Judicial Review of Statutory Provisions – Challenge against Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and Rules 13(11) and 13(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012 – Alleged to be ultra vires the Constitution for conferring powers on the Additional Collector to dispossess persons based on mutation proceedings, affecting rights to property under Article 300A – Held, the impugned provisions confer excessive powers beyond legislative competence under Entry 45 of List II of Schedule VII, relating only to land revenue and records. The legislation improperly extends to adjudication of property rights, a function reserved for the judiciary – Impugned provisions struck down as unconstitutional. [Paras 2-49]

Property Rights and Mutation – Mutation of land records does not determine legal title or possession rights, solely administrative for revenue collection – The act of dispossession based on mutation violates established legal principles, where title and possession issues must be adjudicated by civil courts – Section 9(1) of the Act and relevant rules, allowing dispossession by the Additional Collector without judicial process, held to infringe on constitutional rights under Article 300A and principles of natural justice. [Paras 18, 20, 24, 48]

Principles of Natural Justice – Requirement for fair hearing and judicial process in matters affecting property rights – Mutation proceedings intended for administrative record-keeping, not for adjudicating title or possession – Dispossession without court order constitutes a violation of natural justice and the constitutional right to property, necessitating judicial intervention. [Paras 24, 36, 47]

Decision – The Court declares Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and Rules 13(11) and 13(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012, insofar as they empower the Additional Collector to dispossess individuals and confer possession to others, as unconstitutional. The provisions are beyond the legislative scope of Entry 45 of List II of Schedule VII and infringe upon the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A. [Paras 49-50]

Protection of Life and Liberty in Live-in Relationships – Constitutional Writ Petition for directions to police for protection from threats by private individuals – Petitioners in non-marital cohabitation facing threats from a spouse of one petitioner – Precedents on protection in live-in relationships cited – Held, entitled to protection under Article 21, Constitution of India – Direction issued to police to assess and address the threat perception accordingly. [Paras 1-15]

Legal Status of Live-in Relationships – Analysis of societal and legal recognition of live-in relationships – Reference to precedents where similar protection was granted – Court emphasizes on the right to life and liberty, includes right to choose one's living arrangements – Held, live-in relationships warrant protection like any other personal relationship under the law. [Paras 8-10, 13]

Judicial Approach to Non-Traditional Relationships – Discussion on the court’s stance on live-in relationships versus formal marriages – Despite the absence of formal marital bonds, similar protection rights upheld – Court avoids commenting on the legality of the relationship, focuses on immediate threat to life and liberty. [Para 14]

Decision – Writ petition resolved with specific directions to law enforcement to protect petitioners based on threat assessment – Clarifies that the order does not prevent legal actions for other potential violations involving the petitioners. [Para 15]

Disbursement of Industrial Promotion Assistance – Civil Appeal in High Court – State of West Bengal vs. Birla Corporation Ltd. – Intra-court mandamus appeal challenging the order for disbursement of sanctioned amounts to Birla Corporation Ltd. Under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 – Held, special package for ‘Mega Projects’ allows Industrial Promotion Assistance without financial cap, overriding other terms of the scheme – Directed State to disburse outstanding amounts to Birla Corporation Ltd. And verify additional claims. [Paras 1-35]

Eligibility for Incentive – Analysis – Birla Corporation Ltd.’s entitlement under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 as a ‘Mega Project’ – Discussed conditions of special package and definition of ‘Mega Unit’ – State’s contention of Fixed Capital Investment cap rejected – Held, no overall financial cap on Industrial Promotion Assistance for Birla Corporation Ltd. Under the special package. [Paras 9-20, 25-28]

Judicial Directives – State of West Bengal directed to disburse admitted amounts for financial years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 to Birla Corporation Ltd. – Authority instructed to verify claims for years 2013-14, 2014-15, and part of 2015-16 and disburse entitled amounts – Opportunities of hearing provided if claims are not allowed. [Paras 31-34]

Decision – Appeal of State of West Bengal dismissed – Orders of Principal Secretary quashed for lacking relevance and basis – Birla Corporation Ltd.’s entitlement under special package affirmed. [Paras 33-37]

Cheque Dishonor – Section 138 of NI Act - Conviction and Sentence Set aside - Criminal Revision against lower court's conviction and sentence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Petitioner convicted for dishonoring cheque issued as security - Petitioner contends cheque issued as security for another person's liability, not his own - Defense argues cheque issued with conditions, not presented without consent - Allegations against petitioner and company, but company not made party - Supreme Court precedent cited for necessity of company being arraigned as accused - Judgment setting aside conviction and sentence on grounds of procedural irregularity and abuse of process of law - Conviction and sentence set aside, petitioner acquitted and discharged. [Paras 1-23]

Bail Application – Accused Sah Jamal charged under Section 21© of the NDPS Act – In custody since 24-05-2023 – Application filed under Section 439 of CrPC. [Para 1]

Allegation of Procedural Violations – Petitioner contends wrongful implication, highlights non-compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act regarding handling and sending of samples to CFSL – Raises issue of samples not taken in front of Magistrate and discrepancy in sample identification (sample A1). [Paras 2-3]

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Cited Samarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing on proper procedures for sample seizure and handling as per Mohonlal’s case – Contends that non-compliance with these procedures casts doubt on the prosecution’s case. [Paras 7-10]

Court’s Analysis – Examines Section 52A of NDPS Act and relevant Rules – Notes procedural irregularities in the seizure and handling of the sample, aligning with principles laid out in Samarjit Singh and Mohonlal’s case. [Paras 4-10]

Bail Granted – Concluding that the petitioner overcame the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail granted subject to terms – Two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each, one being local – Regular attendance before investigating officer and court mandated. [Para 12]

Acquittal in POCSO and IPC Case – Criminal Appeal against Trial Court’s Acquittal Order – Minor’s Alleged Sexual Assault – Acquittal by Trial Judge – The respondents were acquitted by the Trial Judge in Special Case No. 39/2019 (Special Trial No. 03 of 2019) – The case involved alleged sexual offenses against a minor – The Trial Judge found contradictions in evidence and deemed the survivor’s testimony untrustworthy and unbelievable [Para 9].

