NDPS Act – Prolonged Pre-trial Custody – Commercial Quantity – Bail Granted - Despite applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act due to commercial quantity involved, petitioner granted bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration of over 1 year and 5 months – Cited multiple Supreme Court rulings allowing bail in similar cases where trial unlikely to conclude soon – Bail conditions imposed [Paras 7-11].

Constitutional Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Custody Beyond Reasonable Time – Bail Justified - Emphasizing the right to life and liberty under Article 21, Court held that conditional liberty must prevail when prolonged detention causes irreversible harm – Cited Supreme Court in Chitta Biswas v. State of W.B., Rajib Dey v. State of W.B., Nandalal Mondal v. State of W.B., and others [Paras 8-9].

Bail Conditions – Compliance and Monitoring – Restriction on Firearms – Preventive Steps - Bail conditional on non-involvement in further offences, disclosure of identity information, and surrender of weapons if any – Reinforced preventive purpose of bail to protect public interest and ensure fair trial [Paras 12-19].

Final Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed with Conditions - Petitioner released on bail subject to statutory and special conditions including non-interference with trial and no involvement in similar offences – Trial court empowered to cancel bail on breach [Paras 20-22].
 

Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act – Conviction Based on Evidence – Procedural Irregularities Noted – Despite several hostile witnesses, the trial court convicted the appellant on basis of seizure lists and testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10 – Held: Conviction upheld as evidence showed operation of shop without valid license and stock records [Paras 1–7].

Probation – Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act – Release in View of Delay and First-Time Offender – Incident occurred in 1995 and appellant had no subsequent criminal history – Held: Taking appellant into custody nearly 30 years later not justified – Sentence modified – Appellant released on probation on good conduct bond and directed to pay fine [Paras 8–10].

Minimum Sentence – EC Act Does Not Preclude Application of Probation Act – Held: Even though EC Act prescribes minimum sentence, later enactment i.e. Probation of Offenders Act prevails due to non obstante clause – Benefit of probation can be granted irrespective of statutory minimum sentence [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on bond of ₹5,000 to maintain peace and good behavior – Fine of ₹5,000 to be paid within 6 months, else appellant to undergo default sentence [Paras 10–11].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Money Laundering – Predicate Offence Quashed – PMLA Case to Proceed – Petition to quash proceedings under PMLA rejected – Telangana High Court held that quashing of predicate offence against one accused does not terminate PMLA proceedings if the offence still exists against others – PMLA is a standalone offence focused on proceeds of crime, not merely the predicate offence [Paras 20–27].

Scope of Section 3 of PMLA – Independent Offence – Held that PMLA prosecutes conduct involving proceeds of crime even if accused was not part of the original scheduled offence – Any person knowingly assisting in layering, use or concealment of tainted funds is liable – Supreme Court’s reasoning in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Pavana Dibbur reaffirmed [Paras 21–24].

Supreme Court Judgment – Limited Quashment Does Not Exonerate Others – Petitioners relied on Supreme Court's judgment dated 03.10.2024 quashing proceedings in the predicate offence – High Court clarified that such relief was personal to one petitioner and had no bearing on ongoing PMLA trial involving other accused and companies [Paras 12–16, 22–24].

Public Interest and Economic Offences – Trial Necessary – Serious charges of economic offences involving ₹50 crore in layered transactions through corporate entities – Citing Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, Court held that such grave allegations warrant full trial, not premature quashment – Dismissed plea that trial was an abuse of process [Paras 25–29].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners to Face Trial – High Court declined to quash S.C. No. 3/2021 and directed trial to proceed – Interim orders vacated [Paras 29–30].
 

Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Conviction Confirmed – Petitioner convicted for issuing a cheque of ₹5 lakhs which was dishonoured for "insufficient funds" – Trial Court convicted him to one year simple imprisonment and fine – Conviction upheld by Appellate Court – Held: Evidence of complainant and bank officials, along with cheque, return memo, statutory notice, and acknowledgment, conclusively proved offence – Petitioner failed to rebut legal presumption [Paras 2–7].

Legal Presumption – Unrebutted by Accused – No Defence Evidence – Petitioner neither denied signature nor produced any evidence disproving legally enforceable debt – Legal presumption under Section 139 NI Act not rebutted – Held: Courts below rightly convicted based on unrebutted evidence [Paras 6–7].

