Criminal Law – FEMA Act - Compounding of Offence – Maintainability after Adjudication – Compounding Application Rejected – Petitioner sought compounding of offence under FEMA after conclusion of adjudication and imposition of penalty – Held: Once adjudication concludes, application for compounding is impermissible – The intent of compounding is to avoid adjudication, not override it post-facto – No provision under the Act or Rules allows compounding after adjudication – Petitioner’s interpretation of Rule 11 rejected [Paras 5-6, 10-13, 23-25, 3335]. 
 
Jurisdiction of RBI – Limitation on Power to Compound – No Power to Undo Adjudication – RBI lacks jurisdiction to entertain compounding after final adjudication order – Accepting such an interpretation would create uncertainty and indefinite proceedings – The RBI’s Master Directions, Compounding Rules, and Circulars clearly limit compounding to preadjudication stages – No contrary precedent cited by petitioner – The Court upholds RBI’s rejection of application [Paras 21, 30-34]. 
 
Legislative Intent – Adjudication and Compounding are Mutually Exclusive – Remedy Exhausted – Allowing compounding post-adjudication would render the adjudication nugatory and leave penalty provisions toothless – Such a scenario not contemplated by FEMA – The Court emphasized that compounding must precede or coincide with the adjudication, not follow its conclusion [Paras 31-35]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Compounding Application Rejected Validly – The Court found no reason to interfere with the RBI’s decision – Writ petition dismissed – Interim relief vacated – No costs awarded [Paras 36-39]. 
 

Bail - NDPS Act – Minor Discrepancy in Sample Weight – Bail Denied – The petitioner contended that there was a discrepancy between the sample weight recorded before the Metropolitan Magistrate and the FSL report, suggesting tampering – Held: The discrepancy was minor and could be attributed to moisture loss – FSL did not indicate any tampering of the seal – Minor discrepancy not sufficient to grant bail [Paras 11-12].

Absence of Independent Witnesses and Videography – No Ground for Bail – Raid was conducted during midnight and non-joining of independent witnesses may be justified – However, absence of videography remains unexplained – Held: In absence of prolonged custody, this alone does not justify grant of bail unlike in cases such as Bantu v. State where long incarceration was a factor [Paras 13-14].

Clean Antecedents and Short Custody Period – Bail Denied – Petitioner has no prior criminal record and has been in custody for about one year – Held: As per precedents, relaxation of Section 37 of NDPS Act is generally allowed when custody exceeds 1½ to 3½ years – Present custody period being short, bail refused with liberty to renew application if trial is delayed [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Liberty granted to file fresh application after six months if no substantial progress in trial [Para 15].

Service Law – Suspension and Reinstatement – Duty Period Not Automatic – Criminal Acquittal Irrelevant Where Departmental Charges Proven – Respondent sought duty benefit for suspension/dismissal period citing criminal acquittal – Held: As departmental charges were proved and only punishment modified (not exoneration), benefit under FR 54-B(1)(9) not attracted – Writ court erred in applying wrong rule [Paras 6-9, 22-24].

Scope of Fundamental Rule 54 – Period of Suspension to be Specifically Declared as Duty – Competent Authority’s Discretion – The appellate authority did not direct suspension/dismissal periods to be treated as duty – Held: Per FR 54(5) & 54-B(1)(11), in absence of full exoneration, duty status must be specifically declared; otherwise authority is entitled to convert into leave or leave without pay [Paras 20-31].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Not Invoked – Modified Punishment Valid – Respondent’s removal was reduced to pay reduction by appellate authority – No finding that punishment was disproportionate – Held: Disciplinary discretion upheld; no interference warranted [Paras 17-19].

Continuity for Pension – Permitted – Not Duty Benefits – Though suspension and dismissal periods treated as leave, continuity for pensionary service preserved – Held: Respondent entitled to pension benefits based on service continuity but not to salary or duty status for impugned periods [Para 33].

Final Decision – Writ Appeal Allowed – High Court’s direction to treat suspension/dismissal period as duty set aside – Original departmental decision treating those periods as leave restored [Paras 32-34].
 

Service Law - Reservation in Promotion – Quantifiable Data – Constitutionality Upheld – Petitioners challenged reservation policy dated 07.10.2023 alleging non-compliance with requirements under Article 16(4A) – Held: Haryana Government had undertaken a detailed cadre-wise and group-wise study demonstrating inadequacy of SC representation – State complied with the constitutional mandate and Supreme Court guidelines in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh – Reservation upheld [Paras 10.1-10.5, 12].

