Brief Facts: Petitioners were charged under the NDPS Act for involvement in drug trafficking and were seeking bail (Para 1-3). Allegedly caught with significant quantities of drugs based on secret information, they have been in custody since 04.05.2020, and their trial has made slow progress (Para 3).

Issues: Whether the petitioners can be granted bail based on the circumstances of their case (Para 2, 4).

Held: The Court granted bail to the petitioners (Para 9), citing precedents where bail was granted due to extended pre-trial detention and slow trial progress (Para 6,7). The Court took into account that the accused are first-time offenders, and only a fraction of the prosecution witnesses have been examined thus far (Para 8).

Observation of the Court: The petitioners are entitled to the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Para 8). The Court allowed bail without commenting on the merits of the case, imposing conditions such as monthly police station visits, a declaration of non-involvement in other crimes, and the deposit of a fixed amount with the trial court (Para 9-11).

Service Law - Jurisdiction - Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Writ Petition NO.9407 of 2023 - The petitioner challenges the dismissal of his Original Application (O.A.) by the CAT on grounds of lack of jurisdiction (Para 2).

Deputation - Effect on Employment - The petitioner's appointment as a Registrar with the Armed Forces Tribunal was on deputation for a specific period - Court emphasizes the continuity of the petitioner's employment with the armed forces despite deputation (Para 18).

Previous Decisions - Distinguishing Precedents - Reference to Supreme Court's ruling in Lieutenant Colonel Vijaynath Jha case and Tribunal's decision in Lt. Co. R.K. Purohit case - Explanation of why these precedents did not aid the petitioner's position on jurisdiction (Para 16).

Conclusion - Merit of the Petition - Summary rejection of the writ petition on the basis of the Court's finding that the CAT's decision on jurisdiction was correct (Para 19).

FACTS: The petitioner, M/S. Masturlal (Pvt.) Ltd., was accused of failing to furnish required statistical data to the respondent, violating Section 15(1) of the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008. In a previous proceeding (C.C.No.22683/2012), the petitioner pleaded guilty, paid a fine, and the case was closed.

ISSUE: Whether the second proceeding under Section 15(2) of the Act for non-furnishing of data amounts to double jeopardy.

HELD: The Court rejected the contention of double jeopardy, stating that Section 15(2) of the Act operates separately from Section 15(1). The Act’s imperative need for statistical data for economic policy-making and international compliances was emphasized. The court upheld the validity of the second proceeding and directed its timely conclusion.

(Para No. 9 – 17)

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under NDPS Act – Non-compliance with legal provisions and guidelines – Doubts about the place of recovery – Non-examination of independent seizure witnesses – Prejudice caused to the appellant’s defense.

Section 42(2) of NDPS Act – Compliance – Obligation to report information received and send a copy to superior official – Special circumstances for postponement of compliance – Delay without satisfactory explanation.

Standing Order 1/88 – Compliance – Sampling, sealing, and dispatching seized samples to the laboratory – Obligation of adherence to guidelines – Non-compliance affecting prosecution’s case.

Place of Recovery – Doubtfulness – Lack of corroboration from independent evidence – Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ statements – Credibility and accuracy of place of recovery questioned.

Non-examination of Independent Seizure Witnesses – Serious prejudice caused to appellant’s defense – Inconsistencies in testimonies – Importance of independent witnesses’ presence and examination.

Conviction Not Sustainable – Failure to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Flaws in prosecution’s evidence and procedures – Appeal allowed – Appellant to be released from custody.

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction - Framing of Additional Charge - Accused charged under Sections 302, 498-A, 120-B of IPC - Prosecution alleges abetment of suicide - Additional charge framed under Section 306 IPC - Challenge to the framing of the additional charge. (Para No. 1, 4, 5, and 8)

Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Power to alter or add charges - Section 216 of Cr.P.C. - Additional charge framed at any stage before judgment is pronounced - Examination of evidence to ascertain if charge is supported by facts on record. (Para No. 19, 20, and 22)

Conviction for an offense not explicitly charged - Sections 222 and 464 of Cr.P.C. - Accused charged with different offenses including Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC - Conviction for an offense not specifically charged permissible if evidence supports it - Failure of justice to be considered before conviction not expressly charged. (Para No. 20, 22, and 23)