Modification of Sentence – Compensation in Lieu of Imprisonment – Sentence Reduced – Considering petitioner's willingness to pay cheque amount and part payment already made, Court modified sentence of imprisonment to compensation of ₹5 lakhs – ₹2.5 lakhs already deposited; remaining ₹2.5 lakhs paid via DD in court – Held: Imprisonment undergone shall be treated as sufficient punishment [Paras 10–13].

Final Directions – Compensation of ₹5 Lakhs – Conviction Maintained – Petitioner released – Respondent permitted to withdraw court-deposited amount – Criminal Revision allowed in part to modify sentence [Paras 14–15].
 

Civil Law - Redemption of Mortgage – Oral Mortgage – Limitation Applies – Mortgage Not Admitted – Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Relief - Plaintiffs initially denied the mortgage and asserted absolute ownership, but later sought to redeem the mortgage allegedly created in 1926 – Courts below held that plaintiffs were not in exclusive possession and that the mortgage was oral with joint possession – Held: Since the mortgage was not admitted and possession was joint, it was not a usufructuary mortgage; thus, limitation under Article 61 of the Limitation Act applies – Suit filed in 1983 held barred by limitation [Paras 27-32].

Usufructuary Mortgage – Distinction from Oral Mortgage – Findings of Fact – Not Interferable in Second Appeal - Plaintiffs' reliance on Sheo Ram and Ram Kishan cases rejected – Courts below found that the case was not a usufructuary mortgage as possession was not exclusive to the mortgagee – Held: The claim of redemption without admitting the mortgage itself is legally unsustainable; plaintiffs cannot approbate and reprobate – Oral mortgage created in 1926 cannot be redeemed after expiry of 60 years [Paras 29-33].

Denial of Mortgage – Subsequent Plea for Redemption Not Maintainable – Pleadings Inconsistent – No Right to Relief - Plaintiffs cannot deny the mortgage and yet claim relief by redeeming it later – Courts emphasized settled principle that no evidence can be adduced on facts not pleaded – Held: Pleadings are the foundation of the case and absence of consistent plea on redemption bars relief – Reference to Bhagat Singh v. Jaswant Singh applied [Paras 30, 40].

Decision of the Case – Second Appeal Dismissed – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Suit Barred by Limitation - The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court that the mortgage, if any, was oral and not usufructuary – Possession was joint, and the claim for exclusive possession was not proved – Suit barred by limitation and no redemption maintainable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 38-41].
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Section 148A and 149 of Income Tax Act – Reassessment Proceedings Quashed - Initiation of reassessment based on incorrect premise that the petitioner was a non-filer despite evidence of filing Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2015-16 – Issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) without furnishing material supporting allegations – Held: Proceedings vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 34-38].

Limitation – Applicability of Finance Act 2021 Amendments – Notice under Section 148 post 01.04.2021 - New Regime Applicable - Notice issued beyond prescribed limitation period as actual escapement of income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs – Held: Extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) not attracted, proceedings time-barred [Paras 37, 41].

Requirement of Supply of Material – Mandatory Compliance – Section 148A(b) – Incomplete Show-Cause Notice Invalid - The authorities failed to provide supporting material forming the basis of the alleged escaped income - Held: Mere issuance of a bald notice insufficient under new regime, violating due process [Paras 38-40].

Decision – Writ Application Allowed – Reassessment order, demand notice and all consequential proceedings initiated under Section 148A and 147 quashed – Held: Entire reassessment action without jurisdiction, based on incorrect facts and procedural irregularity [Paras 42-44].

Civil Law  – Gift under Mohammadan Law – Essentials of Gift – Declaration, Acceptance, Delivery – Remand Ordered - The appeal challenged the reversal by the Appellate Court of the trial court's decree upholding plaintiffs’ title based on oral gift and adverse possession – Held: Declarations made in 1987, 1988, and 1989 by donor constituted valid gifts if essentials are fulfilled – Registration of gift deeds not mandatory under Muslim law; Appellate Court erred in insisting on registration – Matter remanded to Appellate Court for fresh consideration [Paras 6-11].

