Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prohibition Law – Validity of FIR Based on Breath Analyzer Test – FIR Quashed – The petitioner was booked under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, based solely on a breath analyzer test showing 41 mg/100 ml blood alcohol concentration – No confirmatory blood or urine test was conducted – The Court relied on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930, which held that mere smell of alcohol and behavioural observations are insufficient to establish consumption – Held: In the absence of confirmatory medical tests, the breath analyzer test alone is inconclusive and cannot justify prosecution – FIR quashed [Paras 2-6, 12].

Mala Fide Action – Allegations of Professional Vendetta – Petitioner’s Claim Considered – The petitioner claimed that the FIR was a result of vendetta by the District Magistrate after he raised objections regarding financial irregularities – The Court noted that the petitioner’s claims of mala fide intent were not conclusively proven but found procedural lapses in the registration of the case – Held: While the allegations of vendetta were not a primary ground, the procedural irregularities warranted quashing of the FIR [Paras 7-9].

Fundamental Rights – Violation of Articles 14 and 21 – Arbitrary Prosecution – The petitioner argued that his arrest and suspension from government service were unconstitutional as they were based on arbitrary enforcement of law without substantive evidence – The Court found that the prosecution lacked conclusive proof and amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power – Held: The FIR and subsequent departmental action were unjustified, violating fundamental rights [Paras 10-11].

Petition Allowed – FIR Quashed – The High Court held that the registration of the case solely on the basis of a breath analyzer test, without confirmatory medical evidence, was legally unsustainable – Held: Excise PS Case No. 559 of 2024 (Special Case No. 572 of 2024) quashed, and writ petition allowed [Paras 12-13].
 

Contractual Employment – Right to Regularization – No Vested Right in Fixed-Term Employees – The petitioners were appointed under "Mission Mangalam" scheme on contractual basis for three years as per Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 – Upon completion of tenure, their services were not extended, leading to petitions for regularization and parity with government employees – Held: Contractual employees do not have a vested right to regularization – Their appointment letters explicitly stated non-permanence, and they cannot claim benefits at par with government employees [Paras 8.5-10].

Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work – Not Applicable to Contractual Employees – Petitioners claimed regular pay-scale citing "equal pay for equal work" – Held: Regularization requires parity in recruitment process, service conditions, and nature of duties – Petitioners were selected through a different process than regular government employees, and their employment was tenure-based – Doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not apply to contract-based appointments [Paras 10.1-10.2].

No Violation of Article 14 and 16 – Differentiation Between Regular and Contractual Employees Justified – Petitioners alleged discrimination and arbitrary termination – Held: The employer (GLPC) has discretion to engage employees on a fixed-term basis – Policy decisions on employment terms do not violate constitutional guarantees unless arbitrary or mala fide – No evidence of hostile discrimination presented [Paras 11-12].

Reliance on Umadevi Judgment – No Automatic Right to Regularization – Petitioners cited State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, arguing long tenure creates legitimate expectation of regularization – Held: Umadevi explicitly bars regularization of contractual employees unless they were engaged in violation of rules or working against permanent sanctioned posts – Petitioners were appointed as per government policy and contractual terms, hence no automatic regularization [Para 15].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Contractual Employees Have No Right to Regularization – The Court held that contractual employment under Mission Mangalam was validly terminated upon completion of tenure – No claim to permanent employment, regular pay scale, or government service benefits – Petitions dismissed [Paras 16-19].
 

Criminal Courts – No Inherent Power of Review – Exceptions Exist to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice – The petitioner contended that a criminal court lacks inherent power to review or recall its own orders, except in cases of clerical, typographical, or mathematical errors – The High Court reaffirmed this principle but held that exceptions exist where an order is passed due to misrepresentation, fraud, or unforeseen circumstances – Held: The Trial Court’s recall of the dismissal order was legally justified as it corrected an injustice caused by an erroneous police statement [Paras 6, 11-12].

