NDPS - Statutory Bail – Incomplete Charge Sheet – FSL Report Requirement – Entitlement to Bail – The petitioner, charged under Sections 21C/25/27A/29 of the NDPS Act, applied for statutory bail on the 183rd day, arguing that the charge sheet filed on the 177th day was incomplete due to the absence of the FSL report – Held: A charge sheet filed within 180 days without the FSL report is incomplete, entitling the accused to statutory bail – The Court followed the ruling of the Division Bench in Rakesh Sha v. State of West Bengal (CRM (NDPS) 552 of 2023) – Default bail granted [Paras 8, 14-15].

Filing of Charge Sheet – Role of FSL Report in NDPS Cases – A charge sheet filed without the FSL report in an NDPS case, although within 180 days, does not fulfill the requirements of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act – The Court cited the Division Bench decision in Rakesh Sha where it was held that the FSL report is integral to the charge sheet and its absence makes the charge sheet incomplete – The petitioner became entitled to statutory bail once 180 days had expired without the FSL report being filed [Paras 8-9].

Judicial Precedent – Calcutta High Court Binding – Pending Supreme Court Case – The issue of whether a charge sheet in an NDPS case without the FSL report is valid is pending before the Supreme Court in Mohd. Arbaz v. State of NCT of Delhi – However, judicial discipline requires adherence to the ruling of the Calcutta High Court Division Bench until the Supreme Court decides the matter [Paras 13].

Decision: The Court allowed the petition and granted default bail to the petitioner as the charge sheet was not accompanied by the FSL report, which is required in NDPS cases. The Court followed the precedent set by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Rakesh Sha and ruled that the absence of the FSL report makes the charge sheet incomplete, entitling the petitioner to statutory bail. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to conditions specified, including furnishing of bail bond and regular reporting to the police. The petition is accordingly disposed of [Paras 14-18].

GST Law – Revocation of Voluntary Cancellation of Registration – Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioner challenged the revocation of voluntary cancellation of their GST registration and subsequent retrospective cancellation from 27 June 2020 – The CGST authorities had revoked the voluntary cancellation without issuing a show cause notice or granting a hearing – Held: The revocation of voluntary cancellation without prior notice or opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice – Further, the cancellation order did not provide reasons for rejection, and retrospective cancellation from a date prior to the registration itself was unsustainable – All consequential proceedings based on the flawed decision-making process were quashed [Paras 12-16, 19].

Retrospective Cancellation – Invalidity – Absence of Justification – The petitioner’s registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from a date prior to its grant – Held: There was no valid explanation for this retrospective cancellation, and the respondents failed to justify the retrospective application of the order – Such cancellation was held to be invalid and contrary to law [Paras 15-16].

Remedy for Breach of Natural Justice – Right to Fresh Proceedings – Since the revocation of voluntary cancellation and subsequent proceedings were conducted in breach of natural justice, the respondents were granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, ensuring due process was followed – The petitioner was restrained from utilizing the Input Tax Credit (ITC) until the conclusion of fresh proceedings [Paras 18-19].

Decision – The orders dated 20 February 2024, 8 March 2024, and 9 May 2024 were quashed – The petitioner's position as of 8 May 2023, when voluntary cancellation was accepted, was restored – Respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh show cause notices and conclude the proceedings by 31 January 2025, with the petitioner restrained from using the ITC until then [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Procedure – Right to Fair Trial – Entitlement to Unmasked Prosecution Records – The petitioners, accused of POCSO offences, sought unmasked copies of prosecution records for effective defense – The Special Courts rejected these applications, citing the need to protect the identity of the victim under Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act – Held: The right to a fair trial is enshrined under the Constitution and cannot be denied – While victim privacy is important, the accused are entitled to unmasked copies of prosecution records to effectively challenge the prosecution’s case, subject to the condition that the privacy of the victim is protected and not disclosed in the public domain [Paras 13-16].

Protection of Victim Identity – Balancing Privacy and Defense Rights – The court emphasized that prosecution records must be provided in full to ensure the accused’s right to a defense – However, the accused and their counsel must be bound by an undertaking not to disclose the victim’s identity or details in any form of media or public forum, maintaining compliance with Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act [Para 12].

