PIL - Wildlife Protection – Commercial Film Shooting in Protected Areas – No Statutory Basis – Government Order Invalid – Petitioner challenged grant of permission to shoot a Malayalam commercial film in a forest area, alleging environmental degradation – High Court held that the Government Order dated 30 March 2013 merely prescribed fees but lacked statutory backing for authorising commercial filming in National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Tiger Reserves – Held: Government Order does not have force of law under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and cannot be basis for such permission – State to issue appropriate instructions to Forest Officers within 4 weeks [Paras 1–3, 10–11, 23].

Interpretation of Section 28 – Film-making Must Be Ancillary to Permitted Purposes – The Court clarified that under Section 28 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, film-making must not disturb the habitat or wildlife and must be linked to permitted purposes like research, scientific study or regulated tourism – Commercial film-making as a stand-alone activity unrelated to wildlife protection is not contemplated – Held: The term "film-making" in Section 28 must be read narrowly and in context of surrounding statutory objectives [Paras 15–17].

Doctrine of Public Trust – Environmental Jurisprudence – Revenue-Oriented Permissions in Forests Unsustainable – The Court reiterated that forests are public resources held in trust by the State and cannot be exploited for commercial gain without a clear statutory mandate – Emphasised inter-generational equity, constitutional duties under Articles 48A and 51A(g), and settled environmental law principles – Held: Permissions aimed solely at revenue generation violate public trust doctrine and constitutional mandate [Paras 19–21].

Lack of Policy or Guidelines – Permission Without Legal Framework Impermissible – The State submitted no statutory rule, policy document, or environmental clearance permitting commercial film-making in protected areas – Held: Mere administrative instructions or fee-based orders cannot override statutory limitations under the Wild Life (Protection) Act – Future challenge to any enabling law or policy left open [Paras 12, 22–24].

Decision – Government Order Lacks Legal Force – Appeal Partly Allowed – The Court declared that the Government Order dated 30 March 2013 does not have legal force to permit commercial film or TV serial shooting in Wildlife Sanctuaries, National Parks, or Tiger Reserves – Directed State to issue instructions to Forest Officers within four weeks – Other reliefs in the writ petition deemed unnecessary due to actions already taken – Appeal disposed accordingly [Paras 23–26].

Bail in GST Offences – Regular Bail under Section 132 of the CGST Act – Right to Speedy Trial – Both petitioners sought regular bail after being accused of forming fake firms and fraudulently availing input tax credit worth Rs. 107 crore under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act – Allegation involved creation of 27 bogus entities and issuance of forged GST invoices – Petitioners in custody for over 9 months, with trial proceedings stalled at pre-charge evidence stage for 6 months – All documentary and electronic evidence already seized – Held: Prolonged incarceration, lack of progress in trial, and absence of risk of evidence tampering justify bail – The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution outweighs prolonged detention when trial is unduly delayed [Paras 4, 15, 18-21].

Criminal Prosecution under CGST Act – Need for Completion of Assessment Proceedings – Interplay of Sections 73/74 and 132 CGST Act – Citing Supreme Court in Radhika Aggarwal v. Union of India, Court reiterates that, normally, completion of assessment proceedings under Sections 73/74 should precede criminal prosecution under Section 132, except in exceptional cases with detailed reasons – Empirical data reveals rare convictions and delays in adjudication; procedural deviations by prosecuting agencies adversely affect accused’s rights – Judicial scrutiny must guard against arbitrary or mechanical arrests without due process [Paras 10-13].

Denial of Bail Due to Pending Investigation Against Co-Accused – Individual Assessment Required – It is settled law that bail must be considered individually for each accused based on their specific role; pending investigation against another co-accused is not, by itself, a valid ground to deny bail to a petitioner against whom the investigation is complete and no non-cooperation is alleged – Supreme Court precedent in Prahlad Singh Bhati applied – Held: Petitioners cannot be denied bail solely due to incomplete investigation against others [Paras 16-17, 20].

Nature of Evidence and Risk of Tampering – Documentary and Electronic Evidence – Where the prosecution case is based on documentary and electronic evidence already in agency’s possession, and prosecution witnesses are official witnesses, risk of evidence tampering is minimal – Bail cannot be denied merely on general apprehensions, especially when petitioners have clean antecedents and have cooperated during investigation [Paras 12, 18-19].