Anticipatory Bail – Recall of Dismissal Order Justified Due to Police Misrepresentation – The private respondents’ initial bail application was dismissed based on an incorrect statement by a police official that they had not complied with investigation directions – The State later admitted the error in an affidavit, confirming that the respondents had in fact cooperated – The High Court held that when a judicial order is based on a factual mistake attributable to the police, the Trial Court is justified in reconsidering its decision – Held: Recall of the dismissal order and grant of bail was proper to prevent injustice [Paras 7-9].

Cancellation of Bail – Requires Cogent Grounds of Misuse – No Such Grounds Established – The petitioner sought cancellation of bail, arguing that the Trial Court’s exercise of jurisdiction was impermissible – The High Court reiterated that once bail is granted, it can only be cancelled if the accused violates bail conditions, tampers with evidence, or misuses liberty – In the absence of such allegations, mere legal objections to the grant of bail do not justify cancellation – Held: No compelling reason existed to revoke the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents [Paras 10, 14].

Bail Jurisprudence – Personal Liberty Should Not Be Curtailed Due to Administrative Errors – The High Court emphasized that personal liberty cannot be curtailed due to procedural lapses or administrative mistakes – The police’s incorrect statement led to an unjustified rejection of bail, necessitating its recall – Held: A strict view of recall powers should not override the broader principle of ensuring justice [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Anticipatory Bail Upheld – The Court found that the Trial Court acted within its discretion to rectify a glaring factual mistake and prevent injustice – Since no misuse of bail was alleged, there was no valid ground for cancellation – Held: Petition dismissed, anticipatory bail of private respondents upheld [Paras 14].

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII, Rule 11, CPC – The petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, contending that the suit was barred by territorial jurisdiction as per the agreement between the parties – The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by any law – Held: The existence of a cause of action is a triable issue, and Order VII, Rule 11 cannot be invoked where controversial questions of fact are involved – No error in the trial court’s order [Paras 2.2, 5.2].

Commercial Courts Act – Maintainability of Civil Revision – Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act – The respondent raised an objection regarding the maintainability of revision under Section 115, CPC, in light of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, which bars civil revision petitions against interlocutory orders – Held: Since the suit pertains to a commercial dispute, revision under Section 115, CPC is barred – The appropriate remedy lies in appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, if applicable [Paras 6, 14.1].

Jurisdiction – Effect of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – The petitioner argued that the agreement between the parties specified that disputes should be resolved in Cuttack courts, and thus, the Bhubaneswar Commercial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction – Held: The existence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of other competent courts – If the plaint discloses a cause of action within Bhubaneswar, the court can proceed with the trial – Application under Order VII, Rule 11 rightly rejected [Paras 5.3, 6.1].

Effect of Commercial Courts Act on Revisionary Jurisdiction – Section 115, CPC read with Sections 8 and 13 of the Commercial Courts Act – The Commercial Courts Act overrides the general provisions of the CPC in matters of commercial disputes – Held: The bar under Section 8 is absolute, and revision petitions under Section 115, CPC are not maintainable against interlocutory orders of Commercial Courts – Appeal under Section 13 is the only available remedy [Paras 14, 14.6].

Interlocutory Orders – Scope of Judicial Review – The petitioner argued that the rejection of his Order VII, Rule 11 application was an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, warranting interference under Section 115, CPC – Held: The impugned order does not fall within the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC – Any challenge to such interlocutory orders can only be raised in appeal against the final decree [Paras 10.1, 14.3].

Decision – Revision Petition Not Maintainable – The High Court dismissed the revision petition as barred under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act – Petitioners are not remediless but must pursue appropriate remedies under Section 13 of the Act – No costs awarded [Paras 16-17].
 

Civil Law - Property Ownership – Inheritance and Will – Claim for Full Ownership Rejected – The appellant sought full ownership of a house based on a Will executed by her mother, Kasturi Devi – The lower courts found no evidence that Harbans Lal (original owner) had transferred the property entirely to Kasturi Devi before his death – Held: In the absence of documentary proof of transfer, the property devolved by natural succession among all legal heirs, and the appellant was entitled to only a 50% share [Paras 9-10].

