Criminal Law - Narcotics - NDPS Act 1985 - Sections 15 50 and 52A - Appellant convicted for possession of 80 kilograms of poppy husk found in four bags - Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant to 10 years rigorous imprisonment - Appellant challenged conviction citing non compliance of Section 50 regarding personal search and Section 52A regarding drawing of samples before Magistrate along with delay in sending samples to Chemical Examiner and non examination of independent witness - High Court noted that contraband was recovered from bags and not from personal search hence Section 50 is not attracted - High Court found substantial compliance with Section 52A as case property and samples were produced before Magistrate the very next day and Magistrate affixed initials - High Court held that five day delay in dispatching samples is immaterial as seals remained intact and tallied with specimen seals - High Court ruled that testimony of official witnesses inspires confidence and non examination of independent witness is not fatal - Held - Prosecution proved conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-28].

Evidence Law - Official Witnesses - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 15 - Non examination of independent witness - Independent witness joined during investigation was not examined by prosecution - Appellant argued adverse inference should be drawn - High Court held testimonies of official witnesses carry same evidentiary value and cannot be discarded merely on account of official designation - Independent corroboration is a rule of prudence and not a requirement of law - No material contradictions elicited in cross examination of official witnesses - Held - Non examination of independent witness does not affect the credibility of the prosecution story - [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law - Search and Seizure - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 50 - Applicability of personal search safeguards - Contraband recovered from bags upon which appellant was sitting - Appellant argued non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 - High Court reiterated that Section 50 is relevant only where search of a person is involved - Search and recovery from a bag or container does not come within the ambit of Section 50 - Held - Compliance of Section 50 is not required in the present case - [Paras 14-16].

Criminal Law - Chain of Custody - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 52A - Delay in sending samples - Samples sent to Chemical Examiner after five days - Appellant claimed delay rendered prosecution case doubtful - High Court noted that mere delay is not fatal unless accused establishes possibility of tampering with seals or case property - Official witness deposed that sealed parcels and specimen seals were deposited without tampering - Chemical Examiner report confirmed seals were intact and tallied - Held - Prosecution successfully established unbroken chain of custody - [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender forthwith before the learned trial Court to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 - Dismissal from service - Petitioner employed as Mobile Inspector investigated another employee and subsequently conspired with an outsider to extort money from said employee by sharing confidential bank documents - Petitioner confessed to the misconduct but retracted it after three months - Disciplinary authority dismissed petitioner from service after finding the charges proved - Petitioner argued that his acquittal in a parallel criminal case should result in recall of the dismissal order and that the confession was coerced - High Court observed that disciplinary proceedings are governed by preponderance of probabilities and not strict rules of evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt - Acquittal in criminal trial due to witnesses turning hostile or not appearing has no bearing on disciplinary proceedings where the charges relate to violation of service regulations and maintaining banking integrity - The disciplinary enquiry strictly complied with principles of natural justice and no perversity or illegality was found in the decision making process - Held - Order of dismissal is well reasoned and does not call for any interference - writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-58].

Evidence Law - Standard of Proof - Preponderance of probabilities - Retracted Confession - Petitioner voluntarily confessed to divulging confidential information and seeking apology - Confession was retracted as an afterthought after three months - Management witnesses deposed that no pressure was exerted on the petitioner to write the confession - Held - Existence of some credible evidence is enough in disciplinary proceedings - Suspicion not being treated as proof of guilt is a principle applicable to criminal proceedings requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt - Disciplinary adjudication relying upon preponderance of probabilities was justified - [Paras 27-48].

