Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 42 – Mandatory Procedural Requirement – Non-Compliance Vitiates Trial – Although the prosecution claimed a chance recovery of contraband, the circumstances and memos on record indicated prior information—Held: Since there was no compliance with Section 42 i.e., no record of information or intimation to superior officers, the prosecution’s case was vitiated [Paras 12-22]. 
 
NDPS Act – Section 50 Compliance – Right to be Searched before 
Magistrate/Gazetted Officer – Violation Held Fatal – Despite the accused being given an option to be searched by the police, there was no clear communication of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer—Held: Noncompliance of mandatory requirements under Section 50 renders the search and recovery illegal and inadmissible [Paras 23-27]. 
 
Interpretation of NDPS Provisions – Burden on Prosecution – Prosecution Failed to Establish Due Compliance – The prosecution failed to demonstrate strict compliance with procedural safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act—Total non-compliance held to be impermissible as per settled law [Paras 1921, 26-27]. 
 
Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Findings Not Perverse – The acquittal by the learned Special Judge was held reasonable and based on proper appreciation of evidence—Held: No ground to interfere with the order of acquittal—Appeal dismissed [Paras 28-29]. 
 

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].

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 – 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]. 
 

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].

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].
 

Bail under NDPS Act – Recovery Marginally Exceeding Commercial Quantity – Bail Granted – The petitioner was found with 55 kg poppy husk and 500 grams opium – The Court observed that the recovery was marginally over the commercial quantity limit – Petitioner was in custody for 1 year and 5 days – Only 2 out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined – Trial likely to take a long time – Bail granted considering prolonged incarceration and pending trial [Paras 3-4].

Clean Antecedents – No Previous Conviction or Criminal History – The petitioner had no past criminal record and was not involved in any other case – The Court considered clean antecedents as a significant factor favoring bail – Bail cannot be mechanically denied solely due to seriousness of offence without considering individual circumstances [Paras 3-4].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Delay in Trial Considered – The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21 rights – Referred to Hussainara Khatoon, Dataram Singh, and Baljinder Singh alias Rock cases to hold that bail is the rule and detention an exception – Bail is justified where there is no immediate prospect of conclusion of trial [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – No opinion expressed on merits of the case [Para 5].
 

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].

Contract Law - Breach of Agreement – Entitlement for Refund – Advance Sale Consideration Recoverable – The plaintiff paid ₹85 lakhs as advance for purchase of property under an agreement – Plaintiff alleged non-performance by defendant for failure to show title and extent of property – Defendant pleaded damages due to cessation of mill operations – Trial Court found plaintiff at fault but without proof of defendant’s damages awarded ₹10 lakhs as damages and balance ₹75 lakhs as refund – Held: Defendant failed to prove damages – Plaintiff entitled to full refund of ₹85 lakhs [Paras 6-7].

Interest on Advance – Discretionary Grant – Plaintiff entitled to reasonable interest – Plaintiff claimed interest on the advance amount – Defendant opposed interest alleging plaintiff’s breach – Supreme Court judgment in M/s Tomorrowland Ltd. Considered – No mala fides or misconduct attributable to plaintiff – Defendant invested and enjoyed benefit of ₹85 lakhs – Held: Interest at 6% per annum granted from date of suit till realization – Interest on ₹75 lakhs only till date of deposit in execution [Paras 8-10].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Trial Court Judgment Modified – Trial Court’s decree set aside – Plaintiff entitled to recover full advance amount with interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till recovery – Costs throughout granted to the plaintiff [Para 10].