Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Trial Court Order – Petitioner sought to quash the order directing partial production of documents from the respondent – Contention that complete documents including invoices with UDID numbers for 2017-2020 were necessary for defense – Trial Court allowed production only for 2018 transactions with conditional directive “if any” – High Court upholds Trial Court’s order – Observes that the trial pertains only to the 2018 cheque dishonour and documents for other years irrelevant – Application for documents from 2017-2020 rejected as fishing enquiry – Adverse inference permissible if documents not produced [Paras 1-10].

Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Application – High Court clarifies Section 91 cannot be used for roving or fishing enquiries – Accused must justify necessity of documents for the specific trial year – Permits adverse inference if relevant documents not produced [Paras 7-10].

Reliability of Evidence – Witness Testimony and Document Production – High Court supports Trial Court’s approach in limiting document production to 2018, the transaction year – Highlights discretion under Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act applicable if documents not furnished [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial Court’s order upheld – Petitioner’s request for documents beyond 2018 denied – Option to seek adverse inference maintained.

Abuse of Process of Law – Prolonged Litigation – Appellant engaged in a series of frivolous legal actions to delay compliance with a financial award – Failed to procure promised lands after collecting funds – Court emphasized the duty to disclose material facts and avoid abusive litigation tactics – Appeal dismissed; costs imposed [Paras 1-7].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Tribunal admitted appeal filed six years after the award, keeping limitation issue open – Court held that delay must be condoned before an appeal can proceed – Tribunal’s approach was deemed impermissible and erroneous [Paras 5.2-5.3.3].

Finality of Judgments – Doctrine of Res Judicata – Award became final after appellant failed to meet writ petition conditions – Subsequent appeal barred by res judicata – Tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain the appeal was questioned and found to be without basis [Paras 5.5-5.9.1].

Award Execution – Failure to Deposit – Appellant did not deposit the required sum of Rs. 2 crores, resulting in the award becoming final and executable – Appellant’s various litigations were deemed attempts to forestall execution and avoid liability [Paras 5.1-5.1.5].

Doctrine of Finality – Award attained finality with enforceable rights for the cooperative society – Appeal to Tribunal after six years was barred – Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by admitting the appeal [Paras 5.7-5.9.1].

Costs for Frivolous Litigation – Appellant’s conduct characterized as abuse of process – Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for abuse of legal process, payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award and previous orders upheld – Costs of Rs. 50,000 imposed on appellant for abuse of legal process.

Industrial Disputes - Settlement Validity - Appellants, retired employees, were denied IDA increments due to a 12(3) Settlement dated 03.11.2017 between Trade Unions and Management - Settlement excluded those retired before 01.04.2017 - Appellants not parties to the settlement - Court held that the settlement, being unjust and discriminatory, did not bind the appellants - Orders denying IDA increments set aside [Paras 6-14].

Settlement Exclusion - Challenge Requirement - Court noted appellants need not challenge the 12(3) Settlement as they were not parties and had retired prior to the settlement - Relief granted in line with earlier Court orders mandating IDA increments [Paras 12-14].

Financial Constraint Argument - Rejected - Court dismissed respondent's argument of financial constraints as a ground for denying statutory dues - Emphasized compliance with judicial orders [Paras 13-14].

Representation and Service - Court noted appellants' long, unblemished service and unjust exclusion from IDA benefits despite favorable Court orders - Directed compliance with prior directives to grant IDA increments from January 2016 to retirement date [Paras 6-14].

Contempt of Court - Earlier Non-Compliance - Noted previous Court orders (01.03.2016 and 12.07.2017) in W.P.No.13121/2013 and W.A.No.899/2016 mandating IDA increments were not adhered to by respondents - Appellants' representations ignored, leading to contempt petition - Current decision reiterates enforcement of these orders [Paras 7-12].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed - Orders denying IDA increments set aside - Respondents directed to grant IDA increments from January 2016 to the date of retirement as per earlier judicial orders.
 

Patents – Rejection of Patent Application – Appeal against rejection of patent application for method of preparation of Plasma-derived Hepatitis B Human Immunoglobulin Agent – Patent Controller’s order lacking discussion on prior arts and justifiable reasons – Remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 1-10].

Prior Arts – Lack of Discussion – Respondent failed to discuss cited prior arts documents D1 to D4 with specific reference to the appellant’s claimed invention – Summary rejection without detailed reasoning deemed unjustified [Paras 7-8].

Technical Features and Data – Appellant provided data and method steps not considered by Patent Controller – Findings on lack of inventive step and technical disclosure erroneous – Justifiable reasons for conclusions not supplied [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Patent application remitted for fresh consideration by a different Patent Controller – Fair hearing mandated within four months – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].
 

Criminal Law – Special Leave to Appeal – Petition filed under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. – Assailing acquittal in cheque bounce case where cheque issued by respondent was dishonored due to insufficient funds – Trial court acquitted respondent – Petitioner sought leave to appeal [Paras 1-4].

Section 138, 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption and Burden of Proof – Petitioner argued that respondent did not dispute issuance or signature on the cheque – Presumption under Section 139 that cheque was issued for discharge of debt – Respondent failed to rebut this presumption – Trial court’s assessment challenged for improper appreciation of evidence [Paras 5-14].