Systemic Delays and Accountability in Prosecution – Empirical data from multiple GST jurisdictions in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh shows a pattern of arrests without timely trial or convictions – Court criticizes prosecuting agencies for lack of priority in concluding trials and emphasizes need for accountability and adherence to the right to speedy trial under Article 21 [Paras 11-14].

Decision – Regular Bail Granted – Petitioners Manish Kumar and Amit Kumar Goyal granted regular bail, subject to standard conditions including surrender of passports, cooperation during trial, and prohibition against tampering with evidence or disposing of property – Bail not to be construed as opinion on merits; prosecution may seek cancellation if conditions are violated [Paras 21-24].

Matrimonial Law - Confidentiality in Matrimonial Proceedings – Section 22 of HMA – Scope of “Publication” – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant-husband alleged that the respondent-wife, her brother, and her employer disclosed confidential details of matrimonial litigation and custody disputes to third parties, violating Section 22 – Family Court found disclosures were made in the course of defending against legal proceedings initiated by the appellant and not printed or published in the public domain – Held: Section 22 aims to prevent public dissemination of matrimonial details; bona fide references in legal or administrative proceedings do not constitute prohibited publication – No breach made out [Paras 3-4, 10-14].

Right to Privacy vs. Right to Fair Trial – Disclosures made to authorities, employer, and in POCSO complaint – Court held such references were relevant for defence and not intended for public circulation – Section 22 cannot be used as a shield to suppress material facts in related proceedings [Paras 12, 14].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Establish Public Dissemination – Appellant unable to show any instance of printing or public circulation of matrimonial details – Allegations insufficient to attract statutory bar under Section 22 [Paras 13-14].

Decision – No ground to interfere with Family Court’s order – Appeal dismissed – Observations not to affect merits of pending matrimonial case [Paras 15-17].

Cheque Bounce - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Legally Enforceable Debt – Cash Transaction Above ₹20,000 – Conviction Set Aside – The accused was convicted for issuing a dishonoured cheque for ₹9,00,000 allegedly towards discharge of a debt – The defence contended that the debt was created through a cash transaction in violation of Section 269SS of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Held: Such cash transactions above ₹20,000 without explanation under Section 273B of the Act cannot be treated as legally enforceable debts – Section 139 NI Act presumption stands rebutted when the transaction violates statutory norms and is unaccounted – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act is not sustainable – Accused acquitted [Paras 1, 3, 27-30, 35].

Income-Tax Act – Sections 269SS, 271D – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – Legal Sanction Denied – The Court held that accepting large cash transactions in violation of Section 269SS, without any valid explanation under Section 273B, renders the underlying debt illegal – Observed that criminal courts should not legalise transactions that are statutorily discouraged in order to uphold fiscal discipline and promote digital economy – Disregarded contrary view taken by Division Bench of Bombay High Court – Held: Debt created in contravention of Income-Tax law is not legally enforceable under Section 138 of NI Act [Paras 17-24, 26-27].

Presumption Under NI Act – Section 139 – Rebuttal Through Preponderance of Probabilities – Complainant Failed to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt – Reiterated the law that presumption under Section 139 includes legally enforceable debt, but can be rebutted by raising a probable defence – In the present case, complainant admitted non-disclosure of cash in tax returns and gave no valid explanation – Held: Accused successfully rebutted presumption – No legally enforceable debt existed [Paras 12-16, 29-30].

Judicial Discipline – Per Incuriam Decision Overruled – Earlier Ruling in Sugunan v. Thulaseedharan Declared Per Incuriam – The Court held that the earlier view that violation of tax law does not affect enforceability under NI Act failed to consider binding precedents of Supreme Court – Expressly overruled such view as being inconsistent with Rangappa v. Sri Mohan – Directed prospective application of the current ruling to avoid reopening of concluded trials [Paras 30-34].

