Criminal Law – Premature release – Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging rejection of premature release by State – Petitioner convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC and had undergone 23 years of imprisonment with remission – Sentence Review Board recommended premature release, citing good conduct and family support – State rejected the recommendation citing risk of revenge and the convict's absconding after parole – High Court quashed the rejection, stating the petitioner’s case should be considered based on rules applicable at the time of conviction, not the 2021 Rules – Petition allowed, and release ordered. [Paras 1-20]

Sentencing Policy – Guidelines for premature release – Convict absconding for 5 years after parole – Despite this, Board found overall conduct in jail to be satisfactory – Consideration of parole violations, victim's family objections, and convict's conduct are key factors – However, Court noted that recommendations must follow the rules in effect at the time of conviction – 2021 Guidelines not applicable. [Paras 10-15]

Decision – Petition allowed – High Court directed the State to issue orders for premature release within seven days, adhering to the Sentence Review Board's recommendation – Held that the rejection of the premature release was based on an inapplicable legal framework and the petitioner’s conduct and family support justified his release. [Paras 16-20]

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation – Court quashed the Sessions Court's order directing further investigation by the CID – Held that the Sessions Court erred in directing a different investigating agency (CID) to conduct further investigation – The power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. lies with the original investigating agency unless the High Court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The Sessions Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the CID to take over the investigation [Paras 7-8].

Jurisdiction – Power of Magistrate – Reaffirmed that a Magistrate or Sessions Court has limited power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Only the High Court or Supreme Court can order reinvestigation or transfer investigation to another agency under their supervisory jurisdiction [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – The order of the Sessions Court directing the CID to conduct further investigation was quashed – Further investigation ordered to be conducted by the original jurisdictional police within three months [Paras 9].

Criminal Law – Offences under the Insecticides Act – Petitioners challenged the cognizance and summons issued by the Trial Court for selling insecticides without a license – The main argument focused on the non-compliance with Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, which mandates the inclusion of the company in proceedings against its officers [Paras 1-12].
Procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners argued that the Magistrate failed to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing summons, as the accused resided outside the jurisdiction of the court – Court noted that this procedural lapse invalidated the cognizance order [Paras 4-5].
Offences by Companies – Section 33 of the Insecticides Act – Section 33 requires that if an offence is committed by a company, the company itself must be arraigned as an accused along with the individuals responsible – The complaint in this case failed to include the company as an accused, rendering the proceedings flawed – Cognizance order set aside due to non-application of mind by the Magistrate [Paras 10-11].
Decision – Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons set aside – Case dismissed for non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions – Application I.A.No.1/2024 disposed of [Para 12].
 

Family Law – Transfer of Petition – Dismissal of Transfer Application by the High Court – Conduct of Applicant Considered – Application by the wife under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the transfer of a petition from the Family Court in Jhajjar to Rupnagar – Applicant alleged the respondent-husband kidnapped their children and demanded money for divorce and custody – Respondent countered by revealing that the applicant was previously married and had performed a second marriage without divorce from the first husband – The applicant continued to extract maintenance from the first husband despite being remarried and pursued litigation – High Court found the applicant's conduct reprehensible and denied the transfer, emphasizing that the convenience of the woman must be balanced against her conduct [Paras 1-7].

Conduct Evaluation – Denial of Transfer Due to Applicant's Misconduct – The High Court, while deciding the transfer application, took into account the applicant's conduct, which included misleading the respondent about her previous marriage, continuing to receive maintenance from her first husband, and filing multiple litigations to extract money – The court found that her conduct disqualified her from seeking the transfer of the petition and dismissed her application accordingly [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Application Dismissed – Held – The transfer application was dismissed, and the High Court ruled that while the convenience of a woman is crucial in transfer petitions, it cannot override the consideration of her conduct, which in this case was found to be driven by greed and deceit [Para 7].

Seniority – Fixation of Seniority – Petitioners challenged the seniority list published by the Department of Revenue and Forest – Contention that the date of appointment should be considered after the successful completion of training and not from the date of joining training – Held, the seniority should be counted from the date of joining training as per the 2015 Rules, which superseded the 1998 Rules – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14]. 

Service Rules – Application of New Rules – The 2015 Recruitment Rules supersede the 1998 Rules – Seniority must be determined based on the new rules that count the training period as part of the service period – Changes in rules during the selection process must be applied prospectively – Petitioners’ reliance on the old rules rejected [Paras 15-20]. 

Judicial Review – Supervisory Capacity – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Writ of Certiorari can only be issued in case of jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice – Tribunal’s decision found to be reasoned and without error on the face of the record – Petition dismissed [Paras 21-30]. 

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Seniority list prepared by the Department upheld – No interference warranted in the Tribunal’s decision – Continuation of the previous interim order for four weeks to allow petitioners to approach the Apex Court [Para 46]. 

