Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) - Sections 15, 42 - Non-compliance of Section 42 - Secret information not reduced into writing - Breach of mandatory provision - Acquittal of appellant - Ruqa sent for recording FIR not sufficient compliance with Section 42 - Non-compliance of statutory provisions - Prejudice irrelevant - Absolute duty with strict compliance ruling out element of prejudice - Violation of mandatory provision leads to acquittal.

Interpretation of Statutes - Mandatory provisions - Non-compliance - Effect on prosecution's case - NDPS Act, Section 42 - Compliance with provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act mandatory - Failure to comply affects prosecution case and vitiates trial - Delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation acceptable - Total non-compliance rules out element of prejudice - Indefeasible, protective rights vested in suspect - Non-compliance cannot be shadowed by substantial compliance. [Para 12-14]

Interpretation of Statutes - Directory provisions - Substantial compliance - NDPS Act, Section 42 - Recording of ruqa not sufficient compliance - Section 42 mandates reduction of secret information into writing - Total and definite non-compliance - Prejudice per se - Compliance not subject to element of prejudice - Absolute duty coupled with strict compliance. [Para 13]

Interpretation of Statutes - NDPS Act, Section 42 - Protection against false implication - Fair investigation in trial - Strict compliance necessary - Purpose of provisions - Breach of mandatory provisions leads to acquittal - Legislative mandate of fair investigation in trial. [Para 14]

Interpretation of Statutes - NDPS Act, Sections 42, 50 - Compliance of provisions - Impermissible non-compliance - Delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation acceptable - Non-compliance affects prosecution case - Compliance subject to element of prejudice in directory provisions - Non-compliance rules out element of prejudice in absolute duty - Total non-compliance affects prosecution case and vitiate trial. Acquittal – Appeal Allowed. [Para 15]

Land Laws - Unauthorized Construction - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Section 7 - Assistant Collector dismissed petition based on spot visit - District Collector dismissed revision for lack of demarcation report - Held, orders quashed - Case remanded for proper site demarcation and fresh order - Importance of valid demarcation and evidence for decisions on land disputes emphasized. [Para 7]

Demarcation and Evidence - Legal Requirement - Spot Visits vs. Demarcation Reports - Valid demarcation by competent revenue officer necessary - Demarcation report must be tendered and proven in accordance with law - Personal spot visit insufficient basis for decision without supporting demarcation report. [Para 5]

Decision - Remand for Fresh Decision - Orders by District Collector and Revisional Court set aside - Assistant Collector to ensure valid demarcation and evidence - Fresh decision within three months after considering all parties’ objections. [Para 7]

Criminal Procedure - Summoning Additional Accused - Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Summoning based on witness deposition - Petitioners implicated by eyewitness in murder case - Inquiry report not based on independent witness statements - Held, Section 319 empowers court to summon additional accused if evidence suggests their involvement - Specific role attributed to petitioners in witness deposition - Inquiry report's lack of independent statements undermines its credibility - Petition dismissed. [Paras 8-9]

Evidence Evaluation - Role of Additional Accused - Eyewitness Deposition - PW-1 attributed specific roles to petitioners in murder - Court required to appreciate and evaluate evidence - Prima facie involvement of petitioners established - Reliance on insufficiently supported inquiry report not justified at revision stage. [Para 7]

Decision - Petition Dismissed - Court upholds trial court's order summoning petitioners based on prima facie evidence - Inquiry report's deficiencies noted - No interference warranted with trial court's decision. [Para 10]

Land Revenue - Partition Proceedings - Ex-Parte Order - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution - Sections 16, 20, and 111 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 - Respondent not served summons in accordance with law, proceeded against ex-parte - Financial Commissioner remanded matter for fresh decision - Held, non-service of summons nullifies limitation argument - Remanding order upheld - Petition dismissed. [Paras 5-7]

Jurisdiction of Financial Commissioner - Sanad Takseem - Power under Section 16 of the Act - Held, Financial Commissioner has authority to review legality of partition orders even post-sanadtakseem - Revision petition within powers of Financial Commissioner - Orders for fresh hearing justified. [Para 6]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - Court dismisses the writ petition, upholding the Financial Commissioner’s order remanding the matter and providing respondent opportunity to contest partition applications - Service of summons found defective. [Para 8]

Referred Cases:

