Criminal Law – Murder – Dying Declaration – Victim named appellants Dilip Dey and Manoj Singh as shooters in statement recorded by police officer in presence of doctor and relatives – Statement corroborated by brothers of deceased (PWs 5 and 7) – Medical officer (PW9) confirmed victim was conscious – Objection to lack of medical certificate of mental fitness rejected – Court held dying declaration reliable and consistent with medical evidence [Paras 3, 6, 42–45, 49–53]

Criminal Law – Firearm Recovery – Weapon recovered on basis of disclosure by Manoj Singh under Section 27 Evidence Act – Seizure corroborated by police witnesses (PWs 20, 25) – Forensic expert (PW22) confirmed bullet retrieved from victim matched the recovered firearm – Held: Recovery legal and directly links appellant to the crime [Paras 34–36, 57–58]

Evidence – Hostile Witness – PW16 (friend of deceased) turned hostile but admitted being present, taking victim to hospital, and confirming victim’s consciousness – Statement of hostile witness corroborated by medical and family witnesses – Held: Partial reliability sufficient for corroboration of prosecution version [Paras 16, 28–30, 47–48]

Criminal Procedure – FIR based on Dying Declaration – Statement of victim formed basis of FIR – Recorded by police in presence of attending doctor and family members – FIR and injuries consistent with post-mortem report – Held: FIR valid, dying declaration admissible under Section 32 Evidence Act [Paras 49–51]

Forensic Evidence – Ballistics – Recovered firearm found to be in working condition – Expert confirmed bullet removed from body fired through same weapon – Court accepted ballistic report as conclusive link to accused [Paras 36, 57–58]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act affirmed – Sentence to run concurrently – Detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 CrPC [Paras 59–61]

Criminal Law – Misappropriation by Public Servants – Quashment – Petitioners, employees of BEVCO, were prosecuted for misappropriating foreign liquor stock worth ₹27,92,523 during 01.04.2018 to 30.07.2018 – Contended that remittance of the loss amount in accordance with BEVCO’s circular dated 20.12.2017 absolved them of criminal liability – Held: Circular subsequently set aside by Division Bench in WA No. 642/2025 – Repayment made after detection of shortage and without interest – Does not erase the offence or eliminate criminality – Quashment denied [Paras 3–12]

Intent – Shortage of Foreign Liquor Stock – Scale of shortage to the tune of ₹27.92 lakhs held to indicate intentional misappropriation and not mere clerical or operational lapse – Petitioners’ argument that discrepancies were common in BEVCO outlets due to delay in audit and voluminous work not accepted – Court held the magnitude points to deliberate acts requiring trial [Paras 10–12]

Effect of Repayment – Criminal Liability – Repayment of misappropriated amount after misappropriation complete – Criminal liability under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC not extinguished by post-facto repayment – Held: Criminal trial must proceed as remittance was not voluntary but consequence of detection [Paras 8–12]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Interim stay vacated – Criminal proceedings in CC No. 2/2024 to continue before Special Judge, Muvattupuzha

Banking Law - SARFAESI – Possession of Secured Asset – Tahsildar’s Competence – ARC filed writ petition challenging Ext. P10 order passed by the Tahsildar on the complaint that property unconnected with loan transaction was taken possession of under SARFAESI proceedings – Held: Tahsildar has no authority to interfere in matters already adjudicated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Such action amounts to overstepping jurisdiction [Paras 15–16]

SARFAESI – Review and Non-Impleadment – Ext. P10 order passed based on earlier writ direction where ARC was not impleaded – That writ judgment was reviewed and recalled (RP 1196/2019), and writ dismissed for suppression of material facts – Held: Ext. P10 is rendered non-operational to the extent it conflicts with judicial orders under SARFAESI and cannot survive post recall [Paras 8–10, 16]

Property Identification Dispute – Civil Suit Pending – Dispute between parties as to whether correct property was taken into possession under mortgage enforcement – Held: Dispute of identification is a civil matter pending before Civil Court in O.S. No. 1090/2019 – Trial court to independently adjudicate the dispute without being influenced by findings under SARFAESI [Paras 17–18]

Limited Quashment – Only that portion of Tahsildar’s order (Ext. P10) dealing with SARFAESI delivery proceedings set aside – Held: Tahsildar still empowered to act on allegations against Village Officer’s conduct under appropriate administrative powers, with notice to parties [Para 18]

Decision: Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Ext. P10 quashed only to the extent it interferes with orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 SARFAESI – Remaining issues left open for civil and administrative proceedings

Civil Writ - Disability Rights – Accessibility of Currency and Digital Banking – Public Interest Litigation – Petitioners sought directions for RBI and Union of India to withdraw inaccessible banknotes, redesign currency (esp. ₹50 note) with tactile/identification features, and ensure accessibility of coins, ATMs, digital platforms, and future e-rupee – High Powered Committee constituted by Court recommended phased replacement of inaccessible notes, improved tactile features, accessibility audits, standards for cards, cheques, and digital currency – RBI highlighted existing features, cost implications, long cycle of new series introduction, and ongoing efforts – Held: RBI and GoI must scrupulously monitor and implement Committee recommendations; mandatory six-monthly compliance reports to be obtained from banks – For new series of currency, concerns of visually impaired must be factored before introduction – Court cannot issue mandamus directing immediate redesign/withdrawal of existing currency as it is a policy matter – PILs disposed of with directions [Paras 8-12].