Banking Law - Standard of Integrity - Conduct of Bank Officers - Misuse of delegated powers - Petitioner compromised his position to share strictly confidential information in lieu of pecuniary benefits - Held - Bank employees are required to maintain the highest level of honesty and integrity as the banking system runs on public trust - Evidence reveals that the petitioner indulged in dishonesty and a slight deficit of trust causes irreparable dent in the banking system - [Paras 14-55].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Condonation of Delay - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - Appellant husband challenged Family Court order directing payment of interim maintenance of Rs 800000 per month to respondent wife under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Appellant first filed a review petition which was entertained and later dismissed on merits by the Family Court - Appellant then filed present appeal challenging both original order and review order with a delay of 116 days concerning the original order - Respondent opposed condonation arguing review was filed belatedly with mala fide intention to delay proceedings - High Court noted that Family Court did not reject review at threshold but adjudicated it on merits - Pursuit of review remedy by appellant was bona fide and not a dilatory tactic - Pendency of review petition prosecuted in good faith is a relevant circumstance for determining sufficient cause - No irreversible prejudice demonstrated by respondent - Held - Appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for delay - Delay of 116 days condoned - Application allowed - [Paras 1-18].

Civil Law - Condonation of Delay - Limitation Act 1963 - Section 5 - Prosecution of statutory remedy - Meaning of sufficient cause - Whether bona fide prosecution of a review petition constitutes sufficient cause to condone delay in filing an appeal - Mere pendency of a review petition does not automatically extend limitation period for appeal - However fact that litigant bona fide prosecuted a review petition is a relevant circumstance for determining sufficient cause - Since the anterior review was actually heard and dismissed on merits by the lower court rather than being rejected on the basis of limitation the case for condonation in subsequent appeal stands on a stronger footing - Held - Substantive rights of parties should not be defeated merely on ground of delay when explanation is plausible and inspires confidence - Delay condoned - [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Application is allowed – Delay of 116 days in filing the present appeal is condoned – Main appeal directed to be listed on 28.09.2026.

Service Law - Seniority - U P Intermediate Education Act 1921 - Chapter II Regulation 3 - Dispute regarding inter se seniority of Lecturers where appellant was substantively appointed on 1st August 1996 and respondent No 1 was regularised on 30th December 2000 - Joint Director determined appellant as senior based on substantive appointment date - Single Judge quashed this order holding that appellant acquiesced to longstanding seniority lists from 1997 to 2012 - Division Bench observed that alleged seniority lists were merely informational magazines or lists prepared by unauthorised persons and not statutory lists published by the Committee of Management under Regulation 3 - No valid seniority list was ever published or circulated inviting objections - Appellant raised valid objections before District Inspector of Schools in 2014 when no vested rights had accrued to the respondent - Held - Appellant being substantively appointed prior in time is senior to respondent No 1 - Single Judge judgment set aside and Joint Director order upheld - [Paras 3-34].

Service Law - Maintainability of Special Appeal - Allahabad High Court Rules - Chapter VIII Rule 5 - Preliminary objection raised by respondent that Special Appeal is not maintainable as order challenged was passed by appellate authority under U P Intermediate Education Act - Division Bench noted that the Joint Director order was not passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Regulation 3 1 f arising from a decision of the Committee of Management - Held - Preliminary objection rejected as the order was not appellate in nature - [Paras 14-16].

Service Law - Statutory Interpretation - U P Intermediate Education Act 1921 - Chapter I Regulation 2 and Chapter II Regulation 3 - Distinction between different seniority lists - Seniority list under Chapter I is maintained on basis of initial appointment date solely for rotational ex officio membership in Committee of Management - Seniority list under Chapter II is determined on basis of substantive appointment date for service benefits and promotions - Held - Lists relied upon by respondent pertained to initial appointments for managerial representation and cannot estop appellant from claiming seniority for service benefits under Chapter II - [Paras 18-29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Joint Director's order dated 25.03.2017 upheld – Appellant directed to be given all consequential benefits of being senior within fifteen days.