Amar Khan and others v. State of Punjab and others 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 741

Representing Advocates:

Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Land Law – Partition – Agricultural Land – Gair Mumkin Land – Writ petition challenging partition of agricultural land including gair mumkin land – Held, small portion of gair mumkin land does not bar partition of remaining agricultural land by revenue authorities – Partition ordered based on jamabandi with presumption of truth – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-7]

Partition of Agricultural Land – Revenue Authorities' Jurisdiction – Held – Agricultural land is to be partitioned by revenue authorities under Chapter IX of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Presence of small portion of gair mumkin land does not affect partition of remaining agricultural land – No cited law preventing partition in such cases. [Para 6]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Argument that agricultural land should not be partitioned due to gair mumkin portion rejected – No law cited to support such claim – Petition dismissed. [Para 7]

Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Second Application - Change in Circumstance- Change in Fact-Situation – Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail – Held: A second anticipatory bail application can be filed only if there is a change in fact-situation or law which requires the earlier view being interfered with, or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. Mere representation to the DGP by the petitioner's mother does not constitute a change in circumstances. [Paras 15, 16]

Balance Between Individual Freedom and Investigational Rights – Analysis – Held: The court must strike a balance between individual freedom and the investigational rights of the police. Provisions of anticipatory bail should not be abused by unscrupulous petitioners. [Para 14]

Repetition of Grounds - Forum Hunting – Consideration – Held: Issues canvassed earlier cannot be re-agitated on the same grounds in a subsequent application, as it would lead to speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting. [Para 15]

Decision: The second petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed. The representation by the petitioner's mother does not amount to a change in circumstances justifying a second application. The previous order dismissing the earlier petition remains in effect. [Paras 17, 18]

Administrative Law - Show Cause Notice - Bias and Fairness - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution - Petitioners accused of misappropriation and mismanagement following inheritance of society's properties via a Will - Show cause notice issued by enquiry officer - No allegations of malice or bias - Held, participation in enquiry precludes challenging initiation without challenging final report - Show cause notice aimed at informing of material for effective response - Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 7, 12]

Enquiry Proceedings - Allegations of Mismanagement - Section 54 of Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 - Enquiry conducted, and incarcerating report submitted - Petitioners engaged in proceedings and failed to challenge final report - Civil suit pending on related issues - Disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ adjudication. [Para 13]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - Court dismisses the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice and related proceedings - Finds no merit in allegations of bias or procedural unfairness in the show-cause notice. [Para 14]

Public Appointment - Eligibility Criteria - Article 226 of the Constitution - Amendment of Qualifications - Petitioners and Respondents Sewadars in Municipal Council - Resolution passed to adjust surplus staff - Petitioners did not meet amended qualifications for Fireman post - Held, eligibility must be assessed based on rules at the time of consideration, not at the time of vacancy - Petitioners not eligible under amended rules - Writ petition dismissed. [Para 14]

Qualification Criteria - Change in Eligibility - Amendment before Resolution - Held, petitioners lacked necessary qualifications as per amended rules effective prior to resolution recommending appointments - Old post old rules principle not applicable - Appointments of respondents upheld. [Para 14]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - Court dismisses the petition, upholding the appointment of respondents No. 5 and 6 as Firemen - Petitioners' claim rejected due to non-eligibility under amended qualifications. [Para 16]

Service Law – Seniority – Promotees vs. Direct Recruits – Application of Catch-up Rule – Writ petition challenging final seniority list of Audit Officers – Petitioner (promoted under reserved category) placed below directly recruited Audit Officers – Held that direct recruits cannot be granted seniority retrospectively – Catch-up rule applies to senior general category promotees over junior reserved category promotees – Direct recruits appointed after reserved promotees but before general promotees cannot claim seniority over promotees – Petition allowed. [Paras 1-21]

Catch-up Rule – Explanation and Application – Held – Catch-up rule devised to balance equities and uphold fundamental rights of equality – Reserved category promotees given accelerated promotion must yield to senior general category promotees once promoted – Direct recruits, appointed post-reserved promotions but pre-general promotions, cannot be granted seniority retrospectively. [Para 18-20]

Decision – Seniority List Quashed – Writ allowed – Impugned seniority list and order quashed – Department directed to revise seniority list in accordance with observations made – Revised seniority list to be issued within two months. [Para 21]