Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Incomplete Challan – Statutory Bail – Three petitions involving common question of law under NDPS Act – Seizure of Tramadol and Codeine, constituting commercial quantity – Incomplete challan due to absence of FSL report – Right to seek statutory bail after 180 days of arrest without complete challan – High Court granted statutory bail to petitioners. [Paras 1-4, 11, 13]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 167(2) – Default Bail – Interpretation of default bail provisions under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. in context of NDPS cases – Entitlement to statutory bail if complete investigation report not filed within prescribed period – High Court observed right to statutory bail if FSL report not submitted within 180 days. [Paras 4, 9, 10, 13]

Investigation – FSL Report – Challan – Importance of FSL report in completing investigation – High Court’s view on incomplete investigation in absence of FSL report – Statutory bail granted in cases of incomplete challan due to non-submission of FSL report within mandated period. [Paras 2, 3, 11, 13]

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court Decisions – Reference to Supreme Court rulings on statutory bail and incomplete challan – High Court followed Apex Court's interpretation in granting bail – Bail granted with liberty to prosecution to seek recall if Supreme Court decides otherwise in pending related matters. [Paras 10, 12-14]

Decision – High Court granted statutory bail to petitioners in three petitions under NDPS Act for non-completion of challan due to absence of FSL report within 180 days of arrest – Directed petitioners' release on bail with conditions and participation in trial – Prosecution allowed to seek bail cancellation depending on future Supreme Court rulings in related matters. [Paras 13-15]

Eviction Proceedings – Assessment of Landlord’s Bona Fide Need and Tenant’s Acquisition of Alternate Accommodation – Appellate Court’s judgment challenged on grounds of erroneous findings and misapplication of legal principles – High Court’s interpretation of landlord’s bona fide need and tenant’s alternate accommodation under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. [Paras 1, 36, 39, 41, 45]

Tenant’s Alternate Accommodation – Tenant’s acquisition of plot in APMC, Latur, deemed as alternate accommodation despite later transfer – Significance of acquisition at initiation of proceedings for eviction under Tenancy Act. [Paras 36-38]

Landlord’s Bona Fide Requirement – High Court’s evaluation of landlord’s need for tenanted premises for residence and business – Consideration of subsequent events like demise of landlord’s parents and inheritance of ‘Vora Bungalow’ – Appellate Court’s findings on landlord’s bona fide need overturned. [Paras 39-45]

Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court’s exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 – Appellate Court’s failure in applying legal principles and rendering perverse findings on bona fide need and tenant’s alternate accommodation. [Paras 47-48]

Decision – High Court allows petition, orders eviction of tenant based on landlord’s bona fide need and tenant’s acquisition of alternate accommodation – Stay granted to the operation of order for ten weeks. [Paras 49-52]

Quashing of FIR – Freedom of Speech and Religion – Petitioner sought to quash FIR for alleged offence under Section 295A IPC involving religious figures – FIR based on petitioner’s discourse about Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas – Examination of discourse and historical texts reveals no malice or intent to insult religious beliefs – FIR and consequential proceedings quashed. [Paras 1, 12-18]

Intent and Malice in Section 295A IPC – Section 295A IPC requires deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings – Mere criticism or unintentional acts not penalized – In this case, petitioner’s discourse aligned with historical texts without malicious distortion, negating the accusation of intentional insult. [Paras 7, 13-14]

Use of Historical Texts in Discourse – Discourse based on documented narratives in historical texts about Sant Kabir Das and Guru Ravidas – No evidence of petitioner’s distortion or misrepresentation of the texts – Intent of discourse was spiritual enlightenment, not to insult any religious community. [Paras 2.5, 12, 13]

Delayed FIR and Absence of Previous Complaints – FIR lodged seven years after the discourse without any previous complaints – Indicates lack of malicious intent or impact on religious sentiments at the time of discourse. [Paras 2.6, 15]

Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR – Emphasized on preventing abuse of legal process and unnecessary criminal proceedings in absence of clear offence. [Paras 16, 17]

Common Question of Law - Various writ petitions filed by aspiring candidates for the posts of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) and Deputy District Attorney (DDA) challenge an order issued by respondent No.3 on 05.06.2023, which directed selected candidates to produce copies of six Court orders/zimni orders of each year to prove their experience claimed. All the petitions raise common legal issues and are being heard together.

Legal Profession – Qualifications and Experience – Practice of law includes both litigation and non-litigation matters – An advocate may gain experience through various legal activities beyond court appearances – Certificates from Bar Associations or judicial authorities are valid proof of practice. [Para 19-23]

Appointment Rules – Examination of suitability by the State Government – Powers of the State to examine suitability limited to antecedents, medical fitness, forgery, impersonation, nepotism, and favoritism – State should not arbitrarily reject candidates recommended by the examining authority – Arbitrary introduction of additional requirements after selection process is improper. [Para 26-31]

Decision – Letter demanding certificates of court appearances quashed – Direction to proceed with filling up the posts of ADAs and DDAs within one month – Importance of clearly defined qualifications and conditions in recruitment rules and advertisements. [Para 32-34]

Bail Application - Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Petitioner claims parity with co-accused - No recovery made from the petitioner - Previous order granting bail to co-accused considered. [Para 1-3]

Implication in NDPS Case - Allegation of false implication - FIR against ASI Jagtar Singh - Transcript of recorded conversation relied upon - Petitioners picked up from their homes - Representation filed alleging false implication - No further recovery to be made - Lengthy custody period - Citing Supreme Court decisions in similar circumstances. [Para 4-10]

