Criminal Law – Misappropriation by Public Servants – Quashment – Petitioners, employees of BEVCO, were prosecuted for misappropriating foreign liquor stock worth ₹27,92,523 during 01.04.2018 to 30.07.2018 – Contended that remittance of the loss amount in accordance with BEVCO’s circular dated 20.12.2017 absolved them of criminal liability – Held: Circular subsequently set aside by Division Bench in WA No. 642/2025 – Repayment made after detection of shortage and without interest – Does not erase the offence or eliminate criminality – Quashment denied [Paras 3–12]

Intent – Shortage of Foreign Liquor Stock – Scale of shortage to the tune of ₹27.92 lakhs held to indicate intentional misappropriation and not mere clerical or operational lapse – Petitioners’ argument that discrepancies were common in BEVCO outlets due to delay in audit and voluminous work not accepted – Court held the magnitude points to deliberate acts requiring trial [Paras 10–12]

Effect of Repayment – Criminal Liability – Repayment of misappropriated amount after misappropriation complete – Criminal liability under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC not extinguished by post-facto repayment – Held: Criminal trial must proceed as remittance was not voluntary but consequence of detection [Paras 8–12]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Criminal proceedings in CC No. 2/2024 to continue before Special Judge, Muvattupuzha

Criminal Procedure – Pre-Arrest Bail – Maintainability – Petition under Section 482 BNSS filed directly before High Court without first approaching Sessions Court – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged fraud and cheque dishonour related to ₹16.46 lakhs in unpaid dues for maize – Held: Though High Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS, direct approach to High Court without special or extraordinary circumstances is impermissible – Petition dismissed on maintainability ground with liberty to approach Sessions Court within two weeks – Interim protection from coercive steps granted [Paras 5, 9–11].

Anticipatory Bail – Requirement to Approach Sessions Court First – Apex Court in Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala reiterated structured process for pre-arrest bail to begin at Sessions Court to avoid High Court being flooded with first-instance applications – High Court emphasized importance of filtration mechanism and local prosecutorial assistance at district level – Petition rejected for bypassing Sessions Court without justification [Paras 5, 9–10].

Discretion under Section 482 BNSS – No Special Circumstances Shown – Petitioner failed to establish any special or extraordinary reason for invoking High Court’s inherent powers directly – Held: Mere apprehension of arrest or claim of being falsely implicated does not constitute special ground – Judicial discretion must be exercised cautiously [Para 10].

Interim Protection – Liberty Reserved – Despite dismissal, High Court protected petitioner from coercive action for two weeks to enable him to approach Sessions Court – Directed Sessions Judge to decide bail application on merits without being influenced by High Court’s present order [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Petitioner granted liberty to file pre-arrest bail before Sessions Judge within two weeks – No coercive steps to be taken in interim – Sessions Court to consider afresh on merits.

Criminal Law – Dismissal for Default – Acquittal – Petitioner filed complaint under Sections 500, 195, 120B IPC against a developer alleging defamation and conspiracy – Complaint was dismissed for default on 22.07.2024 after petitioner failed to appear due to confusion in reading the next date as 07.08.2024 instead of 07.03.2024 from cause list – Application for restoration filed on 30.07.2024 was rejected by Magistrate on ground of lack of power to recall dismissal – Held: Magistrate rightly rejected restoration as he became functus officio – No provision in CrPC permits restoration after acquittal due to default [Paras 3–4, 10–16]

Acquittal – Consequences of Dismissal – Though Magistrate’s dismissal order did not expressly record “acquittal,” it amounts to deemed acquittal under Section 256 CrPC – Absence of appearance by complainant justified default dismissal – Complainant's remedy lies in appeal, not revision or restoration application – No illegality found in Magistrate’s refusal [Paras 13–16]

Inherent Powers – Scope under Section 482 CrPC / Article 227 – In view of specific remedy available under CrPC (appeal with leave), High Court’s inherent powers cannot be invoked for restoration – Held: Inherent powers are not to bypass express statutory scheme – Petition not maintainable [Paras 12–14]

Court’s Observations – Confusion arose due to mistaken entry of next date as 07.08.2024 in court records – Petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law – However, current revisional application dismissed as unsustainable [Paras 17–18]

Decision: Revisional Application Dismissed – No power of restoration after default dismissal under CrPC – Petitioner may pursue appropriate legal remedy

Bail – Fraudulent Availment of Input Tax Credit under CGST Act – Compliance with BNSS – Bail Order Set Aside – Accused allegedly availed fraudulent ITC of ₹8.27 Cr and ₹8.26 Cr respectively – Petitioner challenged bail granted by CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, based on omission of Section 47 and 48 headings in Arrest Memo and Notice to Relatives – Held: Arresting authority substantially complied with BNSS mandates – Grounds of Arrest provided and acknowledged – Relative was served with arrest notice containing essential details – No demonstrable prejudice to accused – Bail order held legally unsustainable [Paras 3, 39–41, 49–50, 57–59, 61].