Privity of Contract – Legally Enforceable Debt – No direct transaction between petitioner and respondent – Cheque issued allegedly to discharge loan of a third party (Sunil) – Lack of evidence of any agreement or contract between petitioner and respondent – No legally enforceable debt proven [Paras 10-14].

Criteria for Granting Leave – Judicial Scrutiny – Emphasized that leave to appeal is not a right – Must be based on substantial grounds showing error in trial court’s judgment – Safeguard to prevent undue harassment of acquitted persons – Leave to appeal should be granted only if lower court’s decision is materially flawed [Paras 5-17].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No infirmities in trial court’s judgment – Lack of evidence to prove legally enforceable debt – No substantial grounds for appeal – Criminal original petition dismissed, and criminal appeal rejected at SR stage [Para 17].

Appointment – Essential Qualifications – Petitioner challenged the appointment of respondents 6 and 7 to the post of Tradesman – Contention that B.Tech does not qualify as a higher educational qualification for the post – Special Rules prescribe ITI or equivalent certificates – Court held B.Tech degree as a qualification in the same faculty, thus pre-supposing the lower qualification – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Recruitment Policy – Higher Qualification – Interpretation of Rule 10(a)(i) and (ii) – Supreme Court precedent in Jyoti K.K. applied – Higher qualification in the same faculty acceptable unless explicitly excluded by rules – Government orders and PSC decisions considered – Court deferred to the discretion of the appointing authority [Paras 14-19].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Appointment of respondent 6 upheld – B.Tech deemed sufficient under the rules – Petitioner’s qualifications acknowledged but no error found in respondent’s appointment process [Para 19].
 

Hindu Succession Act – Daughters’ Right to Inheritance – Appeal challenged trial court’s decree granting 1/8^th share of property to the respondent, a daughter of the deceased – Appellants claimed an oral agreement among heirs excluding daughters from the property share – Trial court decreed in favor of the respondent – High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming equal inheritance rights of daughters under Section 8 of the Act [Paras 1-32].

Mutation – Illegality of Excluding Daughters – The mutation of property in the names of only the sons deemed illegal – High Court emphasized that daughters, as Class-I heirs, are entitled to equal share and proper mutation reflecting all heirs [Paras 23-24].

Constructive Trust – Contributions to Property – Appellants’ claim of exclusive ownership due to constructing a building on the inherited land with personal funds rejected – High Court held that contributions did not negate respondent’s statutory share [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree of the trial court upheld – Respondent entitled to 1/8^th share of the property and profits [Paras 32].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Second FIR – Principle of Single FIR – Petitioners challenged the legitimacy of the second FIR on the grounds of it being based on the same set of allegations as the first FIR – The court held that a second FIR is not maintainable if it pertains to the same offence and set of facts as the first FIR – Applied the principles established in TT Anthony and Amit Shah cases – Second FIR quashed [Paras 1-27].

Duplicate FIRs – Investigation Continuity – Use of Documents from First FIR – CBI admitted to using documents seized during the investigation of the first FIR in the charge sheet of the second FIR – Court emphasized that this practice indicates the investigations are linked and should be consolidated – Second FIR declared void [Paras 18-23].

Further Investigation – Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Proper Procedure – Court clarified that the CBI is allowed to conduct further investigation and submit additional evidence under the original FIR, without filing a new FIR for each subsequent piece of information or related offence – Ensures adherence to procedural requirements and prevents abuse of the investigative process [Paras 21-23, 27].

Application of Supreme Court Precedents – TT Anthony and Amit Shah – Court referenced the Supreme Court’s rulings to underline the illegality of multiple FIRs for the same offence – Reinforced the legal position that supplementary or additional charge sheets are permissible under the original FIR [Paras 19-20, 23].

Fundamental Rights – Protection Against Repeated Prosecution – Article 21 – Court noted that allowing multiple FIRs for the same set of facts infringes upon the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Highlighted the need to protect individuals from repetitive and redundant legal actions [Paras 20, 23].

Decision:

CRR allowed – FIR No. RC No. 010/2014A/0015 dated 14^th June 2014, charge sheet dated 31^st March 2016, and subsequent order taking cognizance quashed – CBI permitted to submit supplementary or additional charge sheet in accordance with the law under the original FIR RC No. 0102012A/002 dated 10.01.2012 [Paras 26-27].

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 52A(2) – Bail Application – Appellant convicted for possession of 610 gms of smack under Section 8(C) read with 21(c) of the NDPS Act. Bail application based on alleged non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 52A(2) of the Act, which requires the presence of a Magistrate during the sampling and certification of seized contraband – Appellant argued that non-compliance vitiated the trial, making conviction unsustainable – Respondent claimed compliance with procedural requirements – Court found prima facie non-compliance with Section 52A(2), warranting bail [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Custody and Sentence – Non-compliance Impact – Appellant in judicial custody since the date of conviction (30.08.2022) and sentenced to 15 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 – Appellant argued that almost three years in custody and procedural lapses in the trial justified bail – Court granted bail without expressing final opinion on appeal’s merits, emphasizing that bail decisions do not affect the final outcome of the appeal [Paras 4-15].

Decision – Bail Granted – Bail application allowed – Appellant to be released on executing personal bond and two sureties – Observations made are for bail application disposal only, without affecting the criminal appeal’s merits – Listed for final hearing in due course [Paras 13-16].