Evidence Examination – Contradictions and Unreliability – The prosecution’s evidence, including that of the survivor (PW1) and her parents (PW2 and PW3), had inconsistencies and contradictions, specifically concerning the delay in reporting the incident and the locations where statements were recorded [Paras 13-17, 30.3, 30.6].

Medical Evidence – Assessment – No conclusive medical evidence indicating sexual assault; testimony of the doctor (PW 15) did not corroborate the prosecution’s narrative. [Para 25]

Delay in Filing FIR – Impact on Case – Notes significant 19-day delay in filing FIR. Finds the explanation of ‘family prestige’ by the survivor (PW1) insufficient and not substantiated by subsequent events. [Para 30.6]

Legal Principle – Presumption of Innocence and Appellate Review – Emphasizes the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused unless proven guilty. Asserts the duty of the Appellate Court to determine if Trial Court’s view is a possible one, not just a difference of opinion. Upholds the acquittal based on principles of criminal jurisprudence. [Paras 31-32]

Decision – Upholding of Acquittal – High Court finds no illegality, perversity, or error in the Trial Court’s judgement. Acquittal upheld due to insufficient evidence to convict the accused. Dismisses appeal with no costs. [Paras 32-33]

Petition Under Articles 14, 21, 226, 227 of Constitution and Section 482 of CrPC – Petitioner seeking quashment of FIR and charge-sheet against him in a case where his minor son was allegedly involved in a fatal traffic accident [Para 2.0].

Case Background – The petitioner’s minor son accused of rash driving leading to a fatal accident – Petitioner charged as he was the registered owner of the vehicle and guardian of the juvenile [Para 3.0, 3.1].

Defence’s Argument – Lack of evidence and wrongful implication of petitioner – All witnesses turned hostile in the juvenile case – Settlement with complainant reached – Argument for application of Section 199A of Motor Vehicles Act only, with already served 9-month imprisonment [Para 5.0].

Prosecution’s Argument – Emphasis on petitioner’s responsibility as guardian and owner of the vehicle – Relevance of statutory presumption under the Motor Vehicles Act – Non-compoundability of the offence and ongoing trial [Para 6.0].

Court Analysis and Decision – The Court noted absence of direct evidence linking petitioner to the accident – All witnesses in the juvenile case turned hostile – Statutory presumption under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act rebuttable – Petitioner not present at the accident, not directly involved – Already served 9 months in custody, which is substantial compared to maximum punishment – Proceedings against petitioner quashed subject to payment of Rs.25,000 fine [Paras 7.0-9.1].

Decision – Quashing of Sessions Case No.107 of 2023 against the petitioner, subject to fine payment [Para 10.0].

Bail in Economic Offence Case - Conditions - Petitions under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking bail in case FIR No. 120/2023 - Accused charged with offenses under IPC Sections 420, 120-B, Himachal Pradesh Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, and Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act - Allegations of embezzlement through fake websites and virtual currency schemes - Petitioners contend innocence and completion of investigation - Prosecution opposes bail on grounds of seriousness of economic offense and possibility of tampering with evidence - Court examines principles for grant of bail in economic offenses - Relies on jurisprudence emphasizing presumption of innocence until proven guilty, with bail as the rule and jail as the exception - Considers factors such as gravity of offense, severity of punishment, and likelihood of accused tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice - Noting completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet, finds no likelihood of immediate trial completion - Grants bail with stringent conditions including personal bond and sureties, appearance before court and investigating officer, prohibition on crypto currency business, property restrictions, non-interference with evidence or witnesses, and surrender of passport - Allows prosecution to move for bail cancellation if conditions violated.

Interpretation of Rule 15 – Jharkhand Excise (Retail Rules 2022) – Imposing penalty on placement agencies for shortfall in Minimum Guarantee Revenue (MGR) – Court held Rule 15 should apply only when a placement agency fails to perform duties and obligations falling within its scope of work and causes monetary loss to JSBCL – Rule read down to mean liability of placement agency is confined to its scope of work and subject to principles of natural justice – [Paras 88-90]

Viability of Subordinate Legislation – Upholding Rule 15 – Presumption of intra vires nature of subordinate legislation – Judicial review parameters – Reading down the rule to conform with parent statute and constitutional principles – [Paras 72-74, 88-91]

Contractual Obligations – Jharkhand Excise Act, Retail Rules, and Agreement with Petitioners – Obligations under the agreement and rules cannot be contrary to the Jharkhand Excise Act and constitutional provisions – Contractual liabilities must align with the legislative framework and principles of natural justice – [Paras 82-84, 88-89]

Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit – Petitioner Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. – Forfeiture due to non-participation after submitting bid – Held to be premature and without a proper hearing – Directed to initiate fresh proceedings if required, in line with legal principles – [Para 95]

Decision: Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022, read down to limit the scope of penalizing placement agencies only in cases of non-performance causing monetary loss to JSBCL, in adherence to principles of natural justice.

Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit by petitioner Urmila International Services Pvt. Ltd. Quashed, with liberty to respondent JSBCL to initiate fresh proceedings if deemed necessary.

All writ petitions allowed in the above terms.