Employment Law - Appointment Process – Provisional vs. Final Merit List – The petitioner, who was ranked first in the provisional merit list for the post of ANM, challenged the appointment of the respondent, who was ranked first in the final merit list after re-scrutiny – Held: Mere empanelment in a provisional list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The final merit list, prepared after re-scrutiny, placed the respondent at the top, and the petitioner as waitlisted – The appointment of the respondent was valid and in accordance with the law [Paras 1, 5].

Bias and Malafide Allegations – Rejection of Claims – The petitioner alleged bias and malafide action by the authorities in appointing the respondent – Held: No evidence of arbitrariness or malafide action was found in the preparation of the final merit list or the appointment process. The writ petition was dismissed on merit [Paras 5, 6].

Right to Appointment – No Indefeasible Right – Empanelment – The Court reaffirmed that empanelment in a merit list does not guarantee appointment, and the employer retains discretion, provided the process is not arbitrary – The petitioner's claim to the post based solely on her provisional ranking was rejected [Para 5].

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The appointment of the respondent was found to be lawful, as she ranked first in the final merit list after re-scrutiny. The interim orders are vacated [Paras 5, 6].

Advocate Appearance – Recording of Advocate’s Name in Order Sheets – Petition by a practicing advocate aggrieved by the omission of his name from orders in the Patiala House Court – Petitioner contended that despite several attempts, his appearances were not being recorded – Court observed that recording advocate names is crucial for professional acknowledgment and eligibility for chambers and bar elections – Directed Principal District and Sessions Judge to issue instructions for standardizing this practice across all District Courts in Delhi [Paras 5].

Court Order – Directions Issued for Recording Advocate Appearances – The Court emphasized the need for a uniform system to record advocate appearances – Suggested implementation of a mechanism like the ‘drop-box’ system for physical appearances or the ‘chat box’ used in virtual hearings – Court disposed of the petition with these directions [Paras 5].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Court directed Principal District Judge to ensure proper recording of advocate appearances in District Courts through standardized protocols.

Narcotic Drugs – Possession of Poppy Husk – Section 15 NDPS Act – Appeal Against Conviction – Evidence Required – The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possessing 11 quintals and 88 kilograms of poppy husk – The primary ground for appeal was the failure of the prosecution to produce key evidence, such as the examined cloth sample parcels, during the trial – Held: The non-production of the examined sample cloth parcels and reliance solely on the certified inventory and report of the Chemical Analyst do not suffice to prove the charge – Conviction quashed [Paras 8, 14-19].

Primary Evidence – Destruction of Samples – Section 52-A of NDPS Act – The Court analyzed the statutory provisions under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act regarding the disposal of narcotic drugs and the admissibility of certified inventory as primary evidence – Held: In the absence of the examined sample parcels being produced in court, the inventory and FSL report alone do not constitute primary evidence – The failure to adhere to the statutory process for producing primary evidence was fatal to the prosecution’s case [Paras 19-25].

Laboratory Testing – Legal Requirement for Representative Samples – The Court held that laboratory testing of the representative sample parcels in the presence of a Magistrate is essential under the NDPS Act, and non-compliance with this procedure invalidates the certified inventory as conclusive evidence – Appellant acquitted due to procedural lapses [Paras 16, 22-24].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction quashed – Appellant acquitted – Personal and surety bonds canceled – Appellant to be released unless required in another case – Fine amount, if deposited, to be refunded [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal Allowed – Appellant, Raj Kumari, challenged her conviction for murder and robbery, arguing that the prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, which failed to establish an unbroken chain of events leading to her guilt – Held: The prosecution failed to prove the 'last seen' theory, as the appellant was last seen not in the company of the deceased but with other witnesses – Additionally, the recovery of the stolen ornaments based on the appellant's disclosure was legally flawed as the alleged confession did not adhere to Section 27 of the Evidence Act – The trial court erred in relying on the 'last seen' theory and the defective recovery to convict the appellant [Paras 28, 34].

Last Seen Theory – Section 106 of Evidence Act – Inconsistent Witness Testimonies – The prosecution's reliance on the 'last seen' theory was not supported by conclusive evidence – The two key witnesses, PW Kamlesh Kumari and PW Darshan Singh, gave conflicting testimonies regarding the appellant's demeanor and movements on the night of the crime – The inconsistency in their accounts and the absence of direct evidence undermined the prosecution's case [Paras 24, 26].