Digital Evidence – Access Restrictions – In cases where digital evidence, such as chats or videos, is part of the prosecution’s case and may compromise the victim’s privacy, the court upheld the restriction of access to such materials under the principles established in Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep vs. State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 853] [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Criminal M.C. petitions allowed – The impugned orders of the Special Courts are set aside – The Special Courts are directed to provide unmasked copies of the prosecution records to the accused or their counsel, ensuring the protection of the victim’s identity as per the conditions imposed [Paras 17-18].
 

Natural Justice – Penalty Imposed Without Consideration of Reply – Non-Speaking Order – The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed for illegal mining, contending that the order was a non-speaking one, passed without considering her detailed reply – Held: A quasi-judicial authority must pass reasoned orders, and failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice – The impugned penalty order was set aside as it lacked reasons and failed to address the petitioner’s defense [Paras 3-6].

Principles of Reasoned Decision-Making – Requirement for Recording Reasons – The court emphasized that recording reasons is indispensable for ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness in decision-making, as mandated by the Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan [(2010) 9 SCC 496] – Such reasons also facilitate judicial review and ensure that decisions are made on relevant grounds [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – The penalty order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the respondents to decide afresh after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing [Para 9].
 

Constitutional Law – Article 19(1)(g) – Age-Based Restriction on Professional Licenses – West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules 2017 – Constitutional Validity Upheld – The appellants challenged the imposition of an age bar under Rules 23(c) and 31(5) of the West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules, 2017, as being violative of their right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – The Court held that the age restriction did not violate Article 19(1)(g) as the regulation was in furtherance of public safety, a valid ground under Article 19(6) – The prescription of age was considered a valid qualification necessary for maintaining public safety in the electrical profession [Paras 42, 47].

State's Legislative Competence – Rule-Making Power under Section 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Validity of Age Bar – The appellants argued that the age bar imposed under Rules 23(c) and 31(5) exceeded the State’s legislative competence under the Electricity Act, 2003 – The Court held that the State had the requisite competence under Section 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to prescribe qualifications, including age limits, for electrical supervisors, in the interest of public safety [Paras 45-48].

Public Safety – Justification for Age-Based Restrictions in Licensing – The Court found that the age-based restrictions on the renewal and issuance of electrical supervisor certificates were based on the rationale that individuals above the age of 70 may not be physically fit to ensure public safety in the electricity sector – The restriction was held to be reasonable and necessary to protect public safety [Paras 43, 49-52].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The constitutionality of Rules 23(c) and 31(5) of the West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules, 2017, is upheld – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Pre-Arrest Bail – Section 376(2)(n) IPC – Allegation of Rape on False Promise of Marriage – Bail Granted – The petitioner, a lawyer, was accused of sexually exploiting the survivor while representing her in a domestic violence case. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner coerced the survivor into a sexual relationship by falsely promising marriage and later threatened her life. The Court held that there was no immediate evidence of a false promise, and the delay in registering the FIR further weakened the prosecution's case – Pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 6-15].

Criminal Procedure – Delay in FIR Registration – Significance in Sexual Offences – The Court noted the delay in lodging the FIR, which was filed more than a year after the first alleged incident. Given the consensual nature of the relationship and the survivor’s continued engagement with the petitioner even after the alleged incidents, the Court found no compelling reason to deny bail [Paras 10-12].

Consent and Misconception of Fact – Legal Position – The Court referenced several Supreme Court judgments distinguishing between breach of a promise to marry and a false promise made with fraudulent intent. The petitioner's case did not indicate a false promise made to induce the survivor into a sexual relationship, but rather a consensual relationship between two married individuals [Paras 10-15].

Decision:

Bail application allowed – Pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions, including surrender before the Investigating Officer and compliance with specific bail conditions.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Search and Recovery Validated – The appellant was convicted for possession of 0.4 grams of LSD, found in 30 square-shaped pieces. The appellant argued that the mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were violated, particularly that he was not informed about his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The Court, however, found that there was strict compliance with Section 50 as the appellant was informed in Hindi about his right, and this was confirmed by the independent witness and raiding officers. Minor discrepancies in the witness's testimony were not sufficient to invalidate the search [Paras 6-16].