Anticipatory Bail – Misappropriation of Cooperative Society Funds – Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1) r/w 13(2) PC Act – Bail Refused – Petitioner, former Secretary of Kollam Cooperative Building Society, alleged to have collected deposits from third parties, issued forged receipts and certificates, and misappropriated ₹43,35,000/- – Issued 12 forged cheques by faking President’s signature – Annexure A11 letter to Chief Minister contained partial admission of involvement – Prosecution pointed out pending similar complaints and need for custodial interrogation to trace misappropriated funds – Held: Serious nature of offences, magnitude of amount, and possibility of influencing witnesses warranted denial of anticipatory bail [Paras 3, 9, 11, 16-18].

Medical Grounds for Bail – Disc Bulge Complaint – Not a Ground for Pre-Arrest Bail – Petitioner cited orthopaedic issues and MRI findings from 2022 as reason for leniency – Court held ailments were neither recent nor incapacitating, as petitioner worked in the society till May 2025 – Health grounds insufficient for anticipatory bail [Para 12].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Economic Offences – Court emphasised that offences involving large-scale financial misappropriation in cooperative institutions require effective custodial questioning to trace funds and ensure successful prosecution – Anticipatory bail in such cases would impede investigation [Paras 16-18].

Decision:

Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Petitioner directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith – On failure to do so, IO authorised to arrest as per law [Final Para].

Civil Writ – Urban Planning & Civic Governance – Unauthorized Occupation Without OC – Massive municipal inaction – Public Safety Concerns – In a batch of petitions concerning a partly redeveloped building at Dadar, the Court found that 12 commercial shops and 2 first-floor premises were being illegally occupied for over a decade without an Occupation Certificate, while 110 residential tenants were deprived of their rightful premises for more than 15 years. The Court recorded serious dereliction and collusion by municipal officers, absence of statutory action under MMC Act/MRTP Act/Fire Safety law, and sham prosecutions leading to acquittals. It condemned the “blame game” between departments, misuse of litigation to perpetuate illegality, and waste of public resources. Emphasising constitutional governance, public accountability, and urgent systemic reforms, the Court appointed a two-member Special Committee (former Justice G.S. Patel & Senior Advocate Naushad Engineer) with four senior municipal officers to recommend measures within four months to curb such illegalities, reduce litigation, and strengthen enforcement. All lawful municipal actions in the case permitted to proceed [Paras 1–39].

Urban Planning – Unauthorized Occupation – Sections 353A & 471 MMC Act – MRTP Act – Failure to Act – Despite knowing no OC was issued, municipal officers allowed illegal commercial use of ground floor for over 12 years; notices issued only after Court intervention – Prosecution under MMC Act failed due to hearsay evidence; acquittal used by occupants as shield – Held: deliberate inaction and complicity by officers aided illegality; such lawlessness undermines rule of law [Paras 7–15, 25–28].

Municipal Governance – Accountability & Litigation Burden – Court criticised culture of inaction, blame-shifting, and generation of unwarranted litigation at public expense – Directed Municipal Commissioner to define roles/duties of officers, maintain ward-wise data on illegal structures, implement technology for transparency, and introspect on litigation costs – Special Committee constituted for systemic reforms [Paras 19, 30–37].

Public Safety – Fire Safety Act, 2006 – Section 8 – Illegal Occupation – Court noted Chief Fire Officer’s duty to act against commercial premises occupied without OC or fire clearance; directed to take lawful sealing action where required [Para 24].

Decision: Special Committee constituted to recommend systemic reforms and enforcement measures within four months; Municipal Commissioner to nominate four senior officers to assist; all lawful actions against illegal occupants permitted; MHADA to take steps for redevelopment, structural audit, and provision of transit accommodation to eligible tenants.

Criminal Law – Cognizance under BNSS – Section 223(1) BNSS – Mandatory Prior Notice to Accused – Procedural Safeguard – Complaint under Section 222 BNSS for defamation – Magistrate took cognizance and ordered pre-summoning evidence without prior notice – ASJ set aside cognizance for want of notice but upheld pre-summoning evidence – Held: Under BNSS, first proviso to Section 223(1) introduces significant change from CrPC by mandating opportunity of hearing to accused before cognizance – Magistrate must record complainant/witness statements, then issue notice before deciding on cognizance – ASJ rightly set aside cognizance but correctly held pre-summoning evidence valid at pre-cognizance stage – Petition dismissed [Paras 15, 20-24, 37-38].