Gift under Muslim Law – Written Declaration – Registration Not Mandatory – Oral Gift Valid - Oral gift properly declared and accepted remains valid even if recorded later in writing and not registered – Reliance placed on Hafeeza Bibi v. Sheikh Farid, (2011) SCC 654 – Legal principles clarified [Paras 6-8].

Remand of Matter – Failure to Appreciate Essential Ingredients of Gift – Appellate Court Judgment Set Aside - Since factual findings on delivery of possession and acceptance of gift were not properly adjudicated, the High Court remanded the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law [Paras 9-11].

Pension – Delayed Absorption – Entitlement Recognized – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Petitioner served as Medical Officer at a government-acquired institution and was directed to be absorbed in 2005 – Absorption delayed till 2010 despite court orders – Court held delay attributable solely to State – Held: 
Petitioner entitled to count service period from 22.02.2005 to 20.04.2010 toward qualifying service for pension [Paras 13–20]. 
 
Equitable Doctrine – No Advantage from Own Wrong – Delay by State Cannot Prejudice Employee – Following Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, Court held that respondents cannot deny pension on ground of shortfall in qualifying service when delay in formal absorption was their own doing – Period must be counted for pension entitlement to avoid civil consequences [Paras 18–19]. 
 
Service Law – Rights Crystallized by Judicial Direction – Binding on State – Court emphasized that petitioner’s right to absorption under the 1983 Act crystallized on 22.02.2005 as per previous writ order – State bound to honour such finding; inaction thereafter cannot be used against petitioner [Paras 14–16]. 
 
Retrospectivity – No Wages for No Work – But Period Counts for Pension – While denying claim for salary during 2005–2010, Court held petitioner entitled to count that period for pension qualifying service – “No work no pay” does not apply to pension rights if employee ready to serve and State delays appointment [Para 18]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Allowed – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Pension Directed – Tribunal’s rejection order dated 02.09.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to treat petitioner’s qualifying service as commencing from 22.02.2005 – Pension and arrears to be paid within 8 weeks with transparent calculation details [Paras 20–21]. 
 

Heatwave Crisis – State Inaction Amidst Climate Emergency – Directions Issued – Despite judicial orders in 2024, Rajasthan government failed to implement the Heat Action Plan or health preparedness schemes – Court criticized passive state response despite soaring temperatures and mass vulnerability – Suo motu action revived to enforce institutional accountability [Paras 1–3, 10–14].

Constitutional Right to Life – Extreme Heat as Public Health Emergency – Judicial Duty to Intervene – Holding that right to life under Article 21 includes protection from environmental and climate-induced harms, Court emphasized duty of the State to protect lives through preventive public health action and environmental safeguards [Paras 12–13, 20–22].

Contempt Warning – Continued Non-Compliance of 2024 Order – Show Cause Issued – Court noted shocking disregard of 2024 directions and non-submission of compliance reports by authorities – Held such conduct contemptuous and indicative of systemic apathy – Show cause notice issued to all respondents [Paras 15–17, 25–26].

Interim Relief – Cooling Shelters, Water, ORS and Awareness Campaigns Ordered – Directions issued to provide cooling shelters, drinking water, and ORS at public spaces and issue regular heatwave alerts across Rajasthan – Workers to be granted rest period from 12–3 PM – Coverage to include humans and animals [Paras 22–24].

Policy Direction – Bill on Heat/Cold Deaths to be Enacted – Compensation Framework Proposed – Directed Centre and State to revive and implement the 2015 Bill on prevention of deaths due to temperature extremes – Suggested compensation mechanism for heatwave victims – Called for statutory backing to preventive obligations [Paras 5, 14, 25©, 25€].

Environmental Governance – Tree Plantation and Climate Action Plan Implementation Mandated – Directed plantation along roads, water conservation measures, and effective implementation of Rajasthan’s Climate Change Heat Action Plan – Government not permitted to cite financial constraints when public safety is at stake [Paras 25(a), 25(b), 24].

Final Directions – Compliance by 24.04.2025 – Officials Put on Notice – All District Collectors to file reports on compliance with interim directions – Matter to be reviewed on 24/04/2025 – Central and State departments directed to take steps or face coercive orders [Paras 26, 29–30].