Civil Law - Will – Proof and Suspicious Circumstances – Burden on Propounder – Deceased owner Buddhsen admittedly left behind wife and children as natural heirs – Defendant No.1 claimed title on the basis of Will dated 18.09.1985 – When Will excludes wife and children and bequeaths entire property to a non-relative belonging to a different caste, strong suspicious circumstances arise – Burden lies heavily on propounder to dispel such suspicion – Failure to satisfactorily explain exclusion of natural heirs renders Will doubtful and unenforceable [Paras 11, 15–21].

Will – Attestation and Evidence – Interested and Unreliable Witnesses – Though formal attestation sought to be proved under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, evidence of attesting witnesses revealed inconsistencies and unnatural conduct – Witnesses closely connected with defendant and having doubtful credibility – Circumstances surrounding execution and alleged registration before Notary found improbable – Held: Mere formal proof insufficient when execution surrounded by grave suspicion [Paras 11–14, 19].

Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of Natural Heirs – Will executed in favour of wealthy and influential person depriving poor testator’s wife and children of sole property – Reasons stated in Will found fabricated and unnatural – Testator owning no other property – Date gap between execution and verification of Will unexplained – Held: Suspicious circumstances not removed by propounder [Paras 16–21].

Letter Relied upon by Propounder – Fabrication – Letter dated 13.12.1985 (Ex.D-1) relied upon to justify Will – Typed document allegedly written by poor testator – Contents appeared self-serving and prepared to support Will – Held: Letter unreliable and confers no benefit on defendant [Para 15].

Mutation and Sale Deed – Effect – Mutation obtained on basis of doubtful Will – Subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 based on invalid title – Held: Mutation order and sale deed are null and void being derivative of invalid Will [Paras 2, 24].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title and Possession – Plaintiffs established themselves as legal heirs of deceased owner – Will not proved beyond suspicion – Trial Court rightly decreed suit declaring Will, mutation and sale deed null and void and directing restoration of possession – No perversity or legal infirmity found [Paras 24–25].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court affirmed – Will dated 18.09.1985, mutation and sale deed declared null and void – Plaintiffs entitled to possession.

Criminal Law – Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Power to Array Additional Accused – Degree of Satisfaction – Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and cannot be exercised mechanically – Degree of satisfaction required is the same as that required for framing of charge – Mere existence of some evidence is insufficient unless such evidence is strong and cogent – Held: Magistrate erred in summoning petitioner as additional accused without legally admissible material [Paras 4–6].

Evidence – Belated and Bald Allegations – Lack of Credibility – Petitioner not named in private complaint nor in original testimony of PW1 – After lapse of about nine years, PW1 gave additional statement implicating petitioner without disclosing source of knowledge or reasons for delay – Such belated allegations based on surmises and conjectures cannot form basis for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. [Paras 4–5].

Lok Ayukta Proceedings – Limited Scope – Lok Ayukta proceedings against petitioner related only to alleged grant of police protection – Proceedings ended on acceptance of unconditional apology – No finding of involvement in theft of trees – Held: Lok Ayukta order cannot be relied upon to infer criminal complicity in offence under Section 379 IPC [Para 5].

Further Investigation Report – No Incriminating Material – Further investigation by police indicated only that petitioner rendered police protection to first accused in connection with civil dispute – No material to suggest participation in theft – Held: Such material insufficient to arraign petitioner as co-accused [Para 5].

Public Servant – Requirement of Sanction – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Allegations against petitioner relate to acts purportedly done in discharge of official duties as Dy.S.P. – In absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., Magistrate could not have taken cognizance – Proceedings held vitiated for want of sanction [Para 6].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of Process – Continuation of proceedings against petitioner would amount to abuse of process of court – Ends of justice require quashing of proceedings – High Court justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction [Para 6].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioner/additional 8th accused in C.C. No.138/2005 quashed – Order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. set aside.

Right to Information Act – Supply of Information – Cryptic Order by Information Commission – Petitioner sought information through multiple RTI applications – Appeals dismissed by State Information Commission on ground that information sought was repetitive – High Court, on examination of Annexure-1 series, found that complete information had not been furnished to the petitioner – Held: Except information already supplied, remaining information sought under RTI applications ought to be provided – Impugned order held unsustainable to that extent [Paras 2, 5, 7].

Right to Information Act – Powers of Information Commission – Restriction on Filing RTI Applications – State Information Commission debarred petitioner from filing further RTI applications for one year and limited him to 12 applications per calendar year – Held: Such restriction has no sanction in law – Information Commission has no authority under the RTI Act to impose a blanket ban or numerical restriction on filing of RTI applications even if applicant is a frequent user of the Act – Restriction imposed held illegal and arbitrary [Paras 5, 7].

Judicial Review – Interference with Orders of Information Commission – Court found impugned order dated 13.09.2025 to be partly unsustainable – Held: Order liable to be set aside to the extent it restricts future RTI applications and denies balance information – Direction issued to concerned authority to supply remaining information as per RTI applications [Paras 7, 9].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Impugned order dated 13.09.2025 set aside to the extent it restricts petitioner from filing RTI applications and denies balance information – Opposite party No.2 directed to supply remaining information sought under Annexure-1 series – Urgent certified copy directed to be issued [Paras 8–10].

Education Law – Fee Regulation – Mid-course Enhancement of Fees – Self-financing Engineering Colleges – Students admitted for B.Tech. batch 2023–2027 challenged applicability of revised fee ceiling notification dated 16.10.2023 – Primary contention confined to applicability and not legality of notification – Challenge to notification itself abandoned [Paras 33].

AICTE Act, 1987 and Regulations, 1994 – Fee Fixation – Regulation 7 – Fee to be fixed by State Level Committee – Fees to be intimated in advance for entire course but payable year-wise or semester-wise – Fee structure subject to ceiling fixed by competent authority – Held: Fee structure not indivisible and may be revised subject to statutory framework [Paras 34–38, 45–46].

Prospectus – Contractual Nature – Reservation of Right to Revise Fees – Prospectus expressly stated that fee structure was subject to change as per Government decisions – Students admitted with notice of such condition – Held: Students bound by contractual terms voluntarily accepted at the time of admission [Paras 41, 50–51].

Government Notification – Power to Revise Fee Ceiling – Section 21, General Clauses Act – Power to issue notification includes power to amend or supersede earlier notifications – State competent to revise upper fee ceiling after seven years – Notification dated 16.10.2023 issued in supersession of earlier orders and effective from date of issuance [Paras 42–44].

Prospective vs. Retrospective Operation – Interpretation of “with effect from academic year 2023–2024” – Academic year comprising multiple semesters – Fee payable semester-wise – Implementation from second semester (January 2024) not retrospective – Enhancement held prospective and legally permissible [Paras 45, 48–49].

Expression “To be admitted” – Interpretation – Expression used to identify category of students and not to restrict applicability only to future admissions – Explicit stipulation regarding effective date prevails over ambiguous language – Intention of notification held clear [Paras 47, 49].

Judicial Precedents – Distinguishability – Shanker Doon case and Bindiya Khatri case held inapplicable – Rendered under different statutory frameworks with express statutory prohibitions on fee revision for existing students – No such bar under West Bengal regime [Paras 52–54].

Equitable Considerations – Financial Hardship – No Ground to Avoid Contractual or Statutory Obligations – Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to rewrite contract or negate Government-mandated fee revision [Paras 51].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Notification dated 16.10.2023 validly applicable to petitioners from academic year 2023–2024 – No arbitrariness or illegality found – Prayer for stay rejected [Paras 55–56].

Customs – Appeal to High Court – Section 130 Customs Act – Scope – Appeal lies only on substantial question of law – Concurrent findings of fact by Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT regarding Fe content of Iron Ore Fines exported – Questions raised by Revenue essentially factual in nature – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–3, 8.8–10, 11–12].

Export Duty – Iron Ore Fines – Determination of Fe Content – WMT vs DMT – Prior to Finance Act, 2022 – For exports made before 01.05.2022, Fe content for levy of export duty to be determined on Wet Metric Tonne basis including moisture – Reliance placed on Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal (SC) and consistent CESTAT decisions – Held: Assessment on WMT basis is correct and in accordance with settled law [Paras 7.1–8.7, 9–9.6].

Evidence – Test Reports – CRCL vs NABL Accredited Private Laboratory – Load Port Test Report – Transaction Value – Final invoice and Bank Realisation Certificate issued on basis of NABL Accredited Laboratory (SKM) test reports – Payments received accordingly – CRCL report based on delayed testing and DMT basis – Held: No perversity in preferring contemporaneous load port test report for determining Fe content and valuation [Paras 7.2–7.9, 9.1–9.2].

Customs Valuation – Section 14 Customs Act – Transaction Value – Value of export goods to be price actually paid or payable as per contract between exporter and foreign buyer – Customs authorities cannot alter contractual basis of valuation when no doubt exists regarding transaction value – Held: Load port test report forming basis of transaction value must prevail [Paras 7.5–7.9, 9.2].