Pre-Summoning Evidence – Permissibility before Cognizance – Sections 223 & 225 BNSS – Purpose of examining complainant/witnesses prior to cognizance is to test authenticity and filter frivolous complaints – Examination at this stage does not require accused’s presence – Cognizance arises only after such preliminary verification – No illegality in MM recording pre-summoning evidence prior to notice – ASJ’s view upheld [Paras 28-34].

Cognizance – Meaning and Stage – Defined as application of judicial mind to complaint to decide whether to proceed – Under BNSS, comes after preliminary examination and before summons – Change from CrPC is insertion of prior hearing requirement before cognizance – Provision intended as procedural safeguard, not to negate preliminary verification [Paras 16-19, 21-23, 37].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of ASJ upheld – Cognizance rightly set aside for want of prior notice, but pre-summoning evidence recording sustained as valid pre-cognizance process – No infirmity found in impugned order [Para 38].

Criminal Writ - Temporary Access To  Sealed Structure – BNSS ss.164 & 438 – Article 227 – Interim festival access to sealed premises – Order Quashed – Common order in criminal writ challenged interim arrangement by Sessions Court permitting respondents limited use of sealed structure for Nagpanchami – Held: In a revision arising from Section 164 BNSS proceedings, the revisional court at the interim stage could only stay or suspend the SDM’s order and could not grant possession-like relief – High Court exercised Article 227 to keep the subordinate court within bounds – Impugned order dated 23.07.2025 quashed – Revision directed to be decided expeditiously [Paras 19–25, 28–29].

Section 164 BNSS – Nature and Scope – Determination confined to actual possession for public peace – Rights not adjudicated – Executive Magistrate under s.164 decides who was in possession on the date of notice for maintaining public order – not the parties’ substantive rights – Here, SDM recorded petitioner’s possession of Survey No.171/6 and structure and restrained interference to prevent breach of peace [Paras 19–22].

Revisional Power under Section 438 BNSS – Interim jurisdiction limited – At the interim stage, the Sessions Court may only stay or suspend the impugned order – it cannot temporarily put a party in possession or vary the Section 164 arrangement – Sessions Court exceeded jurisdiction by permitting use of the sealed structure for festivals [Para 23].

Interim Sealing and D-17 Application – Background Considered – During hearing of stay application, Sessions Court ordered sealing of the structure and custody of keys – later, by Exhibit D-17, allowed limited opening for Nagpanchami/Ganesh Chaturthi with safeguards – Petitioner objected to maintainability under s.438 BNSS and to risks of breach of peace [Paras 8–11].

Article 227 – Supervisory Control – Rare but warranted where subordinate court acts beyond authority – Applying Shalini Shyam Shetty principles, High Court interfered as the revisional court’s interim order was beyond its jurisdiction and contrary to the nature of Section 164 proceedings aimed at public tranquillity [Para 28].

“Consent” Recording – Not determinative of jurisdiction – Petitioner disputed that counsel consented to D-17 relief – in any case, jurisdictional limits of s.438 BNSS cannot be overcome by alleged consent [Paras 15–17].

Directions – Impugned order dated 23.07.2025 quashed and set aside – Rule made absolute in terms of prayer (A) – Trial Court requested to dispose of Criminal Revision No. 47/2025 preferably by 20.08.2025 [Para 29].

Service Law – Withholding of Gratuity – Rule 2.2(b), 2.2(c) & 9.14 Punjab CSR – Criminal Case Unrelated to Official Duty – Petition Allowed – Petitioner retired in 2004, gratuity withheld due to criminal proceedings—convicted in 2013 but acquitted by High Court in 2018—State’s appeal pending in Supreme Court—Court held Rule 2.2(b) applies only to grave misconduct/negligence during service and related to official duties—four-year limitation in proviso to Rule 2.2(b) indicates departmental nexus—Offences unrelated to official duties fall outside its scope—Since employee was acquitted and later deceased, pendency of State’s appeal lost significance—Directed release of gratuity with 7.5% interest from filing of petition, failing which additional 2.5% interest from date of retirement to payment [Paras 8–18].