Scope of Will – Limited Effect on Succession – The appellant argued that the Will executed by Kasturi Devi conferred full ownership on her – The Court held that since Harbans Lal’s ownership was never exclusively transferred to Kasturi Devi, she could not bequeath the entire property – Held: The appellant could only inherit her mother’s share through the Will, not the entire property [Paras 9].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The Court reaffirmed that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not maintainable unless a substantial question of law arises – Since both lower courts correctly applied legal principles and factual findings, no interference was warranted – Held: No substantial question of law; appeal dismissed [Paras 10].
 

Criminal Law – Robbery and Murder – Sections 394, 397 IPC – Conviction and sentence upheld – The appellant was convicted for armed robbery and murder along with co-accused – The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, including an injured witness – The defense argued that the witnesses were interested parties and that the investigation was defective – Held: The presence of eyewitnesses was natural, and minor inconsistencies in statements do not affect the reliability of their testimony – The trial court’s findings were upheld, and no material error was found [Paras 5, 7, 25, 26].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of Interested Witnesses – Conviction based on testimony of family members of the deceased – Defense argued that such testimony was unreliable – Held: Relationship with the victim does not render a witness unreliable unless enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused is proven – The testimony was found to be credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence [Paras 12-14, 17, 19, 20].

Injured Witness – Higher Evidentiary Value – Conviction upheld based on the testimony of an injured witness – Held: The testimony of an injured witness carries special evidentiary weight as they have firsthand knowledge of the incident – Unless strong grounds exist to discredit their statements, their testimony should be given due consideration – The trial court rightly relied on the injured witness’s statement [Paras 23, 24].

Conviction Under Section 460 IPC – No Specific Charge – Defense contended that the appellant was convicted under Section 460 IPC despite no specific charge being framed – Held: The court has the power under Section 222 CrPC to convict under an appropriate provision if the facts establish the offense – The trial court’s reliance on Section 460 IPC was justified in the given circumstances [Paras 8, 27].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of appellant Rakshpal was upheld – The court found no legal or factual error in the trial court’s findings – The appellant’s bail bonds were canceled, and he was ordered to surrender – The conviction of co-accused Rameshwar in a related appeal was also upheld, further affirming the correctness of the trial court’s judgment [Paras 27, 28, 29].
 

Civil Procedure – Permanent Injunction – Plaintiff Must Prove Possession – The Court held that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession – In this case, the plaintiffs proved possession through property tax records, assessment bills, and eviction suits against tenants – The appellant (defendant) failed to file a written statement or challenge evidence [Paras 22-24].

Property Law – Title and Possession – Mere Claims of Ownership Do Not Create a Dispute – The appellant contended that there was a cloud on the title due to alleged competing claims – The Court ruled that mere unsubstantiated assertions do not raise a valid dispute – Since the appellant failed to produce any evidence of ownership, the trial court’s decree was upheld [Paras 25-28].

Land Encroachment – Unauthorized Construction – Right of Owner to Seek Injunction – The appellant had allegedly constructed unauthorized sheds on the suit property—The Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolished these structures twice – The Court held that the landowner has the right to seek a permanent injunction against trespassers – The appellant’s claims of ownership were based on forged documents, as per police and BMC reports [Paras 30-31].

Judicial Precedent – No Need for Declaration of Title When Plaintiff is in Possession – The Court relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, which held that when a person in possession faces interference, an injunction suit is sufficient without requiring a declaratory suit for ownership – Since the plaintiffs were paying taxes, maintaining records, and managing tenants, no further declaration was necessary [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree of Injunction Upheld – The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal – The appellant was permanently restrained from trespassing, constructing, or interfering with the plaintiffs' possession – No costs imposed [Paras 33-35].
 

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction – Grant Without Finding of Possession – Order Set Aside – The lower appellate court maintained the trial court’s dismissal of the suit for cancellation of the sale deed but granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff-respondent – The High Court held that an injunction cannot be granted without recording a clear finding of possession – Held: Since the land in dispute was not identifiable, the relief of permanent injunction was unjustified and was set aside [Paras 6-9].

Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed – No Challenge to Prior Transaction – Claim Not Sustainable – The plaintiff-respondent challenged the sale deed dated 12.11.2007 but failed to challenge an earlier sale deed of 20.01.2000 from the original co-owner – The courts found that once the first sale deed was accepted and acted upon, the subsequent sale was legally valid – Held: Without challenging the foundational transaction, the claim for cancellation of the later sale deed is untenable [Paras 11-12].

