Criminal Law – Economic Offence – Bail in ₹24.74 Crore - Misappropriation Case – Petitioners accused of misappropriating funds from a co-operative society in conspiracy with staff – Allegations relate to period 2021–2024 – Petitioners are Grama Panchayat and District Panchayat members – Held: Despite gravity, bail granted due to absence of custodial interrogation need and cooperation shown [Paras 1-6]. 
 
Bail Jurisprudence – Custodial Interrogation Not Essential - Bail allowed – Investigating Officer recorded petitioners’ statements; although cooperation was allegedly lacking, no recovery or further custodial step shown as pending – Court relied on principle that mere non-cooperation cannot defeat bail claim – Direction issued for appearance and cooperation [Paras 5-6]. 
 
Personal Liberty – Bail as Rule – Reference to Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of U.P. – Bail cannot be denied merely on the existence of arrest power – Emphasis on liberty and fair trial – Accused not shown to be flight risk or tampering with evidence – Court reiterated that arrest should not be routine [Paras 7-9]. 
 
Bail Conditions – Preventive Safeguards – Petitioners directed to appear for interrogation, refrain from influencing witnesses, and not leave India – Bail granted subject to execution of bond and compliance with multiple protective conditions to ensure fair investigation [Para 10]. 
 
Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Petitioners to be released on bail in event of arrest on execution of bond of ₹50,000 each with two solvent sureties – Directed to cooperate with investigation – Breach of any condition shall lead to cancellation of bail [Para 10]. 
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Lack of Prima Facie Evidence – Case based on CDRs and Transcripts – Quashing Allowed - The petitioners challenged the FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order alleging conspiracy and illegal gratification to obtain a loan from Syndicate Bank – The Court held that there was no corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution's allegations except for CDRs and intercepted conversations – CDRs alone, without independent proof, cannot establish conspiracy – Held: Petitioners cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution based solely on speculative evidence [Paras 80-93].

Vicarious Liability – Absence of Specific Allegations – Managing Director Not Liable – Quashing Allowed - The Court reiterated that vicarious liability cannot be fastened on company officials in the absence of specific statutory provision or clear allegations – Mere designation of Petitioner No.2 as CMD of M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. does not attract vicarious criminal liability – Held: Prosecution failed to demonstrate how the petitioners were involved in the alleged conspiracy [Paras 83-85, 106].

Criminal Conspiracy – No Prior Meeting of Mind – Mere Communication Not Sufficient – Quashing Allowed - Court found that the prosecution failed to prove any prior meeting of minds or agreement between petitioners and other accused – Routine business communication between petitioners and other accused like Pawan Bansal cannot amount to criminal conspiracy – Held: Mere presence of CDRs and conversations without corroboration cannot establish conspiracy under Section 120B IPC [Paras 87-93].

Witness Testimony – Contradictory and Inconclusive – Cannot Be Sole Basis – Quashing Allowed - Statements of key witnesses such as Mr. U.S. Majumdar and Mr. Ghanshyam Mudgal were found to be vague, inconsistent and not incriminating – Court held that such uncorroborated statements are insufficient for framing charges – Held: No prima facie case made out against the petitioners [Paras 109-116].

Commercial Transactions – Routine Loan Processing – Not Indicative of Conspiracy – Quashing Allowed - The petitioners’ engagement with Altius Finserve Pvt. Ltd. for processing a loan was held to be a standard business transaction – Absence of direct evidence linking this arrangement to any illegal gratification – Held: The prosecution’s theory of conspiracy was speculative and unsubstantiated [Paras 117-123].

Decision – FIR, Chargesheet, Cognizance Order Quashed – Proceedings Against Petitioners Terminated - The Court quashed FIR RC No. AC-1/2014/A-0005, the charge-sheet dated 27/09/2017 and the cognizance order dated 09/03/2018 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala House Courts against M/s Prakash Industries Ltd., Mr. Ved Prakash Agarwal, and Mr. Vipul Agarwal – All consequential proceedings also quashed [Paras 148-149].
 

Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted - Applicants had undergone pre-trial incarceration for over 13 years without conclusion of the trial – The Court held that such prolonged detention amounts to pre-trial punishment and violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – The trial was stalled due to multiple pending applications and indefinite delay – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2-8, 16-28]. 
 Parity Principle – Identical Role as Co-Accused – Bail Allowed - The Applicants demonstrated that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail earlier – The Court accepted the plea of parity and held that denial of bail in such circumstances would amount to unequal treatment [Paras 4.2, 28]. 
 