Currency Notes – ₹50 Denomination – Petitioners argued lack of identification features – Court noted RBI’s stand that redesign of notes is a long and costly process, done once in 8–10 years, and current notes already contain intaglio, bleed lines, size variations, colour features, and supported by MANI app – Withdrawal/redesign now would cause economic disruption – Direction issued to ensure High Powered Committee’s recommendations considered at time of next series design [Paras 9-10].

Digital Currency – e-Rupee – Committee and petitioners flagged accessibility concerns – RBI assured accessibility to be incorporated before final launch; pilot projects ongoing – Court accepted assurance, directed monitoring to ensure accessibility standards complied with [Paras 6, 8].

Judicial Review – Policy Domain – Court emphasized that issues of redesigning banknotes or issuing new series involve technical, financial, and security considerations within RBI/GoI policy-making – Judicial intervention limited – Court can direct monitoring and implementation of accessibility measures but not dictate immediate design changes [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – RBI directed to ensure scrupulous implementation of Committee recommendations and obtain six-monthly reports from banks – GoI and RBI directed to consider accessibility concerns of visually impaired persons before introducing new series of notes or digital currency [Paras 8-12].

Service Law – Notional Promotion – Delay in Issuance of Promotion Order – Grant of NFU – High Court sets aside Tribunal Order directing notional promotion with retrospective effect – Respondent promoted to the post of Deputy Director General only on 21.07.2016 despite DPC held on 22.01.2016 and vacancy arising on 01.04.2016 – Tribunal held delay unjustified and allowed notional promotion from 01.04.2016 – High Court disagrees – Held: Promotion becomes effective only upon assumption of duties, not from date of vacancy or DPC recommendation – No mala fide or arbitrariness found in administrative delay – Mere pendency of vacancy and DPC recommendation does not confer enforceable right to promotion from earlier date – Tribunal’s direction unsustainable [Paras 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 26-29, 39-41].

Administrative Delay – Priority to Earlier DPC Panel – Valid Justification – Officers recommended by Supplementary DPC for year 2015-16 were accorded priority – Delay in issuing promotion orders to 2016-17 panel including respondent was due to administrative practice – High Court holds such prioritization is not mala fide or unreasonable – No evidence produced to show that delay was intentional or designed to deprive respondent of NFU – Petitioners’ action not arbitrary [Paras 4, 14-15, 25, 30, 34, 37].

Promotion – Right to Be Considered vs. Right to Promotion – DPC Recommendation – No Vested Right – High Court reiterates settled law that promotion does not automatically follow recommendation by DPC – It becomes effective only from date of actual appointment and assumption of charge – Respondent retired before completing requisite one year in promotional post to qualify for NFU – Therefore, claim of retrospective notional promotion and NFU unsustainable [Paras 13, 29, 39].

Distinction from Earlier Precedents – Krishna Kumar Sinha & Others – Inapplicable – Bombay High Court case distinguished on facts – In that case, competent authority failed to process promotions despite available vacancies and DPC recommendations – Present case involved administrative sequencing based on policy – Hence, benefit of retrospective promotion not attracted – Parity cannot be claimed mechanically without establishing factual similarity [Paras 19-20, 30-32].

State’s Conduct – No Mala Fide Established – Delay Not Attributable to Ill-Will – High Court finds no evidence to suggest the delay in promotion was due to bias, negligence or mala fide action – Mere delay per se without adverse motive does not justify retrospective promotion – Principle that State cannot take advantage of its own wrong applies only where delay is culpable – Not applicable here [Paras 18, 25, 36, 38].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Tribunal’s Order dated 29.05.2024 quashed – No entitlement to notional promotion from 01.04.2016 – No financial or NFU benefits payable – Respondent’s claim rejected – No costs awarded [Paras 41-43].

Bail – Fraudulent Availment of Input Tax Credit under CGST Act – Compliance with BNSS – Bail Order Set Aside – Accused allegedly availed fraudulent ITC of ₹8.27 Cr and ₹8.26 Cr respectively – Petitioner challenged bail granted by CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, based on omission of Section 47 and 48 headings in Arrest Memo and Notice to Relatives – Held: Arresting authority substantially complied with BNSS mandates – Grounds of Arrest provided and acknowledged – Relative was served with arrest notice containing essential details – No demonstrable prejudice to accused – Bail order held legally unsustainable [Paras 3, 39–41, 49–50, 57–59, 61].

CGST Act – Section 132 Offence – Authorization to Arrest – Valid Arrest – Commissioner had “reasons to believe” based on prima facie material that accused fraudulently availed ineligible ITC – Arrest Authorization and Grounds of Arrest provided in writing – Offence cognizable and non-bailable – Arrest compliant with Section 132 and CBIC Guidelines dated 17.08.2022 – Admission of wrongdoing by accused noted – Held: Arrest justified [Paras 45–46, 49].