Delegation of Power – Promotion Criteria – No Unlawful Delegation Found – Allegation that power under Article 16(4A) was delegated to Departmental Promotion Committees – Rejected – Held: Instructions merely implemented a State policy already backed by quantified data; decision-making authority not abdicated [Paras 6, 10.5].

Creamy Layer Exclusion – Not Applicable to SCs in Promotion – Petitioners argued for application of creamy layer exclusion to SC candidates – Rejected – Held: As per binding precedents including Jarnail Singh and B.K. Pavitra, creamy layer concept not applicable to SCs in the context of promotional reservations [Paras 4.2, 6].

Administrative Efficiency – Article 335 Compliance – Promotion Conditional on Eligibility – Petitioners contended that promotion policy violates Article 335 – Held: Instructions mandated only eligible SC candidates for promotion and maintained performance-based probation – Efficiency of administration safeguarded [Paras 7, 11].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Instructions Upheld – Court held that the State of Haryana fulfilled constitutional preconditions for granting reservation in promotions – No constitutional infirmity found – Petitions dismissed, validating the 07.10.2023 instructions [Paras 10-13].

NDPS Act – Anticipatory Bail – Section 37 Rigours – Bail Denied - The petitioner was implicated in a case involving trans-border drug smuggling through drones and was named in a co-accused's disclosure statement – Investigation revealed communication through encrypted WhatsApp calls and exchange of coordinates for drone deliveries of heroin – Held: The petitioner failed to meet the twin conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act; custodial interrogation required to unearth deeper drug nexus – Anticipatory bail denied [Paras 3, 7-10].

Drug Trafficking – Cross-Border Smuggling via Drones – Prima Facie Involvement – Petitioner’s Location and Communication Corroborated - The petitioner was found to be in contact with main accused and present at key locations identified for heroin drops via drones from Pakistan – WhatsApp call logs and mobile location data supported prosecution’s claim – Petitioner admitted to association but denied involvement; court held his role requires custodial inquiry [Paras 3, 7].

Presumption under Section 37 – Commercial Quantity – Burden on Accused to Prove Innocence – The Court reiterated settled legal principles that Section 37 places a reverse burden on the accused in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity – Bail can only be granted if court believes the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend – Petitioner failed to meet either criterion [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – No Case Made Out Under Section 438 CrPC - The Court found no reasonable ground to believe the petitioner was innocent – Citing prior rulings, it declined to interfere in the ongoing investigation – Interim protection withdrawn; petition dismissed [Paras 10, 12].

Civil Law – Sale Decree Challenged - General Power of Attorney – No Express Authority to Sell – Sale Deeds Held Void – Power Misused - Plaintiff executed GPA for property management in favour of his brother-in-law – GPA holder executed sale deeds to his own relatives without plaintiff’s consent – Held: GPA lacked explicit authority to sell and sales were without necessity or consideration – Fraud established [Paras 3-5, 20-24, 30-31].

Fiduciary Duty of Agent – Breach of Trust – Transactions Set Aside - Defendant No.1, acting as agent, sold land to his brother-in-law and thereafter to plaintiff’s estranged brother – Held: Agent acted contrary to principal’s interest and misused position – Sales held vitiated under Section 215 of the Contract Act [Paras 21, 23-25, 34-35].

Power of Attorney Interpretation – Strict Construction Mandated – Only Express or Implied Powers Allowed - Referencing case law including Harjinder Singh v. Harbhajan Singh, and Adaikappa Chettiar v. Thomas Cook & Son, Court held that general clauses in POA do not imply sale authority unless clearly stated or necessary for management [Paras 28-29].

Ex Parte Decree – Unrebutted Evidence – Plaintiff Succeeds - Defendants chose not to contest trial – Plaintiff’s wife testified under Section 120 of Evidence Act – Held: Testimony of spouse and unrebutted pleadings sufficient to decree suit [Paras 6, 14, 27, 33].

Second Appeal under Punjab Courts Act – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed - Held: Second appeal governed by Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act; appellate court judgment was reasoned and legally sound – No interference warranted [Paras 18-19, 36].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Prima Facie Allegations – Petition to Quash FIR Dismissed – The petitioner company had awarded a subcontract under a major irrigation project to a contractor who further sublet to the complainant – Despite knowledge and involvement, petitioners denied privity of contract – Held: Documents show suppression of facts and knowledge of work done by complainant – Prima facie case made out under Sections 406 and 420 IPC [Paras 3-28].

Suppression of Material Facts – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petition Liable to be Dismissed – Petitioners falsely claimed ignorance of sub-contract and execution of work – Letter and bank guarantees demonstrated active involvement – Held: Suppression of facts disqualifies petitioner from seeking relief under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC – Petition dismissed on this ground alone [Paras 20-28].

Criminal Trespass and Intimidation – Allegations Specific and Supported – Offence Under Sections 447 and 506 IPC – Held: Specific incident of trespass, abuse and use of machinery to damage site attributed to petitioner’s staff – Allegations sufficient for investigation and possible charges [Paras 34-35].

Civil Dispute vs Criminal Liability – Coexistence Permissible – Criminal Intent Alleged – Petitioners argued matter was civil in nature – Held: Civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings where fraud, deception or criminal conspiracy alleged – FIR not liable to be quashed at threshold [Paras 17-19, 36-38].

Investigation Not to Be Scuttled – FIR Discloses Cognizable Offence – High Court Should Not Interfere – Held: Applying principles from Neeharika Infrastructure, Tulsi Ram and Somjeet Mallick, investigation should be allowed to proceed where allegations disclose prima facie cognizable offences – Interim relief was improperly obtained via suppression – Petition dismissed [Paras 37-42].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Validity of Agreement and Compliance by Vendees – Agreements Upheld – Both agreements to sell dated 28.04.1984 and 10.06.1985 found to be valid and unrevoked – Plaintiffs proved payment of earnest money and continued possession – Held: Trial court rightly found that plaintiffs fulfilled their contractual obligations while the vendor failed to obtain income tax clearance and complete partition formalities [Paras 7, 48-52]. 
 
Readiness and Willingness – Deposition by Power of Attorney – Admissible – Plaintiffs' attorney, who was also a close family member (husband/father), was held competent to depose – Court held that Section 120 of the Evidence Act allows a spouse to testify for another, and his involvement in the transaction from inception was well documented – Held: No adverse inference can be drawn against plaintiffs for non-appearance when their attorney was adequately involved and competent [Paras 29-47]. 
 
Limitation – No Fixed Date for Sale Execution – Cause of Action Dependent on Vendor’s Acts – Since execution of sale deed was conditional upon vendor obtaining clearance certificate and completing partition entries, limitation would begin only upon refusal or non-compliance – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 53-55]. 
 
Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 CPC – No Bar to Present Suit – Prior Suits Not Decided on Merits – Two previous suits dismissed for being premature or nonmaintainable—third suit withdrawn—Held: Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 does not bar subsequent suit under Order VII Rule 13 – Suit for specific performance maintainable [Paras 13-28]. 
 
Possession – Plaintiffs Shown to be in Physical Possession – Dispute Over Malkana Possession Baseless – Agreement dated 28.04.1984 confirmed possession with plaintiffs, which continued post-partition – Held: Possession never legally transferred to defendant No.2, who is not a bona fide purchaser and acted with notice of earlier agreement – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 56-61]. 
 
Appeal Against Concurrent Findings – No Interference Warranted – High Court reiterated limits on second appellate jurisdiction – Held: No perversity or misreading of evidence in judgments of lower courts – Appeal dismissed [Paras 62-63]. 
 

Criminal Law – POCSO Act - Appeal Against Acquittal – Standard of Review – Presumption of Innocence – Appeal Dismissed - High Court reiterated that appellate interference in acquittal must rest on compelling reasons, particularly when trial court had evaluated the credibility of the victim and prosecution witnesses thoroughly – Held: No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s reasoning to justify interference [Paras 13-17].

Victim Testimony – Reliability – Inconsistent and Uncorroborated – Acquittal Upheld - The prosecutrix, though not declared hostile, gave inconsistent statements during cross-examination, failed to recall specific dates and details, and contradicted earlier depositions and medical history – Held: Victim not a wholly reliable witness, and her testimony lacked independent corroboration [Paras 8-9, 13-14].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – DNA Report Inconclusive – No Signs of Injury – Acquittal Maintained - Medical evidence indicated pregnancy but did not reveal any signs of physical injury or establish forced intercourse – DNA profiling report did not support prosecution case – Held: Evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11-13].

Hostile Witnesses – Prosecution Weakened – Acquittal Justified - Parents of the victim (PWs 3 and 4) and other relatives did not support the prosecution, and were declared hostile – Held: Absence of supportive testimony from material witnesses undermined the prosecution case significantly [Paras 10-11].

Decision – No Interference Warranted – Appeal Dismissed - The Court held that in the absence of reliable victim testimony and lack of corroborative evidence, there is no ground to overturn the acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Para 17].