31 must be read to ensure bank suits are decided by Tribunals; DRT’s adjudicatory jurisdiction is exclusive [Paras 10–12].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Order dated 04/04/2024 transferring Commercial Suit No. 12/2019 to DRT, Aurangabad sustained – Interim order continued for six weeks [Paras 29–30].

Criminal Law – Discharge under Section 227 CrPC – Judicial Application of Mind Lacking – Matter Remanded – Petitioner challenged the Sessions Court’s dismissal of his discharge petition without proper reasoning – Court held that prior rejection of a revision challenging cognizance under Section 190 CrPC does not bar a discharge application under Section 227, as both are governed by distinct legal tests – Held: Order dismissing discharge petition lacked judicial reasoning and failed to address the petitioner’s contentions – Order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration with directions to pass a reasoned order within four weeks [Paras 1–5, 10–11, 22–24].

Scope of Sections 190 vs. 227 CrPC – Separate and Distinct Legal Standards – Discharge Petition Maintainable Despite Prior Revision – Court reiterated that the scope under Section 190 CrPC (cognizance) is limited to prima facie satisfaction, whereas under Section 227, Sessions Judge must sift the materials to assess sufficiency of grounds to proceed to trial – Dismissal of earlier revision against cognizance does not preclude exercise of rights under Section 227 – Held: The Sessions Court failed to distinguish this legal position and erred in rejecting discharge on procedural grounds alone [Paras 2, 10–11, 14–15].

Fair Trial – Requirement to Provide Reasoned Order on Discharge Application – Principles of Natural Justice – Sessions Court’s impugned order was held to be cryptic and mechanical, lacking any discussion on evidentiary contradictions, lack of identification, or confessional statements allegedly exonerating petitioner – Held: A reasoned decision is necessary to uphold fairness and natural justice in criminal proceedings – Order found legally unsustainable [Paras 3–5, 22–23].

Final Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Matter Remanded to Sessions Court for Reconsideration – High Court set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 and directed the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole to hear the parties afresh and pass a reasoned order under Section 227 CrPC within four weeks [Para 24].

Quashing of FIR - Criminal Misconduct – Misappropriation of SGRY rice – Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) P.C. Act and Sections 465, 471, 409, 120B IPC – Quashment and discharge denied – Petitioners accused of conspiring with Panchayat Secretary to forge beneficiary committee minutes, create fictitious beneficiary lists, and obtain sanction for release of 46,573 kg of rice under SGRY project, later misappropriated without executing works – FSL report indicated forged signatures and handwriting attributable to 2nd petitioner – Court held prosecution materials disclose prima facie case warranting trial; quashing/discharge cannot be granted on conjectures or witness silence in 164 Cr.P.C. statements [Paras 6-7].

Role of Accused – FSL evidence – Handwriting match sufficient for prima facie case – Even if petitioner’s name absent in some annexures, evidence of his role as Standing Committee Chairman who obtained sanction and forged records links him to offence; individual participation in conspiracy need not be proved at pre-trial stage [Paras 9-15].

Decision – Petitions dismissed; interim order vacated; Special Court directed to conclude trial within four months [Paras 7-8].