Evidence Supporting Charge - Abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC - Evidence indicating victim's ill-treatment and suspicious death - Accused's defense of victim's suicide - Framing of additional charge under Section 306 justified. (Para No. 19, 20, and 24)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 9 – Injunction – Mandatory Injunction – Withholding of documents and exercise of lien – Consignor’s liability for payment of charges to port authorities – Locus standi of the plaintiff consignor – Demurrage charges – Absence of a general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Inter-se rights and liabilities of parties in contract – Prima facie liability of defendant no.3 – Grant of mandatory injunction. (Para 78)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 39 – Mandatory Injunction – Withholding of documents and exercise of lien – Release of consignment – Demurrage charges – Prima facie liability of defendant no.3 – Grant of mandatory injunction in favor of plaintiff – Restraining defendant no.3 from obstructing release of consignment at port of discharge. (Para 95)

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 171 – Lien – Withholding of documents and exercise of lien – Absence of general lien – Specific categories with statutory right of lien – Lien can be exercised only with express contract. (Para 86)

Liability of Consignor – Bills of Lading – Responsibility for payment of charges to port authorities – Endorsed bill of lading in favor of consignee – Consignor not absolved of liability – Privity of contract between consignor and consignee. (Para 83)

Inter-se Rights and Liabilities – Privity of contract – Liabilities between parties in contract – non-transferability of appellant’s claim to other parties. (Para 91)

Release of Goods – Exercising lien in respect of charges referable to goods – Withholding of documents – Impermissibility under law – Mandatory injunction to release consignment - defendant no.3’s actions of withholding the requisite documents/bills of lading and exercising “lien” were impermissible under the law, and it warranted a mandatory injunction to protect the plaintiff’s interests. (Para 94).

Demurrage Charges – Liability – Prima facie liability on defendant no.3 for demurrage incurred – Plaintiff directed to bear demurrage charges in interest of early release of goods.- Suit Allowed .(Para 97)

Contempt of Court - Suo Motu Cognizance - Jurisdiction of High Court - Interpretation of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 10, and Proviso to Section 10 - Scope of Article 215 of the Constitution of India - Court's authority to punish for contempt of itself and its subordinate courts - Jurisdiction to take action against contempt of court - Distinction between IPC offenses and Contempt of Court - Exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by the High Court. (Para 9-12)

Procedural Safeguards - Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings - Requirements for initiating suo motu proceedings - Source of information - Discretion of the High Court to refuse or entertain petitions by private persons - Role of the Advocate-General - Advice and assistance in contempt matters - Application of procedural safeguards to avoid frivolous complaints. (Para 19-20)

Evidence and Proof - Standard of Proof in Contempt Proceedings - Stringent proof required in contempt proceedings against advocates - Examination of reports, judicial orders, video footage, circulars, and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. - No direct evidence linking damage to courtrooms with advocates' protest - Absence of substantial evidence to establish obstruction of justice, manhandling, or destruction of property. (Para 33)

Long-pending Proceedings - Delay in Contempt Proceedings - Proceedings pending for an extended period - Alleged contemnors expressing remorse and respect for the judiciary - Discharge of show-cause notices issued to alleged contemnors. (Para 34)

Right to Express Criticism - Freedom of Expression - Citizens' right to criticize court judgments - Limitations on imputing motives to judges, questioning their integrity, or casting doubts on their competence - Court's reluctance to invoke contempt laws for personal attacks, but concern for concerted assaults by groups affiliated with substantial support. (Para 29)

Disposal of Proceedings - Discharge of Show-Cause Notices - Conclusion of contempt proceedings - Discharge of show-cause notices issued to alleged contemnors - Disposal of both criminal contempt proceedings. (Para 36)

Appointment of Nambardar (Para 6 & 7): The prerogative of the District Collector. Such an appointment should not be disturbed unless a gross irregularity or error is established. 

Referenced: Sukhjinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2016(2) L.A.R. 447.

Age (Para 8): A relevant factor in the appointment of Nambardar. 

Referenced: Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others, 2009(1) L.A.R. 571.

Land Ownership (Para 9): While an important consideration, land ownership cannot be the sole ground for rejection or selection. The Collector’s discretion in assessing overall merit and suitability of a candidate for Nambardar is paramount.

The court, after deliberation, found no merit in the petitioner’s claims (Para 9) and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding Harmesh Lal’s appointment as Nambardar.

Appointment of Lambardar - Petitioner's challenge to multiple orders and decisions - Eligibility dispute - COVID-19 pandemic impact on application process - Alleged undue influence - Dismissal of earlier Lambardar - Fresh procedure initiated - Orders of Collector, Divisional Commissioner, and Revisional Authority upheld - Quashing of decisions sought by petitioner - Application of proper procedures and factual considerations - Reinitiation of appointment process deemed justified - Appeals dismissed.