Electricity Law – Privatization of U.T. Chandigarh Electricity Wing – Validity of Bidding Process – The petitioners challenged the privatization process of the U.T. Chandigarh Electricity Wing, alleging that the transfer scheme under Section 131 of the Electricity Act, 2003, was neither finalized nor approved before the issuance of bids, and that no company was incorporated to undertake the functions prior to bidding – Held: The Court found that Section 131 does not necessitate a finalized transfer scheme before bids are issued; the transfer scheme is only required after identifying the transferee – The Court emphasized statutory interpretation should avoid assumptions absent express language [Paras 1.1, 1.3, 3.1].

Employee Rights – Continuity of Employment Terms Post-Privatization – Petitioners contended that privatization could adversely affect employment conditions of the U.T. Electricity Department employees – Held: Section 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003, protects employees by ensuring no change in service terms post-transfer – The Court confirmed employees’ conditions would not be negatively affected under the transfer scheme [Paras 2.2, 3.6].

Policy Decision – Scope of Judicial Review in Economic Matters – The petitioners argued for judicial intervention on policy grounds, claiming that privatization was unnecessary and contrary to the public interest – The Court, citing Supreme Court precedent, ruled that judicial review of economic policy decisions is limited unless there is clear violation of statutory or constitutional limits – Policy decisions, especially in economic reforms, involve complex considerations beyond judicial purview [Paras 3.7, 4].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – The Court dismissed the petitions, finding that the process followed was legally compliant, and that policy decisions regarding privatization were within the executive's domain, thus beyond judicial interference unless shown to be arbitrary or illegal [Para 4].
 

Narcotics Law – Bail Application for Commercial Quantity of Cannabis – Extended Detention Under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Petition for regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS due to procedural lapses in handling detention beyond 180 days and irregular sample verification – Petitioner alleged that procedural violations, including failure to involve a Magistrate in sample verification, rebutted the statutory presumption against him – Held: The Court found substantial procedural lapses, including improper handling of contraband samples and issues in extending the detention, meriting bail despite commercial quantity of cannabis seized; petitioner had been in custody for 296 days, beyond the default period, without sufficient cause for further detention [Paras 4, 10, 11].

Procedure in Extension of Detention – Failure to Secure Accused’s Physical or Virtual Presence – Court reviewed requirements under Section 36A(4), emphasizing the mandatory nature of the accused’s physical or virtual presence during hearings for detention extension – Held: The Special Judge’s order extending detention was flawed due to lack of accused’s presence, constituting a procedural violation that justified bail on merits, even without default bail – Petition granted [Paras 7, 8, 12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Bail granted on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including bi-monthly police check-ins, prohibition on witness tampering, and assurance to participate in trial without fail [Para 13].
 

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Relevance of Additional Documents – Section 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act – Petition to Submit Evidence Denied - The petitioner sought permission to submit additional documents before the Industrial Tribunal to demonstrate the respondent's alleged misconduct, arguing that these documents, including criminal complaints and general diaries, were essential for adjudicating the dispute regarding the respondent’s superannuation date – The Tribunal rejected the application, finding the documents unrelated to the core issue of retirement age – Held: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that additional documents must be relevant to the primary dispute, which pertained to the employee's alleged premature retirement and not his conduct [Paras 13-15, 20].

Procedural Fairness – Timeliness and Relevance in Document Submission – Rule 15 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules - The court emphasized the need for timely submission of relevant evidence and compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 15 – The Tribunal's discretion in admitting additional evidence should serve substantive justice, and documents lacking direct relevance to the dispute should be excluded to avoid delaying proceedings – Citing principles of judicial prudence, the court upheld the rejection of untimely and unrelated evidence [Paras 15-16, 18-19].

Evidence Law – Public Documents and Discretionary Admittance by Tribunal - Petitioner argued the documents were public records under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and should be admitted automatically – The court clarified that while public records may be admissible, tribunals retain discretion to admit evidence based on relevance and necessity, especially in industrial disputes where efficiency is paramount – Additional documents were deemed irrelevant to the limited dispute over superannuation date [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Tribunal’s Order Affirmed - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision to exclude the additional documents and imposing costs for attempting to prolong the proceedings – The court found no grounds for interference, given the lack of substantive relevance of the petitioner’s documents to the dispute at hand [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Prolonged Detention and Presumption of Innocence – The petitioner, charged under Section 22 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing intoxicating tablets, sought bail, citing extended incarceration and the lack of further evidence recovery – Co-accused had already been granted bail, and only a third of the prosecution witnesses had been examined – Held: Granting bail is the general rule, detention the exception; with trial delay and no further recovery required, continued detention serves no purpose [Paras 1-4].

Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Detention Not Justified – The Court stressed the constitutional mandate for a fair and speedy trial, noting that extended pre-conviction detention undermines justice and violates Article 21 – Referencing Supreme Court guidelines, the Court affirmed that excessive pre-trial incarceration contravenes principles of human dignity and legal fairness [Paras 4-6].

Decision:

Petition for regular bail allowed. Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. This decision does not influence the merits of the case [Paras 5-7].

Taxation Law - Expenditure Classification – Current vs. Capital Expenditure – Income Tax Act - The appellant, operating a 5-Star hotel, sought deductions for expenses incurred on replacing carpets, mattresses, and lampshades, claiming them as allowable under Section 31 as “current repairs.” The Tribunal denied the claim, categorizing the expenses as capital rather than revenue – The Court, examining similar precedents and the nature of items, held that replacement of damaged items does not constitute an enduring asset and falls under “current expenditure,” allowing deduction under Section 37(1) as revenue expenditure – Held: Expenditure on replacing carpets, mattresses, and lampshades classified as current, allowable under Section 37(1) as revenue expenditure [Paras 21-26, 32].