BNSS – Sections 47 and 48 – Compliance vs Technical Omission – Prejudice-Oriented Test Applied – Absence of headings in arrest and relative’s notices does not ipso facto vitiate arrest – Apex Court decisions in Vihaan Kumar and Sri Darshan reconciled – Prejudice test applied – Held: No failure of justice or denial of legal remedy – Arrest not illegal for want of headings when substance was disclosed [Paras 50–56].

Criminal Revision vs Bail Cancellation – Jurisdiction Distinguished – Petition filed to set aside bail order as perverse and illegal, not for cancellation based on post-bail conduct – Held: Courts can annul perverse or unsustainable bail orders under Section 528 BNSS – Judicial power properly invoked [Paras 33–35].

Judicial Review under Special Acts – Liberal Construction Discouraged – Court emphasized that liberal interpretation of procedural mandates under special fiscal statutes may undermine their purpose – Minor lapses not fatal where statutory safeguards are substantively met – Reiterated principles from Radhika Agarwal case [Paras 47–49].

Decision: Impugned order dated 07.06.2025 granting bail set aside – Bail bonds cancelled – Respondents at liberty to seek fresh bail before appropriate forum [Paras 63–65].

Tenancy Law - Civil Procedure – Partnership Dispute – Order 30 Rule 8 CPC – Eviction Petition – Respondents filed eviction petition against M/s Indian Furniture Store through alleged partner Satish Grover – Petitioner filed application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, contending that his appearance be treated as under protest and Court must first determine whether he was a partner – Rent Controller, instead of deciding the application, directed petitioner to disclose partnership details on affidavit – Held: Impermissible – Rule 8 CPC envisages preliminary adjudication – Person disputing partnership cannot be compelled to furnish details before Court determines his status as partner – Impugned order set aside [Paras 5-7].

Civil Revision – Rent Controller’s Jurisdiction – Rent Controller must first adjudicate application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC before proceeding with eviction petition – Only upon deciding petitioner’s status as partner can he be compelled to disclose partnership particulars – Impugned order contrary to the scheme of the Code – Civil revision allowed – Rent Controller directed to decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC in accordance with law [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 22.08.2025 set aside – Rent Controller directed to first decide application under Order 30 Rule 8 CPC and then proceed with eviction petition [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law – Dismissal for Default – Acquittal – Petitioner filed complaint under Sections 500, 195, 120B IPC against a developer alleging defamation and conspiracy – Complaint was dismissed for default on 22.07.2024 after petitioner failed to appear due to confusion in reading the next date as 07.08.2024 instead of 07.03.2024 from cause list – Application for restoration filed on 30.07.2024 was rejected by Magistrate on ground of lack of power to recall dismissal – Held: Magistrate rightly rejected restoration as he became functus officio – No provision in CrPC permits restoration after acquittal due to default [Paras 3–4, 10–16]

Acquittal – Consequences of Dismissal – Though Magistrate’s dismissal order did not expressly record “acquittal,” it amounts to deemed acquittal under Section 256 CrPC – Absence of appearance by complainant justified default dismissal – Complainant's remedy lies in appeal, not revision or restoration application – No illegality found in Magistrate’s refusal [Paras 13–16]

Inherent Powers – Scope under Section 482 CrPC / Article 227 – In view of specific remedy available under CrPC (appeal with leave), High Court’s inherent powers cannot be invoked for restoration – Held: Inherent powers are not to bypass express statutory scheme – Petition not maintainable [Paras 12–14]

Court’s Observations – Confusion arose due to mistaken entry of next date as 07.08.2024 in court records – Petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law – However, current revisional application dismissed as unsustainable [Paras 17–18]

Decision: Revisional Application Dismissed – No power of restoration after default dismissal under CrPC – Petitioner may pursue appropriate legal remedy

Land Acquisition – Due Process – Sections 3A, 3D & 3G(3) of National Highways Act – Gazette Notification issued in 2022 under Section 3A did not include all petitioners’ properties – Declaration under Section 3D dated 03.07.2024 and subsequent compensation proceedings initiated – Petitioners allege interference with possession without due acquisition – Held: Respondents directed to follow due process before acquisition – Acquisition without compliance violates Article 300-A [Paras 2–2.2, 9]

Constitutional Law – Article 300-A – Right to Property – Seven essential rights recognised by Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) 10 SCC 533 form core of Article 300-A – Includes rights to notice, hearing, reasoned decision, fair compensation, expeditious process, public purpose and conclusion – Held: Absence of these renders law vulnerable to challenge – These principles now part of administrative law jurisprudence [Paras 5–7]

Property Law – Completion of Acquisition – Mere compensation not sufficient – Possession of property is essential for valid acquisition – Court reiterates that unless physical possession is taken, acquisition remains incomplete [Para 8]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of with direction to follow due process of law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed.