(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.45— Constitution of India , Art.20(3), Art.21— Narco analysis test - Acceptance of submission of police to carry out test - Challenge against - Under no circumstances, involuntary or forced narco-analysis test is permissible under law - Consequently, report of such involuntary test or information that is discovered subsequently is also not per se admissible as evidence in criminal or other proceedings - Submission and its acceptance regarding conduction of narco analysis test was in direct contravention of judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 1974 being hit by protections under Arts. 20(3) and 21 - Moreso, such submission was accepted while adjudicating bail application which was impermissible - While need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at cost of constitutional guarantees under Arts. 20(3) and 21 - Held, High Court erred in accepting a submission made by Investigating Officer to carry out a narco-analysis test of all accused persons during hearing of bail application .

AIROnline 2023 Pat 974-ReversedAIR 2010 SC 1974-Followed(Paras9101112)

(Para 9 10 11 12)

(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.45, S.27— Narco analysis test - Reports of voluntary narco-analysis tests cannot be admitted directly into evidence -Information that is discovered, as consequence thereof, can be admitted with aid of S. 27 of Evidence Act - Report of voluntary narco analysis test with adequate safeguards as well in place, or information found as result thereof, cannot form sole basis of conviction of accused person.

AIR 2025 SC 845-FollowedAIR 2023 SC 3857-Followed(Para14)

(Para 14)

(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.45— Narco analysis test - Right to voluntarily undergo - Stage explained.

AIROnline 2023 Pat 974-ReversedAIR 2010 SC 1974-Followed

Constitution of India , Art.226— Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act (1 of 1972) , S.8(4)— Writ petition - Alternative remedy - Application of petitioner alleging unauthorised occupation and violation of provisions of Act was filed which was rejected - Against the order the appeal has been provided u/S. 8(4) - Notwithstanding nature of order would be to prefer statutory appeal before Board of Revenue, which was not done - Writ petition was closed with liberty to petitioner to approach Appellate authority.

(Para 7 8 9)

Railways Act (24 of 1989) , S.66, S.73, S.74— Misdeclaration of goods - Imposition of charges for - Legality of - Demand notices issued by Indian Railways for alleged misdeclaration of goods were challenged as being illegal in view of Ss. 73 and 74 of the Railways Act, having been issued after delivery of goods - S.73 was not applicable since charges were not imposed for overloading of goods - S.66 which deals with misdeclaration, was applicable- S.66 does not specify any stage at which such a charge can be made - Order of High Court upholding Tribunal's order holding that charges must be raised before delivery, was set aside.

AIR 1998 SC 1959-Distinguished and explainedAIR 2022 GAU 140-ReversedAIR 2022 GAU 140-ReversedAIR 2022 GAU 140-ReversedAIR 2022 GAU 140-Reversed(Paras14161720)

(Para 14 16 17 20)

Constitution of India , Art.226— Alternative remedy - Petitioner was aggrieved by orders pertaining to service matter - Petitioner wanted to raise his grievances before Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal - As disputes raised in writ petition can be effectively adjudicated by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, with consent of both parties, complete record along with writ petition, after retaining copies thereof, was transmitted to Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal for hearing writ petition as claim petition in accordance with law.

(Para 5)

Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) , S.25O, S.39— Closure of industrial units - Deemed closure - Applicability of provision for - Application for closure was addressed to competent authority - Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Labour responded through letters that no sufficient reasons were provided for closure by appellant and asked to resubmit their application - Authority to ask appellant to revise and resubmit application for closure vested with the minister and not the Deputy Secretary - There was nothing on record to show independent application of mind by minister and sub-delegation was not permitted by law - Communication made by Deputy Secretary was without legal sanction - In facts of case, appellant had pointed out that there was no opportunity or avenue for production - Application for closure was complete in all respects - On completion of period of sixty days mentioned in S 25-O(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, deemed closure would take effect - High Court erred in holding that establishments of appellants were not deemed to be closed on expiration of period of 60 days from date of submission of closure applications.

AIROnline 2023 BOM 2709-ReversedAIROnline 2023 BOM 2709-Reversed(Paras161718202122)

(Para 16 17 18 20 21 22)