CGST Act – Section 132 Offence – Authorization to Arrest – Valid Arrest – Commissioner had “reasons to believe” based on prima facie material that accused fraudulently availed ineligible ITC – Arrest Authorization and Grounds of Arrest provided in writing – Offence cognizable and non-bailable – Arrest compliant with Section 132 and CBIC Guidelines dated 17.08.2022 – Admission of wrongdoing by accused noted – Held: Arrest justified [Paras 45–46, 49].

BNSS – Sections 47 and 48 – Compliance vs Technical Omission – Prejudice-Oriented Test Applied – Absence of headings in arrest and relative’s notices does not ipso facto vitiate arrest – Apex Court decisions in Vihaan Kumar and Sri Darshan reconciled – Prejudice test applied – Held: No failure of justice or denial of legal remedy – Arrest not illegal for want of headings when substance was disclosed [Paras 50–56].

Criminal Revision vs Bail Cancellation – Jurisdiction Distinguished – Petition filed to set aside bail order as perverse and illegal, not for cancellation based on post-bail conduct – Held: Courts can annul perverse or unsustainable bail orders under Section 528 BNSS – Judicial power properly invoked [Paras 33–35].

Judicial Review under Special Acts – Liberal Construction Discouraged – Court emphasized that liberal interpretation of procedural mandates under special fiscal statutes may undermine their purpose – Minor lapses not fatal where statutory safeguards are substantively met – Reiterated principles from Radhika Agarwal case [Paras 47–49].

Decision: Impugned order dated 07.06.2025 granting bail set aside – Bail bonds cancelled – Respondents at liberty to seek fresh bail before appropriate forum [Paras 63–65].

Banking Law - SARFAESI – Possession of Secured Asset – Tahsildar’s Competence – ARC filed writ petition challenging Ext. P10 order passed by the Tahsildar on the complaint that property unconnected with loan transaction was taken possession of under SARFAESI proceedings – Held: Tahsildar has no authority to interfere in matters already adjudicated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Such action amounts to overstepping jurisdiction [Paras 15–16]

SARFAESI – Review and Non-Impleadment – Ext. P10 order passed based on earlier writ direction where ARC was not impleaded – That writ judgment was reviewed and recalled (RP 1196/2019), and writ dismissed for suppression of material facts – Held: Ext. P10 is rendered non-operational to the extent it conflicts with judicial orders under SARFAESI and cannot survive post recall [Paras 8–10, 16]

Property Identification Dispute – Civil Suit Pending – Dispute between parties as to whether correct property was taken into possession under mortgage enforcement – Held: Dispute of identification is a civil matter pending before Civil Court in O.S. No. 1090/2019 – Trial court to independently adjudicate the dispute without being influenced by findings under SARFAESI [Paras 17–18]

Limited Quashment – Only that portion of Tahsildar’s order (Ext. P10) dealing with SARFAESI delivery proceedings set aside – Held: Tahsildar still empowered to act on allegations against Village Officer’s conduct under appropriate administrative powers, with notice to parties [Para 18]

Decision: Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Ext. P10 quashed only to the extent it interferes with orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Remaining issues left open for civil and administrative proceedings

Motor Vehicles Act – Claim under Section 163-A – Borrower of Vehicle – Tortfeasor – Not Third Party – Claim Not Maintainable – Deceased, who died in a self-accident, had borrowed the vehicle from his brother and was driving it in a rash and negligent manner – Held: Once the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner, he ceased to be a third party – Claim under Section 163-A is not maintainable against insurer by borrower/tortfeasor – Tribunal erred in awarding ₹3,93,500 as compensation – Award set aside [Paras 13–19].

Insurance Law – Liability of Insurer – Borrower Driving Vehicle – No Coverage – Deceased was neither a paid driver nor a third party – Policy did not cover owner’s relatives or gratuitous users – Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. [(2020) 2 SCC 550] relied upon – Held: No liability on insurer for self-inflicted accident by borrower of vehicle – Deceased, being tortfeasor, not entitled to compensation [Paras 15–16].

Motor Accident Claim – Tribunal's Failure to Determine Negligence – Perverse Award – Tribunal failed to determine culpability despite clear evidence (FIR and claimant’s admission) that deceased was driving negligently – Award granted without proper reasoning or findings on responsibility – Held: Award unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside [Paras 17–19].

Appellate Review – Error in Applying Multiplier – Irrelevant in Present Case – Though appellant argued Tribunal applied incorrect multiplier (16 instead of 15), Court found issue moot since claim itself was not maintainable [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.696 of 2012 dated 03/12/2012 set aside – Claim petition dismissed – Appellant insurer entitled to recover any amount deposited before Tribunal by filing appropriate application – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 19–20].

Service Law – Notional Promotion – Delay in Issuance of Promotion Order – Grant of NFU – High Court sets aside Tribunal Order directing notional promotion with retrospective effect – Respondent promoted to the post of Deputy Director General only on 21.07.2016 despite DPC held on 22.01.2016 and vacancy arising on 01.04.2016 – Tribunal held delay unjustified and allowed notional promotion from 01.04.2016 – High Court disagrees – Held: Promotion becomes effective only upon assumption of duties, not from date of vacancy or DPC recommendation – No mala fide or arbitrariness found in administrative delay – Mere pendency of vacancy and DPC recommendation does not confer enforceable right to promotion from earlier date – Tribunal’s direction unsustainable [Paras 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 26-29, 39-41].