CBIC Circulars – Interpretation – Circular No.12/2014-Cus and Circular No.04/2012-Cus – Circulars clarify assessment on WMT basis for export duty on Iron Ore Fines – Tribunal correctly applied circulars consistent with judicial precedents – No legal error demonstrated [Paras 8.7, 9.2].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent – Coordinate Bench Decisions – CESTAT followed consistent line of decisions on WMT basis and valuation – High Court declined to re-appreciate evidence or reopen settled position of law – Held: Judicial discipline mandates uniformity [Paras 8.8–8.11, 9.6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – CESTAT order dated 04.12.2024 upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 12–12.3].

POCSO Act – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Ingredients of Section 3 – Rubbing of Genitals – No Penetration – Conviction under Section 6 Set Aside – Prosecution evidence including FIR, Section 164 statement and testimony of victim and mother disclosed act of accused rubbing his body/penis against the child and attempting sexual act – No consistent or proved case of penile penetration into vagina as required under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 3 – Victim’s deposition in Court alleging penetration found to be an improvement over earlier statements – Held: Ingredients of penetrative sexual assault not established – Conviction under Sections 5(m)/6 unsustainable [Paras 33–35].

Sexual Assault on Child below 12 Years – Section 9(m) POCSO – Aggravated Sexual Assault Established – Victim aged about 9 years – Accused misused position of trust as a doctor – Evidence clearly proved sexual assault falling within Section 7 – Since victim below 12 years, offence squarely covered under Section 9(m) punishable under Section 10 – Conviction modified accordingly [Paras 37–38].

Medical Evidence – Proof of MLC – Examining Doctor Unavailable – Admissibility under Evidence Act – Doctor who examined victim not available and whereabouts unknown – MLC proved through another doctor acquainted with handwriting and signature – Held: MLC admissible under Section 32(2) read with Sections 47 and 67 of Evidence Act – Non-examination of original doctor not fatal to prosecution [Paras 16–21].

Contradictions and Omissions – Section 161 and 164 CrPC Statements – Mode of Proof – Alleged contradictions between testimony and prior statements – Defence failed to prove contradictions in manner prescribed under Section 145 Evidence Act read with Section 162 CrPC – Mere marking of confrontations insufficient – Held: Defence cannot derive benefit of unproved contradictions [Paras 27–32].

Forensic Evidence – Semen Stains – Limited Corroborative Value – FSL report showed semen stains on underwear – However, ocular evidence suggested assault was interrupted before completion – Absence of consistent prosecution case of ejaculation – FSL evidence not sufficient to elevate offence to penetrative sexual assault [Paras 36–37].

Sentencing – Modification – Principles Applied – Maximum punishment under Section 10 POCSO is seven years – Considering gravity of offence, age of victim, breach of trust by accused, sentence reduced from ten years to seven years rigorous imprisonment – Sentence under Section 342 IPC affirmed – Sentences to run concurrently [Paras 38–40].

Victim Compensation – Direction for Disbursement – Compensation awarded by trial court not disbursed – Delhi State Legal Services Authority directed to release compensation within stipulated time [Para 39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 6 POCSO set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO – Sentence modified to rigorous imprisonment for seven years – Conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC confirmed – Compensation to victim directed to be disbursed expeditiously.

Income-tax – Nil Withholding Certificate – Section 197 – Rule 28AA – Rejection of application – Mechanical approach by Assessing Officer – Assessing Officer rejected application solely on ground that determination of income at Section 197 stage is premature and tax must be deducted to protect revenue – Held: Such reasoning contrary to statutory mandate of Rule 28AA which requires consideration of estimated income, tax liability of previous four years, existing liabilities and advance tax – Non-consideration of mandatory parameters vitiates decision-making process [Paras 20–26, 30–32].

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – India–UK DTAA – Fees for Technical Services – Managerial services – “Make available” test – Petitioner providing routine managerial and administrative support services to Indian subsidiary on cost-to-cost basis – ITAT in petitioner’s own case for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 held such services not taxable as FTS under Article 13 – Held: Until set aside, Tribunal’s findings are binding on Revenue authorities [Paras 23, 26–28].

Judicial Discipline – Binding nature of appellate orders – Filing of appeal – Effect – Revenue contended that appeals against ITAT orders were pending – Held: Mere filing of appeal does not render appellate order inoperative – Authorities bound to follow decisions of higher appellate forums as per Kamlakshi Finance Corporation principle [Paras 26–28].

Administrative Law – Speaking order – Section 197 proceedings – Scope – Assessing Officer must record application of mind to statutory factors under Rule 28AA – Order stating that assessment is not possible and deduction is required to safeguard revenue does not meet statutory requirements – Non-application of mind renders order arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 21–22, 30–32].

Remand – Section 197 application – Although impugned order and certificate quashed for failure to follow Rule 28AA – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law – Direction to decide afresh within four weeks and without being influenced by pendency of appeals unless ITAT orders are set aside or varied [Paras 33–35].