Bail Granted - Prima facie doubts about false implication - Petitioners granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds - Pending vigilance inquiry against ASI Jagtar Singh - Previous bail granted to co-accused in similar circumstances considered. [Para 10-11]

Administrative Law - Cancellation of license for a Drug De-Addiction-cum Rehabilitation Centre under the Haryana De-addiction Centres Rules - Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to set aside the impugned order dated 10.8.2023 (Annexure P-4) canceling the license - Ambiguity in rules regarding the constitution of the licensing authority/appellate authority discussed - Notice issued for clarification on this aspect - Respondent acknowledges notice and agrees to clarify the ambiguity - Petition disposed with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within 2 weeks from today. [Para 1-7]

Revision Petition – Legality and Regularity of Judgments Below: Revision petition filed challenging the legality, propriety, and regularity of the judgments in Crl.A. No.126/2003 by the Appellate Court and S.T.C.No.474/1997 by the Trial Court, which found the revision petitioner guilty under specified provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. [Para 1]

Prosecution Case – Sale of Adulterated Food: The case of the prosecution revolves around the sale of adulterated banana chips by the revision petitioner, where the adulteration was established through the analysis report of the Public Analyst. [Para 2]

Trial Court Verdict – Conviction of Revision Petitioner: The Trial Court, upon analysis of evidence, found the revision petitioner guilty of the offense, convicting and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. [Para 4]

Appellate Court Judgment – Confirmation of Conviction: The Appellate Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. [Para 6]

Central Government Recognized Laboratory – Requirement for Analysis: The Counsel for the revision petitioner emphasized on the Supreme Court judgments which mandated the analysis to be conducted in a laboratory recognized by the Central Government under Section 23(1-A)(ee) of the Act, without which the prosecution would fail. [Para 9]

Disagreement with Previous Supreme Court Ruling – Public Prosecutor's Argument: The Public Prosecutor argued for reconsideration of the reliance on the Supreme Court judgment, citing that Public Analysts have been appointed as per Section 8 of the Act, making the cited Supreme Court judgment inapplicable to the present case. [Para 10]

Supreme Court and Division Bench Rulings – Mandatory Laboratory Analysis: The Court discussed the Supreme Court and Division Bench judgments which clarified the necessity of analysis in a laboratory defined under Section 23(1-A)(ee) of the Act for launching a successful prosecution. [Para 15-16]

Acquittal of Revision Petitioner – Non-compliance with Mandatory Laboratory Analysis: Due to the non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of analysis in a recognized laboratory, the prosecution fails, leading to the acquittal of the revision petitioner, thereby allowing the revision petition and setting aside the impugned judgments below. [Para 17-18]

Land Acquisition – Rehabilitation Allotment – Cancellation of Allotment – Petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of allotment of land No.82, admeasuring 2500 sq.ft., due to non-compliance with condition of constructing house within one year from the date of allotment as per order dated 6th February 1976. [Para 1, 3, 9]

Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 – Rehabilitation Act – Entitlement to Alternate Land – Petitioner entitled to 8000 sq.ft. of land under the Resettlement Act due to acquisition of his land for Ujjani Dam Project, challenges the non-allotment of balance 1500 sq.ft. of land. [Para 2]

Condition of Construction – Arbitrary Condition – Petitioner contends Condition No.4 of order dated 6th February 1976, requiring construction of house within one year of allotment, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction as per the Rehabilitation Act. [Para 5]

Violation of Condition – Non-construction of House – Respondent No.5's complaint leading to cancellation of allotment of Plot No.82, admeasuring 2500 sq.ft., on ground of non-construction of house within stipulated time, challenged by Petitioner. [Para 6, 7]

Legitimate Expectation – Balance Allotment – Petitioner's entitlement to balance 1500 sq.ft. of land based on doctrine of legitimate expectation as Respondent-State admits entitlement but fails to provide justification for withholding balance allotment. [Para 14]

Order – Quashing of Cancellation – Direction for Balance Allotment – High Court quashes the impugned order dated 17th December 2019 cancelling the allotment of Plot No.82, admeasuring 2500 sq.ft., and directs the State-Respondent to allot the balance 1500 sq.ft. plot area to the Petitioner within 12 weeks. [Para 15]

Pro Rata Pension – Eligibility for “pro rata pension” – Petitioners, former Indian Air Force personnel, discharged under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of Indian Air Force Rules, 1969 – Petitioners claim entitlement to “pro rata pension” after completing 10 years of service – Discrepancy regarding the grant of “pro rata pension” to PBOR/NCO compared to commissioned officers – Legal precedents considered in Govind Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors. And Brij Lal Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Para 1-18]

Regular Pension vs. Pro Rata Pension – Distinction between “regular pension” and “pro rata pension” – Regulation 121 of Pension Regulations 1961 requires a minimum of 15 years of service for “regular pension” – Pro rata pension granted to those permanently absorbed or appointed in Central Government Enterprises/PSUs after 10 years of service – Precondition for pro rata pension not met by the petitioners, as they were discharged for being unsuitable for retention in the Air Force, not absorbed elsewhere. [Para 19-26]

Equality Doctrine – Application of the doctrine of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution – Reasonable classification permitted – Pro rata pension designed for those continuing to serve governmental organizations – Discrimination not applicable to those discharged on the grounds of unsuitability – Pro rata denotes proportionality, meant for a specific class of individuals. [Para 27-29]

Outcome – Petitioners not entitled to “pro rata pension” – No discrimination or unequal treatment found – Petition dismissed. [Para 30-32]