Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act – Unauthorized Transport of Rice – Conviction Upheld – Appeal Partly Allowed – Appellant found transporting 23.41 quintals of rice without valid license – Prosecution proved violation of Para 3 of W.B. Rice and Paddy Control Orders – Trial Court rightly convicted appellant under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of EC Act – High Court upheld conviction on merits [Paras 2–18].

Complainant as Investigating Officer – Not Illegal per se – Allegation of Bias Rejected – Appellant contended that the de-facto complainant also being Investigating Officer rendered the trial unfair – High Court held such investigation permissible under CrPC and not vitiated unless real prejudice shown – Referred to Mukesh Singh v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 120 and Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627 – No bias or partiality established [Paras 5–16].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability Despite Minimum Sentence – Appellant Released on Probation – High Court considered 37-year-old offence, absence of criminal antecedents, and post-conviction conduct – Held: Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 overrides EC Act’s minimum sentencing provision – Appellant directed to be released on bond under Section 4 of the Act with condition of good behaviour – Conviction upheld, sentence modified [Paras 19–24].

Decision – Conviction Affirmed, Sentence Modified – Criminal Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under EC Act maintained – Sentence of imprisonment substituted with release on probation – Appellant directed to furnish bond of ₹5,000 with two sureties – In default of good conduct, original sentence to revive – Appeal disposed accordingly [Paras 25–27].

Civil Writ - Service Law – Police Discipline – Unauthorized Absence – Quantum of Punishment Reduced - Petitioner was absent for 24 hours and 20 minutes and faced departmental action – Initially dismissed, later penalty reduced to forfeiture of 10 increments with permanent effect – Held: Punishment disproportionate to misconduct – Absence not in context of hostile environment or sensitive duty – Court reduced punishment to forfeiture of one increment with cumulative effect [Paras 2, 12–13].

Departmental Proceedings – Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules – Misconduct Must Be Grave or Cumulative – Rule Interpreted - Court reiterated that dismissal can be awarded only for gravest acts of misconduct or incorrigible continued misconduct – Minor infractions such as single-day absence without exacerbating circumstances do not justify harsh punishment under Rule 16.2 [Paras 6–8].

Judicial Review – Principle of Proportionality – Disproportionate Punishment Violates Article 14 - Relying on Om Kumar v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Court emphasized that punishment must be commensurate with misconduct – Disproportionate disciplinary action amounts to arbitrariness and violates constitutional protections [Paras 9–10].

Administrative Law – Mechanical Dismissal of Revision – Set Aside - Revisional authority (DGP Haryana) dismissed revision on ground of delay despite marginal gap of less than four months – Held: Such mechanical dismissal unsustainable – Authorities failed to apply mind or record reasons [Paras 11, 13].

Decision – Punishment Modified – Petition Disposed - Court found penalty excessive, interfered under writ jurisdiction – Instead of remanding to disciplinary authority after 10 years, Court directly modified punishment to one increment forfeiture – Petition disposed accordingly [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Law – Transfer of Investigation - Suspicious Death – Alleged Harassment in Public Undertaking – CBI Investigation Ordered - The deceased Vimal Negi, a GM at HPPCL, allegedly faced sustained pressure to approve irregular financial decisions – Inquiry by Additional Chief Secretary (Home) confirmed misconduct by senior officers – Report suppressed by State and ignored by SIT – Held: Exceptional case warranting CBI investigation to ensure impartiality [Paras 25–34, 38–39].

Forensic Tampering – Recovery of Pen Drive – SIT Found Complicit – Transfer Justified - Pen drive recovered from deceased’s body was formatted, and digital evidence tampered with – Director General of Police’s affidavit exposed irregularities and suppression of vital facts – Held: Destruction of evidence by investigating officers mandated transfer to independent agency [Paras 13–14, 36–37].

Failure to Investigate Conspiracy Angle – Inquiry Report Overlooked – Bias Indicated - Despite serious statements recorded in inquiry report about coercion to release project payments, SIT failed to explore conspiracy behind Vimal Negi’s death – Held: Lack of action reflects investigative bias and undermines public confidence in SIT [Paras 30–35].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Transfer of Investigation – When Warranted - Court invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to transfer investigation to CBI based on precedents where State investigation lacked credibility – Held: Investigation not transparent; power rightly exercised [Paras 19–24, 38–39].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Investigation Handed Over to CBI - In light of procedural lapses, ignored inquiry findings, and allegations of bias, Court directed transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation – Himachal Pradesh cadre officers barred from SIT composition – Petition and pending applications disposed of [Para 39].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity Not Involved – Bail Granted - Applicant Palwinder Kaur was arrested based on alleged monetary transactions linked to narcotics trafficking network – Court noted that the contraband recovered did not qualify as “commercial quantity” – Held: Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act not attracted – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1, 8–10, 14–15].