Decision: Impugned order dated 09.06.2025 and certificate dated 30.07.2025 quashed – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication under Rule 28AA – Writ petition disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Dying Declaration – Acquittal – Accused convicted by Trial Court for murder of deceased by setting her ablaze after alleged quarrel arising out of illicit relationship – Prosecution case resting mainly on dying declaration and medical evidence – On appeal, High Court finds that there were no eyewitnesses and neighbours (PWs.1 to 3) did not support prosecution case regarding presence of accused at scene – Last seen theory not established – Motive of illicit relationship not proved by cogent evidence – Held: Chain of circumstantial evidence not complete and incapable of excluding other hypotheses – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 10–14, 29–32].

Evidence Act – Section 32 – Dying Declaration – Reliability and admissibility – Dying declaration recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector in hospital allegedly in presence of doctor – Doctor failed to certify mental and physical fitness of deceased in a satisfactory manner – No mention of vital parameters such as blood pressure, pulse rate or treatment administered – Duty doctor and case-sheets not produced – Deceased had suffered 80–85% burn injuries including face and lips – Mother and sister of deceased stated that deceased was not in a position to speak when they visited hospital – Held: Dying declaration not proved to be wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful – Cannot be sole basis for conviction [Paras 15–27].

Witness Testimony – Hostile witnesses – Neighbours as chance witnesses – PWs.2 and 3, neighbours of deceased, stated that they only heard cries and saw deceased with burn injuries – Categorically denied seeing accused at spot or running away from house – Prosecution version of last seen circumstance disbelieved – Evidence held insufficient to connect accused with crime [Paras 13–14].

Motive – Proof – Illicit relationship – Alleged motive based on illicit relationship between accused and deceased and objections by parents of accused – Neither parents of accused examined nor independent evidence led to establish motive – Held: Motive not proved and cannot by itself sustain conviction in absence of other reliable circumstances [Para 12].

Appeal – Criminal Appeal against conviction – Interference by High Court – Trial Court relied heavily on doubtful dying declaration and ignored material contradictions and omissions in prosecution evidence – Failure to scrutinize circumstantial evidence in strict legal standard – Held: Judgment of conviction and sentence liable to be set aside – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 28–32].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2018 and sentence dated 31.08.2018 set aside – Accused acquitted of offence under Section 302 IPC – Accused to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Order regarding disposal of properties maintained.

Service Law - Departmental Enquiry – Police Personnel – Allegation of Corruption – Reliance on Electronic Evidence – CD Not Proved – Non-Examination of Complainant – Violation of Natural Justice – Enquiry Vitiated – Departmental proceedings founded solely on alleged video CD purportedly showing acceptance of bribe – CD neither exhibited nor proved during enquiry – Complainant who allegedly recorded video not examined – Respondent not supplied CD nor given opportunity to rebut contents – Findings based on unproved and derivative material – Held: Enquiry suffers from foundational defects and violates principles of natural justice [Paras 36–40, 42].

Disciplinary Proceedings vis-à-vis Criminal Acquittal – Effect of Acquittal Based on Inadmissibility of Evidence – Criminal case and departmental enquiry founded on same CD – Criminal court held electronic record inadmissible for want of original device, Section 65-B certificate and authenticity – Acquittal affirmed by High Court – Though departmental proceedings not barred per se after acquittal, where acquittal is based on unreliability of foundational material, disciplinary authority must assess existence of independent evidence – No substantive material remaining once CD excluded – Charge unsustainable [Paras 41–42].

Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 – Rule 16(iii) – Scope and Limitations – Rule permits reliance on prior statements where witness cannot be procured without undue delay – Cannot be invoked to dispense with proof of primary incriminating material – Rule does not cure defect where very basis of charge is unproved – Reliance on Rule 16(iii) misplaced [Paras 39–40].

Standard of Proof in Departmental Enquiry – Preponderance of Probabilities – Limits – Though standard of proof is lower than criminal trial, material relied upon must still be legally admissible and put to delinquent officer – Findings cannot rest on material neither proved nor supplied – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute evidence even in departmental proceedings [Paras 37–38, 42].

Parity – Co-Delinquents – Relevance – Other officials allegedly involved in same incident either exonerated or granted relief by Tribunal – Allegations and evidence common – Selective sustainment of punishment against respondent without distinguishing material unjustified – Parity relevant though not determinative [Para 43].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Matters – Scope under Article 226 – Tribunal confined itself to examining existence of legally sustainable evidence and fairness of process – No re-appreciation of evidence as appellate authority – Interference justified where findings based on no evidence – High Court declined to interfere with Tribunal’s order [Paras 35, 45–46].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order of CAT dated 02.08.2016 upheld – Departmental proceedings and penalties quashed – No order as to costs.