Medical Grounds – Consideration under HIV Act – Applicant No.2's Bail Supported - Applicant No.2, being HIV positive, invoked Section 34(2) of the HIV Act which mandates priority in disposal of cases concerning HIV positive persons – The Court took judicial notice of his health condition while granting bail [Paras 4.3, 28]. 
 
Bail Principles – Article 21 – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – Reiterated - Relying on settled precedents, including Satender Kumar Antil, Maneka Gandhi, and Gudikanti Narasimhulu, the Court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception – Long incarceration without trial violates constitutional guarantees of liberty [Paras 12-17]. 
 
Decision – Bail Granted - Applicants released on bail subject to strict conditions to ensure presence at trial and prevent interference with the evidence – Application allowed [Paras 2830]. 
 

Consumer Rights – Service Charge in Restaurants – Guidelines under CPA, 2019 – Upheld – CCPA guidelines prohibiting mandatory levy of service charge held valid – The Court upheld the guidelines issued by CCPA barring mandatory collection of service charge, observing that such charges cannot be imposed coercively, and must be voluntary – Held: Such mandatory collection is deceptive, amounts to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of CPA, and violates consumer rights – CCPA empowered under Section 18(2)(l) to issue binding guidelines in the interest of consumers [Paras 83-85, 174(i), 174(iii)(iv)]. 
 
Freedom of Trade – Article 19(1)(g) vs. Consumer Interest – Reasonable Restriction – Upheld – The guidelines were found not to infringe Article 19(1)(g) as they imposed reasonable restrictions in public interest – Court held the limitation on the restaurant’s right to impose service charges was proportional and constitutional – Larger interest of consumers prevailed over business interests of establishments [Paras 83-85, 174(ii)]. 
 
Contract Law – Unconscionable Contracts – Service Charge Clause – Invalid – Even if a customer accepts service charge knowing its inclusion on the menu, the resulting contract is not enforceable – Court ruled the unequal bargaining power and lack of real choice renders such contracts void as unfair and unconscionable under the CPA [Paras 99-101]. 
 
Statutory Backing – Guidelines of CCPA – Binding Nature – Upheld – The Court held that guidelines issued under Section 18(2)(l) of the CPA, 2019 are binding and not merely advisory – The statutory scheme envisages enforcement of such guidelines through penal provisions under Section 88 of the Act [Paras 73-75, 136-138, 174(i)]. 
 
Misleading Practices – Terminology and Lack of Transparency – Service 
Charge Illegal – The use of terms like “levy” and “service charge” was held to be misleading and deceptive to consumers – The absence of visible and transparent disclosure of service charge violated the consumer’s right to know 
– Held to constitute unfair trade practice under CPA [Paras 170-171, 174(iv)]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Guidelines Validated – The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the restaurant associations and upheld the validity and enforceability of the guidelines issued by CCPA – Declared that the service charge must be voluntary and any mandatory imposition would be illegal [Para 174]. 
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Valid Loan Transaction and Dishonoured Cheque – Conviction Upheld - The petitioner contended that no loan was availed and the cheque was misused – The Court upheld concurrent findings of both courts holding that the accused had availed Rs.1 crore as loan and had issued cheque (Ex.P4) and acknowledgment (Ex.P2 & Ex.P3) – Defence that cheque was issued to one Santhosh for a smaller loan was found unsubstantiated and lacking in evidence – Conviction confirmed [Paras 10-19]. 
 
Evidence – Admission by Accused – Presumption not Rebutted - The accused admitted execution of crucial documents including Ex.P2 (consideration receipt), Ex.P3 (confirmation of balance), and Ex.P4 (dishonoured cheque) – No independent evidence was led to prove the defence that the cheque was given to Santhosh – Admission of execution and failure to examine Santhosh undermined the defence – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. 
Act stood unrebutted [Paras 14-18]. 
 
Power of Attorney – Substitution of GPA Holder – No Illegality - The petitioner contended that PW1 lacked authority due to subsequent substitution of GPA holder – The Court held that Ex.P1 continued to be valid as no material showed its withdrawal – PW1 was competent to depose on behalf of the complainant – The contention was rejected [Paras 11, 17-18]. 
 
Revision – Limited Scope – No Perversity Found – Dismissed - The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent illegality or perversity – Since both courts properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence, no interference was warranted – Revision dismissed [Para 19]. 
 
 

Criminal Procedure – Challenge to Cognizance – Revision Already Dismissed – 482 Application Dismissed – The applicants sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 01.03.2024 on the ground of jurisdiction, alleging that the FIR was beyond territorial jurisdiction and constituted a second FIR – The Court found that the challenge had already been rejected in revision by a coordinate bench on merits and the dismissal had attained finality – The plea was not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 1-19]. 
 