Recovery of Ornaments – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Defective Procedure – The appellant's alleged disclosure leading to the recovery of stolen gold ornaments from a goldsmith was found to be procedurally defective – The investigating officer admitted that the disclosure memo was prepared after the recovery, violating the legal standards of admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – The court found that the recovery was staged and did not credibly connect the appellant to the crime [Paras 30, 31].

Decision – The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside – The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and her bail bonds were discharged – The court ordered the immediate release of the appellant [Paras 40, 41].

Civil Law - Judgment on Admission – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Application Rejected – Plaintiff sought a judgment upon admission for ₹63,92,425.50 based on emails and account statements provided by the defendant – Held: The court found that there was no unequivocal admission of liability by the defendant – The defendant's email communications referred to reconciliation of accounts rather than an admission of debt – No categorical admission was made by the defendant regarding the outstanding amount of ₹38,63,506.60 – Application for judgment on admission was rejected [Paras 22, 24].

Interim Order – Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Security for Debt – Interim Order Upheld – The court upheld the interim order dated 13/12/2023, restraining the defendant from operating his bank accounts without securing ₹38,63,500 – The defendant’s financial status indicated an intention to delay or obstruct the execution of any potential decree – The court directed the defendant to secure the amount with the Registrar within two weeks – The application to vacate the interim order was dismissed [Paras 30, 35].

Prima Facie Case – Balance of Convenience – Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – The plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case for recovery of the outstanding amount based on confirmed accounts – The court, applying the principles from the judgments of Rajendran v. Anr. and Rahul S. Shah, found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff, warranting the security deposit to prevent potential prejudice [Para 33].

Decision: Plaintiff’s application for judgment on admission dismissed. Defendant’s application to vacate the interim order dismissed. The defendant directed to deposit ₹38,63,500 with the Registrar within two weeks [Paras 36, 38].

Writ - Unauthorized Construction – Demolition Ordered – Cantonments Act – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner constructed a building within a restricted "Red Zone" without prior permission. The Court rejected the plea for regularization of the construction, holding that the construction violated the rules of the Cantonments Act and the Works of Defence Act – Held: No construction can be permitted in the Red Zone as declared under the Works of Defence Act, 1903. The petition was dismissed, and demolition was ordered [Paras 10, 12, 25].

Deemed Sanction – Section 238(6) of the Cantonments Act – No Application of Deemed Sanction – The petitioner sought to regularize the construction claiming deemed sanction under Section 238(6) of the Cantonments Act due to a lack of response from the Board – Held: The deemed sanction provision cannot apply to unauthorized constructions in restricted areas like the Red Zone. The petitioner’s failure to comply with essential legal requirements, such as obtaining prior approval, invalidates the claim of deemed sanction [Paras 15, 19].

Suppression of Material Facts – Non-disclosure of Communication – The petitioner was found to have suppressed material facts, including a crucial communication from the Cantonment Board regarding payment of fees and the rejection of the building plan – Held: The petition was dismissed due to suppression of facts, which further weakened the petitioner’s case for regularization [Paras 20, 21].

Decision:

The writ petition was dismissed with a cost of ₹1,00,000, and the Cantonment Board was directed to proceed with the demolition of the unauthorized construction. The Board was also instructed to file an affidavit explaining the delay in executing the demolition order within nine years and to submit a compliance report by 22nd November 2024 [Paras 30-35].

Ryotwari Patta – Non-Service of Notice – Andhra Pradesh Inams Act – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners challenged the grant of Ryotwari Patta to Sri C. Vishwanathaiah on 04.01.2002, arguing that no notice was issued to them or their vendors – Held: For claiming Ryotwari Patta under the Act, petitioners must demonstrate a title flowing from an Inamdar or tenant of an Inamdar, which they failed to establish – The petitioners did not present adequate documentation showing possession or title as of the critical date of 07.01.1948 – Non-service of notice would not impact their case as they could not prove prejudice caused by the lack of notice [Paras 16, 18, 25].