Administrative Delay – Priority to Earlier DPC Panel – Valid Justification – Officers recommended by Supplementary DPC for year 2015-16 were accorded priority – Delay in issuing promotion orders to 2016-17 panel including respondent was due to administrative practice – High Court holds such prioritization is not mala fide or unreasonable – No evidence produced to show that delay was intentional or designed to deprive respondent of NFU – Petitioners’ action not arbitrary [Paras 4, 14-15, 25, 30, 34, 37].

Promotion – Right to Be Considered vs. Right to Promotion – DPC Recommendation – No Vested Right – High Court reiterates settled law that promotion does not automatically follow recommendation by DPC – It becomes effective only from date of actual appointment and assumption of charge – Respondent retired before completing requisite one year in promotional post to qualify for NFU – Therefore, claim of retrospective notional promotion and NFU unsustainable [Paras 13, 29, 39].

Distinction from Earlier Precedents – Krishna Kumar Sinha & Others – Inapplicable – Bombay High Court case distinguished on facts – In that case, competent authority failed to process promotions despite available vacancies and DPC recommendations – Present case involved administrative sequencing based on policy – Hence, benefit of retrospective promotion not attracted – Parity cannot be claimed mechanically without establishing factual similarity [Paras 19-20, 30-32].

State’s Conduct – No Mala Fide Established – Delay Not Attributable to Ill-Will – High Court finds no evidence to suggest the delay in promotion was due to bias, negligence or mala fide action – Mere delay per se without adverse motive does not justify retrospective promotion – Principle that State cannot take advantage of its own wrong applies only where delay is culpable – Not applicable here [Paras 18, 25, 36, 38].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Tribunal’s Order dated 29.05.2024 quashed – No entitlement to notional promotion from 01.04.2016 – No financial or NFU benefits payable – Respondent’s claim rejected – No costs awarded [Paras 41-43].

Land Acquisition – Due Process – Sections 3A, 3D & 3G(3) of National Highways Act – Gazette Notification issued in 2022 under Section 3A did not include all petitioners’ properties – Declaration under Section 3D dated 03.07.2024 and subsequent compensation proceedings initiated – Petitioners allege interference with possession without due acquisition – Held: Respondents directed to follow due process before acquisition – Acquisition without compliance violates Article 300-A [Paras 2–2.2, 9]

Constitutional Law – Article 300-A – Right to Property – Seven essential rights recognised by Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) 10 SCC 533 form core of Article 300-A – Includes rights to notice, hearing, reasoned decision, fair compensation, expeditious process, public purpose and conclusion – Held: Absence of these renders law vulnerable to challenge – These principles now part of administrative law jurisprudence [Paras 5–7]

Property Law – Completion of Acquisition – Mere compensation not sufficient – Possession of property is essential for valid acquisition – Court reiterates that unless physical possession is taken, acquisition remains incomplete [Para 8]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of with direction to follow due process of law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed.

Land Law – Licence vs Tenancy – Res Judicata – Prior adjudication under Thika Tenancy Act binds parties – Appellants claimed tenancy based on agreements and conduct – Respondents asserted licence and relied on findings in WPLRT No. 76 of 2022 – Held: Issue whether appellants were licensees was directly and substantially in issue in WPLRT 76/2022, conclusively decided – Special Leave Petition against such decision dismissed – Held: Judgment operates as res judicata – No scope to reopen issue in appeal [Paras 33–37].

Eviction – Interpretation of Agreements – Licence Agreements (Exhibits 3 and 4) – Not Lease – Appellants relied on Exhibits 3 and 4 to assert monthly tenancy – Court held these documents were interpreted in prior litigation and conclusively held to be licences – Exclusive possession not granted – Right to alter structure does not negate licence – Appellants cannot approbate and reprobate – No fresh interpretation warranted [Paras 29–32, 39].

Code of Civil Procedure – Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional Evidence – Not considered when main issue is already conclusively decided – Both parties had pending applications for additional evidence – Held: Since central legal issue (licence vs tenancy) already concluded in prior proceedings, additional evidence not necessary [Para 6, 39].

Principles of Res Judicata – Test for Application – Direct and Substantial Issue in Prior Case – Court applied test from Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer, (2000) 3 SCC 350 – Held: Where interpretation of documents and status of occupation were directly in issue earlier, findings operate as res judicata in subsequent suit even if context was different (Thika Tenancy vs Eviction) [Paras 34–36].

Litigation Conduct – Multiple Shifting Stands – Thika Tenancy and Tenancy Claims in Parallel – Appellants repeatedly shifted stand: first as tenants, then Thika tenants, now monthly tenants again – Filed multiple suits and petitions – Court held such conduct undermines credibility – Cannot raise inconsistent pleas across forums [Paras 22–28, 35].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of eviction dated 30.09.2020 in Title Suit No. 134 of 2016 affirmed – All connected applications disposed of [Paras 40–41].