Execution of Consent Decree – Transfer of Property – Petitioners sought enforcement of a consent decree involving transfer of office space and alleged improper compliance by respondents – Property transferred for Rs. 1001/- when valued over 2 crores – Tax liability on transfer under Section 50-C of the Income Tax Act disputed – Court found respondents failed to comply with prior orders and provide necessary undertakings – Held that executing court cannot impose tax liability contrary to statutory provisions [Paras 1-23.1]. 

Undertaking by Counsel – Binding Nature – Previous counsel’s undertaking regarding tax liability not honored by respondents – Court emphasized that such undertakings must align with statutory provisions – Court highlighted procedural irregularities in representation and contradictions by respondents [Paras 17-23.1]. 

Simultaneous Compliance of Decree Terms – Court noted that terms of the consent decree should be performed simultaneously to avoid complications – Lack of joint compliance undermines the intent of the decree [Paras 18-22]. 

Decision – Application dismissed – Held – Executing court cannot direct parties to shoulder tax responsibility contrary to Income Tax Act – Petitioners’ additional factual claims require evidence – Petition dismissed without costs [Paras 23-25]. 

Criminal Law – Cheating and Extortion Allegations: Petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings and charge-sheet alleging offences of cheating, blackmailing, extortion, and defamation. The complainant, a business partner, accused the petitioners of threatening him and his family to extort money. The High Court found that the complaint was filed with mala fide intentions and suppressed material facts. The principles of invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. were applied, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of the process of court.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings: The High Court relied on precedents that allow for the quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious, or filed with an ulterior motive. The Court noted that the complainant had initiated the criminal case to shield himself from his own financial liabilities and had manipulated facts to invoke cognizable offences. The continuation of the case was deemed to cause grave miscarriage of justice.

Decision: The revision application was allowed, and all proceedings, including the charge-sheet under Dum Dum Police Station case no. 420 of 2019, were quashed. The Court emphasized the necessity of careful scrutiny in cases where the process of law is alleged to be misused.

Seniority – Fixation of Seniority – Petitioners challenged the seniority list published by the Department of Revenue and Forest – Contention that the date of appointment should be considered after the successful completion of training and not from the date of joining training – Held, the seniority should be counted from the date of joining training as per the 2015 Rules, which superseded the 1998 Rules – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Service Rules – Application of New Rules – The 2015 Recruitment Rules supersede the 1998 Rules – Seniority must be determined based on the new rules that count the training period as part of the service period – Changes in rules during the selection process must be applied prospectively – Petitioners’ reliance on the old rules rejected [Paras 15-20].

Judicial Review – Supervisory Capacity – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Writ of Certiorari can only be issued in case of jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice – Tribunal’s decision found to be reasoned and without error on the face of the record – Petition dismissed [Paras 21-30].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Seniority list prepared by the Department upheld – No interference warranted in the Tribunal’s decision – Continuation of the previous interim order for four weeks to allow petitioners to approach the Apex Court [Para 46].

Administrative Law – Validity of State Control Orders – Challenge to State Control Orders issued under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Petitioners contended that the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 became redundant with the enactment of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) and Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (TPDS Control Order) – State argued that NFSA not fully implemented in West Bengal, thus the Central Control Order, 2001 and State Control Order, 2013 remain effective – High Court held that State Control Order, 2013 not redundant and remains in force until full implementation of NFSA and TPDS Control Order – Dismissal of petitions seeking to declare vacancies under State Control Order, 2013 [Paras 1-27, 51-52].

Delegated Legislation – Powers of State and Central Government – Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Examination of whether State Control Order, 2013 is independent or derived from Central Control Order, 2001 – Held that State Control Order, 2013 derives its authority from Central Control Order, 2001 and cannot be considered independent legislation – Argument that State Control Order, 2013 was redundant due to TPDS Control Order, 2015 rejected as TPDS allows the continued effect of Central Control Order, 2001 where NFSA is not fully implemented [Paras 8-13, 28-30].

Constitutional Law – Right to Trade under Article 19(1)(g) – Declaration of new vacancies for Fair Price Shops and distributors under State Control Order, 2013 – Petitioners claimed such declarations violated their right to trade – Court held that right to trade does not guarantee the right to a specific number of ration cards or exclusive business advantages – Policy decisions to declare vacancies for better distribution do not infringe on Article 19(1)(g) rights of existing dealers and distributors [Paras 31-43].

Legal Procedure – Absence of Challenge to Vires – Examination of Effectiveness of Legislation – Even in absence of specific prayer challenging the vires of State Control Order, 2013, Court can examine its effectiveness due to new enactments – Held that the State Control Order, 2013 continues to operate until superseded by a new order following full implementation of NFSA and TPDS Control Order [Paras 21-27].

Decision:

Dismissal of Petitions – Held – The writ petitions challenging the validity and applicability of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 are dismissed. The Court affirmed that the State Control Order, 2013 remains in force due to incomplete implementation of NFSA, 2013 and TPDS Control Order, 2015 in the State of West Bengal. The declarations of vacancies for Fair Price Shops and distributors under the said order do not violate constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(g) [Paras 51-52].