Inam Land – Inamdar’s Rights – Inconsistent Documents – Petitioners presented sale deeds from 1967 and 1976, but these were inconsistent with the land's survey numbers and did not match the land in dispute (Sy. No. 305/4) – The court found no evidence connecting the petitioners or their vendors with the Inamdar or tenants – The sale deeds did not substantiate a claim for Ryotwari Patta [Para 22].

Consideration of Facts – Writ of Certiorari – Scope – The court held that a Writ of Certiorari could only be issued in cases of patent illegality and not on factual grounds – The authorities correctly evaluated the documents and evidence presented – The petitioners’ claim that notices were not served was immaterial as they could not establish their entitlement to the land [Paras 18, 28].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – The petitioners failed to establish any right to claim Ryotwari Patta under the 1956 Act – No order as to costs [Paras 29, 30].

Criminal Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Filing of Criminal Appeals – Delay of 390 days in filing Appeals under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 – Petition by appellant/accused No. 2 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeals – Delay caused in filing the Criminal Appeals against orders dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Special Court for NIA Cases – The issue before the Court was whether the statutory period under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act could be extended beyond the second proviso, which limits the filing period to 90 days – Held: Delay of 390 days condoned, Appeals maintainable, subject to the Supreme Court's decision on this issue [Paras 1, 3, 5, 35, 36].

Interpretation of Law – Section 21(5) of NIA Act, 2008 – Scope of Condonation – Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be read into Section 21(5) of the NIA Act – Appellant argued that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply, allowing the condonation of delay – Special Public Prosecutor argued that the NIA Act provides its own timeline and that any further extension of time would contradict the object of the special statute – High Courts have provided inconsistent rulings on this issue, some allowing condonation based on Article 21 of the Constitution, others ruling against extension beyond 90 days – Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies as the NIA Act does not expressly exclude its application [Paras 5-9, 24-27, 31, 34].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Appeal – Article 21 of the Constitution – High Court relied on Article 21, stating that procedural law cannot deprive a person of their right to Appeal, which is a part of the fundamental right to life and liberty – Equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution invoked due to the NIA's inconsistent stance in different High Courts regarding condonation of delay under the NIA Act – Court emphasized that the law must apply equally to the accused and the Agency without discrimination [Paras 16, 19, 21-23, 29].

Judicial Inconsistency – Inconsistent Stances by NIA – The NIA adopted contradictory positions in different cases, supporting condonation of delay in some instances while opposing it in others – Court criticized this inconsistent application of law by the NIA, noting that it should not selectively argue for condonation of delay based on convenience [Paras 12, 14, 19].

Decision: Appeals maintainable – Delay of 390 days condoned – The Court allowed the delay considering the absence of any express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act from Section 21(5) of the NIA Act – However, this decision is subject to any future rulings by the Supreme Court on the same issue – I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.421 of 2024 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.425 of 2024 allowed and disposed of [Paras 35-37].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Rape – Acquittal – Appellant was convicted for attempting to rape the prosecutrix (PW-1) and sentenced to 10 years R.I. by the trial court – On appeal, the High Court found contradictions regarding the date of the incident, with different dates (18th, 20th, and 21st June 2022) mentioned in the prosecutrix’s statement, FIR, and MLC – FIR was delayed by 6-9 days without proper explanation – No corroborative evidence from independent witnesses or forensic support (FSL or DNA) – Medical examination was also delayed – Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 294, 323, 376(1) read with Section 511, and 506(2) IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1, 8, 10, 11, 14].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Prosecutrix – The prosecutrix’s testimony was inconsistent, with contradictions regarding the date of the incident – Her statement under Section 164 CrPC mentioned a different date from the FIR and her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC – The derogatory words alleged to have been used by the appellant were missing in her initial statements – No independent witness supported her version – The unexplained delay in filing the FIR further weakened her credibility [Paras 8, 9, 10].

FIR Delay – Impact on Prosecution's Case – FIR was lodged after a delay of 6-9 days, with no reasonable explanation provided – Citing precedents, the Court noted that such a delay can raise doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution's case – The delayed medical examination and other procedural lapses further weakened the case [Paras 10, 11, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 294, 323, 376(1) read with Section 511, and 506(2) IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Para 16].