Absconding     Accused     –     Non-cooperation     in Investigation – Inherent Powers Not Invokable – The Court held that the applicants, having absconded throughout the investigation and failed to appear despite issuance of non-bailable warrants and Red Corner Notices, were disentitled to invoke the Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot be used to circumvent the regular criminal process [Paras 19-21]. 
 
Inherent Powers – Discretion to be Exercised Sparingly – Petition Rejected – The Court reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly and cannot be granted to those who flout court processes – Applicants’ conduct of avoiding investigation and trial disentitled them from relief [Paras 20-22]. 
 
Decision – Application Dismissed – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Court refused to interfere with the criminal proceedings or the cognizance order challenged by the applicants [Para 22]. 
 

NDPS Bail – Prima Facie Evidence – Bail Rejected – The petitioner challenged her custody on the ground that her statement under Section 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible and the seizure was procedurally defective – The Court held that independent of the Section 67 statement, there were sufficient prima facie materials including parcel bearing petitioner’s name and number, deleted images of the parcel from her mobile, and links to other accused – Bail refused considering seriousness of offence and applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 3-6]. 
 
Section 52A Compliance – Not a Ground for Bail at Pre-trial Stage – Relying on NCB vs. Md. Kasif, the Court reiterated that compliance lapses under Section 52A NDPS Act, including inventory certification and sample taking, are procedural and to be tested at trial – Such irregularities alone do not justify bail at the pretrial stage [Paras 5-6]. 
 
Evidence Act Compliance – Hash Values and Digital Certificates – Left Open for Trial – The petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to file proper digital certificates under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam for Call Detail Records and mobile forensic reports – The Court held that such objections pertain to evidentiary appreciation and must be adjudicated during trial, not at bail stage [Paras 6]. 
 
Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Considering the petitioner’s role, prima facie evidence and involvement in an international drug racket, bail prayer rejected – Trial court directed to expedite the trial after splitting the record against absconding accused [Paras 6-8]. 
 

Civil Law - Res Judicata – Applicability between Specific Performance and Eviction Suit – Not Attracted – The petitioner contended that eviction proceedings were barred by res-judicata due to prior dismissal of the specific performance suit – The Court held that the earlier suit dealt with enforcement of an agreement of sale, while the present suit concerns the petitioner’s liability to be evicted after dismissal of specific performance – Absence of identity of issues between the two suits excludes the applicability of res-judicata [Paras 9-11]. 
 
Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Preliminary Issue – Scope Explained – The petitioner sought trial of the res-judicata plea as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – The Court clarified that only jurisdictional bars or statutory bars qualify as preliminary issues – The plea of res-judicata in the facts of this case is a mixed question of fact and law, and cannot be tried as a preliminary issue [Paras 10-11]. 
 
Possession and Appeal Pending – Question of Eviction Open – 
Observation – The Court clarified that though res-judicata is not attracted, the effect of the Division Bench’s injunction and the pendency of A.S. No. 326 of 2018 on the petitioner’s right to resist eviction remains open and will be decided appropriately in the eviction suit [Para 11]. 
 
Decision – Civil Revision Dismissed – Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Question of eviction subject to consideration in the pending eviction suit on merits [Paras 11-12]. 
 

Taxation Law - GST Liability – Deposit of Tax under Wrong Head – Writ Allowed – The petitioner, engaged in renting out commercial property, paid GST to NOIDA, which inadvertently deposited the amount under an incorrect head – Both GST authorities and NOIDA admitted the petitioner’s payment – The Court held that the petitioner could not be penalized for NOIDA’s mistake and cannot be subjected to double taxation and penalty [Paras 3-13]. 
 
Compensation – Mandamus Issued Against NOIDA – Rs.19.22 Lakhs Directed to be Paid – The Court, invoking Article 226, directed NOIDA to compensate the petitioner with Rs.19,22,778/- being the amount of tax and penalty imposed due to NOIDA’s error – NOIDA was given liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officer responsible for the mistake [Paras 14-18]. 
 
Administrative Law – Accountability of Public Authorities – Responsibility Fixed – The Court emphasized that where the loss is caused due to the fault of public authorities, they are liable to compensate the affected party and may recover the amount internally from the responsible officer – Directions also issued to the District Magistrate to ensure compliance in case of NOIDA’s failure [Paras 16-18]. 
 
Decision – Writ Allowed with Directions – Writ petition allowed – NOIDA directed to pay Rs.19,22,778/- within 15 days failing which the District Magistrate is to recover and pay the amount to the petitioner – Compliance affidavit directed [Paras 18-22].