Possession – Failure to Establish Actual Occupation – Relief Cannot Be Granted – The lower appellate court granted an injunction based on a partition decree obtained by the plaintiff-respondent – The High Court held that such a decree did not automatically establish actual possession in the present case, especially when the land in dispute was unidentifiable – Held: Possession must be proven through evidence in the same proceedings; injunction relief set aside [Paras 13-14].

No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Allowed in Part – The Court reiterated that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises – Since the lower appellate court granted relief contrary to its own findings on possession and identifiability of land, interference was justified – Held: Judgment granting permanent injunction set aside; remaining portion of the judgment upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Second appeal allowed in part – The relief of permanent injunction granted by the lower appellate court was set aside – The remaining findings, including the dismissal of the suit for cancellation of the sale deed, remained intact – No order as to costs.

Murder Trial – Common Intention – Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 – Conviction Upheld – The appellants, along with other accused, forcefully entered the victim’s house at night, dragged him outside, and brutally assaulted him with iron rods, wooden sticks, and hammers – The assault continued at multiple locations, ultimately causing the victim’s death – Evidence from multiple eyewitnesses corroborated the sequence of events – Medical report confirmed homicidal injuries – Held: The appellants acted with common intention, making them liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 3-5, 46-47].

Non-Framing of Specific Charge – Section 464 CrPC – No Prejudice Caused – The appellant Badal Sarkar argued that since no specific charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against him, his conviction was illegal – The Court noted that the trial order sheet clearly indicated that all accused were charged under Section 302 IPC – The appellant was represented by counsel throughout the trial and fully participated in cross-examination – Held: The absence of a specific charge did not cause prejudice or failure of justice – Conviction sustained [Paras 25-35].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Plea of Parity – Rejected – The appellants argued that since some similarly placed accused were acquitted, they should also be acquitted – The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that a wrongful acquittal does not justify setting aside a valid conviction – Independent evaluation of evidence revealed that the appellants had a more direct and active role in the crime – Held: The plea of parity was not applicable, and the conviction of the appellants was upheld [Paras 38-50].

Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony – Nighttime Identification – No Test Identification Parade Required – The appellants challenged the credibility of eyewitnesses on the ground of nighttime occurrence and lack of Test Identification Parade (TIP) – The Court held that the witnesses were familiar with the accused and had sufficient opportunity to recognize them – Testimony of PW1, PW2, and PW3 was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: TIP was not necessary, and the eyewitness testimony was reliable [Paras 65-67].

Delay in Recording Eyewitness Statements – Effect on Credibility – The appellants contended that a delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses affected their credibility – The Court held that delay alone does not render testimony unreliable unless it is unexplained or unsupported by other evidence – The statements of PW1, PW2, and PW3 were recorded soon after the incident and corroborated by other witnesses – Held: No adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution [Paras 69-72].

Non-Seizure of Weapons – No Adverse Inference Against Prosecution – The defense argued that the absence of seizure of weapons and fingerprints weakened the prosecution’s case – The Court held that in cases involving common household weapons like iron rods, sticks, and hammers, non-recovery was not fatal to the case – Medical evidence and eyewitness testimony sufficiently established the weapons used – Held: Conviction cannot be set aside due to non-seizure of weapons [Paras 73-75].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – No Inconsistency – The defense argued that the post-mortem report did not conclusively establish that the injuries were fatal – The Court found that the medical evidence clearly indicated multiple blunt force injuries leading to hemorrhage and cardio-respiratory failure – The injuries were consistent with the eyewitness accounts – Held: Medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case, and there was no basis to interfere with the conviction [Paras 56-60].

Assessment of Circumstantial Evidence – Collective Assault and Common Intention – Guilt Established – The Court examined the sequence of events, corroborated eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and the accused’s participation in unlawful assembly – The appellants had a clear common intention to cause death – Held: The cumulative effect of the evidence conclusively established the guilt of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 46-50, 62-64].