Writ Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of interference - Petitioner accused in a Section 138 NI Act case challenged the Magistrate's order refusing to send the impugned cheque for a second forensic analysis - Petitioner contended the expert report was incomplete as handwriting was not examined alongside the signature - Magistrate noted the original direction was strictly to compare the disputed signature and upheld the scientific expert's report and qualifications - High Court observed that power under Article 227 is supervisory and to be exercised sparingly only in cases of manifest miscarriage of justice - High Court noted that the request to send the cheque repeatedly until a favourable report is obtained is totally unacceptable - Held - No grounds to interfere with the Magistrate's order - Original petition dismissed - [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Law - Expert Evidence - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Value of expert opinion - Cheque dishonoured and signature disputed - Forensic expert examined as PW8 explained methodology and findings - Magistrate accepted the report noting the expert's qualifications and that expert opinion is not substantive evidence but subject to overall analysis of facts - High Court affirmed the Magistrate's approach stating the credibility of the expert report was prima facie intact and the trial court correctly held that expert opinion is not substantive evidence - Held - Accusation against the petitioner is to be ultimately evaluated by the trial court in the backdrop of all facts and circumstances - [Paras 4-7].

Decision: Original petition dismissed – The order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate refusing to send the cheque for a second forensic analysis is upheld.

Labour Law - Strikes and Lockouts - Industrial Relations Code 2020 - Sections 44 53 62 and 63 - Maintainability of writ petition against private trade union - Petitioner company sought writ to quash strike notice and restrain respondent union from striking during pending conciliation proceedings - Petitioner contended that proposed strike violates Section 62 and is illegal under Section 63 of the Code - Respondent union argued that writ is not maintainable as it does not discharge public duties and is not State under Article 12 of the Constitution - High Court held that a writ petition against a recognized workers union to restrain a proposed strike is generally not maintainable as statutory obligations under the Code cannot be equated with a public duty or public function - High Court further held that a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal which has jurisdiction to adjudicate the illegality of a strike under Section 44 even during pending conciliation proceedings - Held - writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable - liberty reserved to petitioner to approach the competent Industrial Tribunal - [Paras 10-23 59-62].

Labour Law - Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal - Industrial Relations Code 2020 - Sections 44 53 and 62 - Aggrieved party approaching Tribunal during pending conciliation - Question whether Section 53 creates absolute bar on Tribunal jurisdiction during conciliation - High Court harmoniously construed provisions to hold that Tribunal is not powerless to grant limited appropriate relief for enforcement of statutory prohibition against strikes - Section 53 cannot be treated as a bar to adjudicating the legality of a strike proposed during conciliation - Held - notwithstanding pendency of conciliation aggrieved party can approach Industrial Tribunal for limited relief confined to the statutory question arising under Section 62 without adjudicating merits of substantive dispute - [Paras 44-57 61].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction - Industrial Relations Code 2020 - Section 97 - Bar of civil court jurisdiction - High Court noted that Section 97 expressly excludes jurisdiction of civil court in respect of matters to which provisions of Code apply and prohibits civil court from granting injunction - Held - petitioner cannot approach civil court seeking injunction in respect of proposed strike governed by Code - [Paras 38-40].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Relations Code 2020 seeking relief for alleged violation of Section 62(1)(d) – Time spent prosecuting this petition and period during which interim orders remained in operation shall stand excluded for reckoning periods prescribed under the Code.

Civil Law - Summary Suit - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXVII Rule 3 - Leave to Defend - Appeal against dismissal of application for leave to defend and consequent decree of suit for recovery of Rs 5800000 - Plaintiff filed summary suit based on a dishonoured cheque issued by the defendant towards repayment of financial assistance - Defendant admitted receipt of Rs 5000000 but claimed that Rs 3000000 was earnest money forfeited under an unperformed Agreement to Sell and the balance was an interest free loan largely repaid - Defendant further alleged that the cheque was a blank signed cheque misused by the plaintiff - Trial Court dismissed the leave to defend noting mutually inconsistent and contradictory stands taken by the defendant in the reply to the legal notice and the leave to defend application - High Court observed that the defendant failed to produce any Agreement to Sell or evidence of repayment and his own documents contradicted the claim of an interest free transaction - High Court concluded that the defence was entirely illusory a sham and moonshine - Held - No bona fide triable issues were disclosed by the defendant warranting grant of leave to defend - Impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court upheld - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1 to 73].