Criminal Law – Section 52-A of NDPS Act – No Non-Compliance Found – The appellant argued that the failure to comply with Section 52-A regarding the disposal and preservation of the contraband rendered the prosecution's case invalid. The Court held that since the entire contraband weighing 0.4 grams was forwarded to the laboratory for testing, the question of non-compliance with Section 52-A did not arise. The provisions were primarily meant for bulk seizures, not small quantities like in this case [Paras 18-23].

Weight of Contraband – Prosecution Evidence Held Sufficient – The appellant contended that the weight of the contraband was not properly established. The Court dismissed this argument, holding that both the raiding officer and the independent witness testified to the weighing process, and there were no contradictions in their evidence. The absence of a record of weight in the laboratory report did not affect the validity of the prosecution's case [Paras 24-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act upheld.

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – Regularization of RCC Slab over Public Nallah – The petitioners, residents of Tarangan Housing Complex, challenged the TMC’s regularization of an unauthorized RCC slab and columns over a public Nallah, which obstructed access to the Complex. The High Court found that the regularization was granted despite TMC’s earlier demolition orders and affidavits confirming the illegal construction by M/s Kalpataru. The Court held that the TMC Commissioner’s order to regularize the construction was arbitrary and amounted to an abuse of power. The regularization was struck down [Paras 8-18].

Abuse of Powers by Municipal Commissioner – Section 45 and 53 MRTP Act – Ultra Vires – The Commissioner invoked powers under Sections 45 and 53(3) of the MRTP Act and Section 227 of the MMC Act, which were inapplicable. The plot was not landlocked, and the construction served only to benefit the developer at the expense of municipal property. The High Court ruled that the regularization order was ultra vires and invalid [Paras 32-38].

Public Interest and Municipal Duties – Illegal Construction in Public Spaces – The Court emphasized that municipal Nallahs and public spaces serve critical public functions and cannot be obstructed for private gain. The TMC's complicity in allowing such construction was condemned, and the Court ordered the immediate demolition of the unauthorized structures [Paras 40-44].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – The impugned regularization order dated 05 February 2005 was quashed. The third respondent and TMC were ordered to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- in costs to the petitioners.

Civil Law – Conditional Leave to Defend – Non-Compliance with Court Condition – Appeal Dismissed – Respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,18,876/- for construction of a drug store at Chief Animal Husbandry Office, Shopian – Appellants, as defendants, were granted conditional leave by the Trial Court to defend the suit, on the condition that they deposit 10% of the amount in question – Appellants failed to comply with the condition – As a result, the Trial Court passed judgment and decree in favor of the respondent on 25th April 2023 – Appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree [Paras 1-3].

Conditional Leave to Defend – Discretion of the Court – Appellants argued that the Trial Court, having acknowledged triable issues, should not have imposed a condition for leave to defend – Appellants contended that the judgment and decree should not have been passed based on their non-fulfillment of the condition – Appellants did not challenge the conditional leave order of 28th December 2022, which thereby attained finality [Paras 5-6].

Plaintiff's Stand – Non-Compliance Justified Judgment – Respondent’s counsel argued that the judgment was legally justified due to appellants' failure to comply with the conditional leave order – The conditional leave order, which was not challenged, became final, and the appellants could not dispute its validity during the appeal against the judgment and decree [Paras 6-7].

Order 37 CPC – Expeditious Disposal – Underlying policy of Order 37 CPC is expeditious disposal of suits involving commercial matters – Order 37 Rule 3(5) allows the court discretion to grant leave to defend either unconditionally or on terms, which was exercised by the Trial Court in this case – Reference made to Mechelec Engineers and Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation (1976) 4 SCC 687 outlining the principles for granting leave to defend, including conditions for deposit [Paras 7-9].

Law Governing Non-Compliance – Finality of Conditional Leave Order – Trial Court passed the impugned judgment under Rule 3(6) of Order 37 CPC, which allows for judgment if the defendant fails to comply with the conditions of the leave – Since the appellants did not fulfill the condition nor challenge the leave order, the Trial Court was justified in passing the decree – The conditional leave order had become final and could not be challenged in the present appeal [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The appeal lacked merit as the Trial Court's judgment was in accordance with law – Appellants’ failure to comply with the conditional leave order warranted dismissal of the appeal – Judgment and decree upheld [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court upheld.