Presumption of Innocence – Trial Pending – No Criminal History – Bail Justified - Court reiterated principle that pre-trial incarceration amounts to punishment before conviction – Found no previous criminal antecedents of applicant – Investigation complete and charge-sheet filed – Held: Continued custody unjustified, especially where trial unlikely to conclude soon [Paras 9–12].

Women Accused – Section 480(ii) BNSS – Special Consideration for Bail - Citing statutory proviso for women under Section 480(ii) of BNSS, Court held that applicant being a woman could be released on bail even in narcotics-related cases, provided other conditions are satisfied – Held: Bail granted subject to safeguards [Para 11].

Decision – Bail Allowed – Subject to Conditions - Applicant ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety – Conditions imposed include regular court attendance, no tampering with evidence, and no travel outside India without court's permission – State given liberty to seek cancellation upon violation [Paras 14–16].

Civil Law - Probate Proceedings – Alleged Forgery of Will – Production of Medical Records – Application Dismissed – Petitioner sought direction to the executor to produce hospital and medical records of the deceased mother to establish her incapacity to execute the will – Trial Court rejected application on ground that records were not in plaintiff’s custody and petitioner had failed to summon them independently – High Court upheld dismissal, holding that petitioner had the burden to prove forgery and suspicious circumstances, which could be done via evidence other than medical records.

Testamentary Capacity – Burden of Proof on Objector – Medical Records Not Sole Evidence – Court noted that petitioner objector must establish lack of testamentary capacity or fraud – Even assuming medical documents could be relevant, petitioner had alternate means such as summoning hospital authorities – Absence of documents alone does not defeat burden of proof.

Revisional Jurisdiction – No Error of Jurisdiction or Law – Application Dismissed – High Court held that the Trial Court rightly exercised discretion in rejecting belated application filed after closure of evidence – No procedural illegality or perversity found to warrant interference under Article 227 – Application dismissed.

Decision – Civil Revision Dismissed – Order of Trial Court affirmed – No direction issued to call for medical documents – However, liberty granted to seek leave for further evidence in special circumstances during trial – No opinion on merits of the testamentary suit expressed.

Pre-emption – Section 8 WBLR Act – Short Deposit of Consideration – Application Not Maintainable – Petitioners filed application to pre-empt land transferred by three sale deeds, but deposited only half of the total consideration—Held: As per statutory mandate and binding precedent, entire consideration with 10% must be deposited at the time of application—Failure to comply renders application invalid—Pre-emption claim dismissed [Paras 21–23, 25–30].

Multiple Deeds – Single Application – Partial Pre-emption Not Permissible – Petitioners sought pre-emption over three separate sale deeds but selectively deposited amount for one—Held: Attempt to pre-empt one of multiple sales in a composite application not legally permissible—Cannot approbate and reprobate within same proceeding [Paras 11, 13, 29–30].

Precedents – Barasat Eye Hospital and Abdul Matin Mallick – Binding on All Courts – Court followed Barasat Eye Hospital v. Kaustabh Mondal, (2019) 19 SCC 676 and Abdul Matin Mallick v. Subrata Bhattacharjee, (2022) 7 SCC 147—Held: Time and complete deposit are sacrosanct under Section 8—Delay or shortfall cannot be condoned [Paras 16–19, 30].

Procedural Lapse – Trial and Appellate Court Ignored Statutory Deposit Requirement – Both courts below focused on co-sharer and adjoining land owner claims—Failed to examine essential prerequisite of full deposit at filing—Held: Entire pre-emption proceeding vitiated by foundational procedural error [Paras 21, 31].

Equity and Discretion – No Relief Without Statutory Compliance – Petitioners argued equity and partial compliance—Court held that non-observance of explicit statutory preconditions defeats claim—Equitable discretion cannot override law [Paras 27–28].

Decision – Revision dismissed – Pre-emption application held not maintainable – Petitioners entitled to refund of deposit with interest, if any – No costs awarded – Connected applications also disposed [Paras 32–34].

Criminal Law – Addition of Charge – Section 216 CrPC – Scope and Preconditions – Trial court allowed addition of Section 306 IPC charge against petitioner after examining prosecution witnesses under Section 216 CrPC – Held: While the court has exclusive power to alter or add charges, such power must be exercised only where materials on record disclose ingredients of the offence sought to be added – No evidence on record to show instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding to attract Section 306 – Order unsustainable [Paras 1–8].

Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Active Role – No Instigation or Intentional Aid – Prosecution relied on the allegation that a draft divorce agreement delivered by another accused caused mental distress to deceased leading to suicide – Held: No material to show petitioner instigated or aided suicide – Mere harassment or mental distress unaccompanied by active role is insufficient to sustain charge under Section 306 IPC – Precedents reaffirmed [Paras 6–8].

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation of Section 216 CrPC – Court’s Discretion Paramount – Later Supreme Court ruling permits informant or prosecutor to bring addition of charge to court’s notice – However, addition cannot be automatic – Must be supported by cogent evidence linking accused to new charge – Trial court erred in applying standard [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Addition of Charge Set Aside – Crl.M.C. Allowed – Impugned Order dated 02.05.2014 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kannur set aside – Charge under Section 306 IPC not maintainable against petitioner in absence of evidence establishing abetment [Paras 8, Conclusion].

Company Law - Winding Up – Debt Admission in Balance Sheet – Limited to ₹64.30 Lakh – Petition filed under Sections 433(e), 434(1)(a) alleging failure of respondent company to repay total dues of ₹21.55 crores—Court held only ₹64.30 lakh admitted in balance sheet was an undisputed liability—Directed respondent to pay with 11% interest—No case for winding up made solely on this basis [Paras 48–55].

Debt Assignment – Claim Based on IDBI Loan Transfer – Held Unenforceable – Petitioner claimed right to recover under a deed of assignment from IDBI Bank—Court found the underlying debt had already been extinguished via One-Time Settlement (OTS) prior to assignment—Held: No subsisting actionable claim remained—Claim under assignment rejected as disputed and barred [Paras 51–54].

Charge Creation – No Right Without Live Debt – Registered Charge Not Sufficient – Though charge of ₹2.24 crore was registered with ROC, Court held that charge without subsisting debt conferred no rights—Assignment of extinguished debt did not validate secured charge [Para 54].

Notice Requirement – No Valid Service of Statutory Demand – Petition Deficient – Winding up petition under Section 434(1)(a) found non-maintainable due to failure to serve demand notice at registered office—Newspaper publication deemed insufficient without such service—Held: Essential condition for presumption of inability to pay not met [Paras 38, 55].

Just and Equitable Ground – Not Established – Revival Efforts and Asset Value Noted – Petition under Section 433(f) dismissed as no threat to commercial interest shown—Company had valuable assets, willingness to clear Provident Fund and other dues—No material to conclude winding up necessary for commercial justice [Paras 56–58].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Respondent directed to:

Pay ₹64.30 lakh with 11% interest from date of advance till realization within two months;

Clear Provident Fund dues within four weeks;

Settle other outstanding liabilities [Para 59].

Company Law – Interim Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC Club Governance – Use of Facilities by Overage Dependents – Appeal Dismissed – Appellants, overage dependents termed “Green Card Holders,” sought interim protection against termination of access to Delhi Gymkhana Club—Held: AoA of the Club does not create enforceable rights for dependents post age 21—Privileges granted by prior committees were ultra vires and void ab initio—Discretion rightly exercised by Single Judge refusing injunction [Paras 1–10, 40–61].

Articles of Association – No Provision for Green Card Holders – Customary Practices Cannot Override AoA – Court held that Green Card Holder category was a discretionary practice without legal sanction under AoA—Use of facilities post-21 permitted without full membership was unauthorized—Customs and bye-laws cannot contradict AoA—Only formal amendments can alter membership rights [Paras 13–18, 41–45, 53–58].

Specific Relief Act – No Enforceable Contractual Right – Privilege is Determinable – Appellants’ claim of contractual rights rejected—Privileges were revocable and not specifically enforceable under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act—Green Card use held to be discretionary, non-binding, and terminable without civil remedy [Paras 60–67].

Corporate Oversight – NCLT/NCLAT Directions Binding – Suspension of Facilities Valid – Based on findings of Naidu Committee and directions from NCLT/NCLAT, club management acted to regularize membership process—Court found action corrective, not arbitrary—No hearing required as appellants lacked vested rights—Public interest, equity, and governance justified termination [Paras 9–10, 12–15, 48–52, 68–69].

Judicial Review – Scope in Interlocutory Appeals – No Interference When Discretion Properly Exercised – Relying on Wander Ltd. v. Antox India, Court held appellate interference with interim orders limited to cases of arbitrariness or perversity—Discretion of Single Judge upheld as reasonable and judicious—Appeal dismissed [Paras 72–75].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Interim relief rightly denied – Appellants not entitled to continued use of club facilities – No costs awarded [Para 75].