Banking Law - Misuse of Blank Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 5 and 6 - Blank Cheque - Defendant claimed the dishonoured cheque was given blank for payment of utility bills and misused by the plaintiff - High Court noted the explanation was wholly absurd given the plaintiff was the one extending financial assistance - Defendant took no steps to demand return of alleged blank cheques or issue stop payment instructions to the bank - High Court relied on Supreme Court precedent that a payee is entitled to fill in a voluntarily handed over signed blank cheque and such filling does not constitute material alteration - Held - Defence of misuse of blank cheque does not disclose a bona fide triable issue - [Paras 65 to 69].

Civil Law - Privity of Contract - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 43 - Joint liability - Defendant argued financial assistance was taken jointly by him and his wife - High Court held that the cheque was issued solely by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff - Law recognizes privity of contract and joint promisors can be compelled individually to perform the whole promise - Held - Plaintiff was fully entitled to proceed against the appellant alone for recovery of the entire amount - [Paras 50 to 51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The impugned Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2023 of the learned District Judge is upheld - Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 - Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a plot - Defendant relied on an agreement dated 11.01.2013 executed by plaintiff in the written statement - Plaintiff proceeded with trial and closed oral evidence without challenging the agreement - Subsequently plaintiff filed application seeking amendment to declare the agreement as illegal and void alleging omission by previous counsel - Trial court dismissed application holding trial had commenced and plaintiff had prior knowledge - High Court upheld dismissal observing no due diligence was shown as required by the statutory proviso - Held - Trial court correctly exercised jurisdiction as omission by previous counsel does not constitute due diligence and allowing amendment at belated stage would prejudice defendants by reopening the trial - Revision petition dismissed - [Paras 2-18 and 21-22].

Civil Law - Due Diligence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Interpretation of due diligence in the context of belated amendment of pleadings - Proviso mandates satisfaction of due diligence before allowing amendment after commencement of trial - Requirement of due diligence is jurisdictional not merely procedural - Negligence or omission by previous counsel cannot by itself constitute due diligence - Party itself must act with reasonable diligence - Plaintiff was fully conscious of the agreement from the inception of litigation via written statement but failed to seek amendment before commencement of evidence - Held - Lack of due diligence strikes at the jurisdiction of the court to exercise discretion after commencement of trial - [Paras 10-15 and 18].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall also stand disposed of.

Criminal Law - Illegal Gratification - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 7 13(1)(d) and 13(2) - Appellant functioning as Bench Clerk was convicted by Trial Court for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 500 to issue a warrant - Complainant alleged demand was made at 2 30 pm on the day of the trap and he immediately approached ACB - Investigating Officer conceded complainant approached ACB in the morning at 10 30 am contradicting the time of demand - Independent verification of demand was admittedly not conducted - Defense witness testified that complainant thrusted the money into appellant's pocket which remained unimpeached - High Court found the prosecution version improbalised by contradictory testimony and lacking the sine qua non of proof of demand - Held - Trial Court committed grave error in convicting based on surmises - impugned judgment quashed and appellant acquitted - [Paras 1-31].

Criminal Law - Statutory Presumption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 20 - Requisites for invoking presumption - Statutory presumption under Section 20 is not automatic and arises only once foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved - Prosecution failed to prove initial demand due to glaring inconsistencies in the time of lodging complaint and total absence of independent verification - Mere recovery of tainted currency notes having changed hands is not sufficient to presume acceptance pursuant to a demand of illegal gratification - Held - presumption under Section 20 has no application where the demand itself has not been proved - [Paras 19-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment and order dated 19th August 2003 stand quashed and set aside – Appellant stands acquitted of all charges – Fine amount deposited to be refunded and bail bond stands cancelled.