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].

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].

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].

Banking Law - Wilful Default – RBI Master Circular – Borrowed Funds Requirement – Appeals Dismissed – Appellant banks challenged Single Judge orders setting aside wilful-defaulter declarations against respondents – Allegations centred on diversion/siphoning through investments in subsidiaries – Court held that the Master Circular applies only if borrowed funds are involved; lenders’ own Final Restructuring Scheme recorded investments were from internal cash surpluses/FCCB proceeds, not borrowings – Forensic Audit Reports admitted non-verification of source of funds – No evidence of intentional default – Appeals dismissed [Paras 38-44, 47].

Procedural Non-Compliance – Identification and Review Committees – Clauses 2.1.3 and 2.2 of the Master Circular require objective determination based on track record and intent – Committees relied entirely on unverified forensic audit material and ignored contemporaneous lender records – Such non-application of mind vitiates the entire process [Paras 26(viii)-(x), 33-36, 41-42].

Corporate Debt Restructuring Context – Lenders’ Knowledge of Investments – At the CDR stage, lenders acknowledged investments as strategic and funded from surpluses; borrower classified in Category B (no diversion) – No change of management or forensic audit ordered then; later allegations of diversion inconsistent with the record [Paras 40, 43(i)-(ii)].

Mens Rea – Requirement of Intentional, Deliberate, Calculated Default – Multiple audits, monitoring through TRA accounts, and criminal court discharge of respondents negate any finding of wilfulness [Paras 36-37, 43(iii)-(vi), 45].

Decision – Division Bench affirms Single Judge’s reasoning – LPA 396/2024 dismissed with no order as to costs – All connected appeals (LPA 294/2024, LPA 357/2024, LPA 398/2024) also dismissed with no orders as to costs [Paras 47, 113].

Criminal Law  – NDPS Act s.20(b)(ii)(B) – 810 g charas recovery – Hostile panch witnesses – Contradictions and seal/link-evidence objections – Appeal Dismissed – Held: Recovery proved through consistent police testimony – chain of custody intact – minor discrepancies immaterial – conviction and sentence under s.20(b)(ii)(B) sustained [Paras 2, 4, 12–21, 30–41, 43–44].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Signatures on Seizure Memo – Prosecution Not Derailed – Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2) turned hostile yet admitted signatures on seizure memo – Held: hostility by itself insufficient; dependable parts can be relied upon when corroborated – Hanif Khan; Sat Paul applied [Paras 12–16, 18].

Police Witness Credibility – No Presumption of Unreliability – Consistent Recovery Evidence – Sole/official testimony, if cogent and credible, can sustain conviction; presumption of regularity of official acts applies – testimonies of PW-3, PW-13, PW-14 found reliable [Paras 19, 25–29].

Contradictions/Discrepancies – Passage of Time – Not Material – Differences arose given statements recorded years after incident; only material contradictions matter – Goverdhan reiterated [Paras 20–21].

Chain of Custody – Non-Production of Physical Seal Not Fatal – Intact Seals, Matching Impressions, FSL Report – Specimen seal impressions and NCB-I form available; FSL noted seals intact; law does not mandate producing the sealing device – Frederick George; Varinder Kumar; Surinder Kumar followed [Paras 30–35, 38–40].

Sentencing – Adequacy – No Enhancement Absent State Appeal – 5 years RI for 810 g charas considered inadequate on proportionality, yet no enhancement without State’s appeal [Para 41].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Upheld under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act [Paras 43–44].

Civil Law  – Recovery Suit – Bonds – Jurisdiction, Limitation & Interest – OSA No. 3/2016 allowed; OSA No. 5/2015 dismissed – Plaintiffs (H.P. State Co-operative Bank) subscribed to UPSFC SLR Restructured Bonds worth Rs.9.5 crores in 2005 with 8% p.a. interest, guaranteed by the State of U.P. – Interest of Rs.76 lakhs for Aug 2006 and Feb 2007 instalments unpaid – Trial Court partly decreed suit for Rs.76 lakhs without pendente lite interest – Jurisdiction objection rejected as part of cause of action arose at Shimla where interest was earlier remitted – Limitation plea rejected, suit held within 3 years under Art. 25, Limitation Act – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 8% p.a. on Rs.76 lakhs from date of suit (07.04.2009) till realisation – Defendant’s appeal dismissed [Paras 23-40].

Jurisdiction – Section 20(c) CPC – Place of Payment – Part of cause of action arose at Shimla – Even though bonds mentioned “interest payable at Kanpur”, no exclusive jurisdiction clause ousting other courts – Cheques for interest earlier sent to plaintiff’s Shimla office – Held: HP High Court had jurisdiction to entertain suit [Paras 23-33].

Limitation – Article 25 Limitation Act – Suit for recovery of money payable as interest – Period of limitation is three years from when interest becomes due – Unpaid instalments of Aug 2006 and Feb 2007 formed cause of action – Suit filed on 07.04.2009 within limitation – Acknowledgment letters further extended limitation under Section 18 Limitation Act [Paras 34-35].

Interest – Section 34 CPC – Commercial Transaction – Interest on principal sum adjudged – Plaintiffs entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 8% p.a. on Rs.76 lakhs from date of suit till realisation – Reliance placed on Central Bank of India v. Ravindra – V. Kala Bharathi distinguished [Paras 36-40].

Decision: OSA No. 3 of 2016 (Plaintiff’s appeal) allowed – decree modified to grant pendente lite and future interest @ 8% p.a. on Rs.76 lakhs – OSA No. 5 of 2015 (Defendant’s appeal) dismissed – Amount deposited to be released to plaintiffs along with interest as directed.

Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability Despite Section 35 BNSS – Sessions Court Erred in Disposing Petition – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act – Sessions Judge declined to decide the bail plea, instead referring petitioner to approach the police citing a prior High Court judgment – Held: Such abdication of judicial responsibility is impermissible – Anticipatory bail is maintainable even with existence of Section 35 of BNSS/Section 41A CrPC [Paras 1–3, 8–9, 27–29].

Right to Life and Liberty – Fundamental Nature – Court Emphasises Judicial Duty – The High Court strongly reiterated that the right to liberty under Article 21 cannot be subjected to arbitrary police discretion – Sessions Courts cannot refuse to decide anticipatory bail pleas merely because a notice under Section 35 BNSS may be issued – Such refusal undermines constitutional rights and statutory remedies [Paras 15–18].

Judicial Accountability – Dereliction by Sessions Court – The Court held that the Sessions Judge’s failure to decide the anticipatory bail application amounted to dereliction of duty – Such acts defeat the purpose of pre-arrest bail provisions and constitutional guarantees – Directions issued for judicial education and circulation of judgment [Paras 29, 32].

Doctrine of Co-existence – Section 35 BNSS and Section 438 CrPC – Harmonised Interpretation – The Court clarified that the statutory scheme contemplates simultaneous applicability of safeguards under Section 35 BNSS and remedies under Section 438 CrPC – Issuance of notice under Section 35 does not extinguish the apprehension of arrest [Paras 21–23].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – The High Court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions – Directed dissemination of judgment to all Judicial Officers and Police Officers in Bihar for compliance and training [Paras 30–33].