Tribunal’s Error – Non-Adjudication under Section 37(1) – Appeal Allowed - The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in ignoring the alternate claim for deduction under Section 37(1) despite citing relevant precedents – The Court agreed, emphasizing that while an expenditure may not qualify under Section 31 as current repairs, Section 37(1) can apply if it serves business purposes without creating a new asset – Held: Appeal allowed, expenses deductible under Section 37(1) [Paras 8-10, 32-34].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the Tribunal’s order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to claim deductions under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act for expenses incurred on replacement of carpets, mattresses, and lampshades, treated as current expenditures.

Criminal Law - Forgery and Cheating – Lack of Material Evidence – Acquittal Upheld – The prosecution failed to produce critical evidence such as admit cards, attendance sheets, answer sheets, and roll number slips to substantiate charges of forgery and cheating – Held: Acquittal justified due to lack of material evidence and procedural lapses [Paras 20-25].

Duty of Investigating Agencies – Fair Investigation Mandated – Lapses Criticized – Investigating Officer admitted to intentionally not taking possession of documents that could establish the innocence of the accused – Court emphasized that a fair investigation requires presenting all material evidence, whether incriminating or exculpatory [Paras 30-34].

Allegations of Tampering – Reasonable Doubt Persisted – Acquittal Justified – Evidence presented by the prosecution, including contradictory entries in admission registers and school records, failed to conclusively establish criminal intent or tampering – Reasonable doubt benefited the accused [Paras 26-29].

Role of Investigators and Prosecutors – Responsibility to Prevent Unmerited Prosecution – Reiterating principles from landmark cases, Court held that unmerited prosecution violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection against arbitrary actions – Directed authorities to ensure fair investigation and training of personnel [Paras 35-38].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Directions Issued – The appeal by the State was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's acquittal – Directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), DGP, and Director Prosecution to implement corrective measures, including monitoring mechanisms and training programs for investigators and prosecutors [Para 39].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – False Promise of Marriage – FIR registered under Sections 376, 417, and 504 IPC against the petitioners – Allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage by the first petitioner – Engagement between the complainant and the first petitioner broke down due to family disputes – Contention: Relationship was consensual and allegations were baseless – Held: FIR and charge sheet quashed as allegations did not constitute the offence of rape or cheating under IPC [Paras 2–4, 16–18].

Consent and Misconception of Fact – False Promise vs. Breach of Promise – Examined distinction between consensual sexual relationships and rape – A false promise of marriage amounts to rape only when made without any intention to marry from inception – Breach of a genuine promise due to unforeseen circumstances does not constitute rape or cheating – Court relied on precedents distinguishing between consensual acts and coerced acts based on deception [Paras 9–15].

Witness Testimony – Allegations and Material Evidence – FIR and charge sheet reviewed – Relationship between the complainant and first petitioner spanned seven years, including after the engagement ceremony – No evidence showed the promise to marry was false from inception – Allegations reflected a consensual relationship, not one based on deception [Paras 2–3, 16–18].

Precedents Cited – Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 – Differentiation between false promise and breach of promise – Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 – Court must evaluate whether consent was vitiated by misrepresentation – Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1652) – Consensual relationships do not attract Section 376 IPC without clear evidence of deceit – Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032) – FIR quashed when allegations lacked ingredients of rape or coercion.

Decision – Appeal allowed – FIR and charge sheet quashed – Further proceedings would amount to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice – Petitioners discharged from prosecution [Paras 17–18].

Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Burden of Proof – Chain of Circumstances Proved – The prosecution established circumstantial evidence including CCTV footage showing the accused with the deceased, the purchase of poisonous pesticides by the accused, and the medical cause of death by poisoning – Disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the motorcycle and mobile phone corroborated the prosecution case – Conviction upheld [Paras 10-30].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility under Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act – Procedural Requirements for Certification – Despite procedural defects in certifying CCTV footage under Section 65-B, corroborating evidence including witness testimony, chemical examination of recovered poison, and the accused’s disclosure statement proved incriminatory links – Procedural defect did not negate substantive evidence [Paras 40-45].

Mens Rea – Evidence of Intent – Use of Poison – Purchase of pesticide and forced administration inferred from circumstantial evidence and witness testimony – Motive established through the accused's grudge against the victim’s relative – Mens rea for murder upheld [Paras 50-60].

Post-mortem Report – Cause of Death by Poisoning – The medical examination confirmed organophosphate poisoning as the cause of death – No evidence of external injury ruled out forcible administration, yet circumstantial evidence and accused’s conduct established the act as murder [Paras 70-80].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court’s conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was upheld. The acquittal under Section 376 IPC and the SC/ST Act was not appealed by the State and thus attained finality.

Examination Malpractice – Proportionality of Punishment – Regulation 5(a) and Regulation 8 of Panjab University Calendar Volume II, 2007 – Writ dismissed - The petitioner challenged a two-year disqualification imposed for being caught with handwritten notes during the Law of Contract examination – The petitioner argued that the punishment was disproportionate and detrimental to his career – The Court held that the punishment prescribed under the Regulations is clear and mandatory, and no lesser punishment can be substituted – Emphasis was placed on the integrity expected of an LL.B. student, considering the legal profession's ethical standards [Paras 7-8].