Criminal Law — Murder — Common Intention — Section 34 IPC — Conviction Upheld — Appellants Raj Narain, Kamlesh and Rajendra Prasad came to the field armed with gun, lathi and spade on 09.06.1984 and forcibly diverted the deceased's water course — On being confronted, appellants 2 and 3 exhorted to kill, whereupon appellant 1 fired at the deceased causing his death — Trial court convicted appellant 1 under Section 302 IPC and appellants 2 and 3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment — High Court upholds conviction — Held: Prior conduct of arriving armed, exhortation at the time of incident and fleeing together thereafter conclusively establish common intention — Appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence confirmed [Paras 23, 37–39, 57–58].

Common Intention — Section 34 IPC — Scope and Application — Pre-arranged Plan — Exhortation as Evidence of Meeting of Minds — Section 34 IPC does not create a distinct offence but lays down the principle of constructive liability — Common intention need not be pre-planned from long before; it can be formed on the spot — Exhortation by appellants 2 and 3 to kill the deceased, coupled with their armed arrival and subsequent flight, constitutes sufficient proof of meeting of minds — Separate residence and absence of prior enmity are not grounds of acquittal once common intention is otherwise proved [Paras 30–38].

Ocular Evidence — Credibility — Eye Witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 — Cross-Examination Failed to Dislodge Testimony — P.W.1 (son of deceased) and P.W.2 (brother-in-law) are the principal eye witnesses whose testimonies were not shaken in cross-examination on any material aspect including presence of accused, manner of crime and exhortation — Presence of P.W.2 on spot corroborated by P.W.1 and P.W.4 — Cannot be discarded as chance witness [Paras 24–25].

Hostile Witness — P.W.4 — Evidentiary Value — P.W.4 (Kailash Narain) turned hostile but in cross-examination corroborated the time and place of incident, presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, and identified persons fleeing with a gun and lathi — Further evidence of appellant 2 procuring a false affidavit from P.W.4 to prevent testimony reflects consciousness of guilt — Statement of hostile witness relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act [Paras 27–29].

Medical Evidence — Conflict with Ocular Evidence — Two Injuries from Single Fire — Doctor opined both injuries could have been caused by single fire; opinion of two fires was merely on suggestion and unsubstantiated by evidence — Use of a self-loaded cartridge with non-standard wadding piece explains close-range charring — No irreconcilable conflict between medical and ocular evidence [Paras 26, 44–46].

Ante-Time FIR — 250 C.C. Semi-Digested Food — Contention that the deceased could not have been murdered at 08:00 AM as semi-digested food found in stomach implies he must have eaten much earlier — Held: In rural households, persons going to fields commonly take light food or liquid before leaving — FIR is not ante-time [Para 46].

Criminal Procedure — Section 313 CrPC — Statement Recorded on Old Proforma — Section 364 CrPC 1898 — Vitiating Effect — Statement of accused recorded on proforma prescribed under Section 364 CrPC 1898 though court's own order referred to Section 313 CrPC 1973 — Held: By virtue of Section 484(2)(b) CrPC 1973 and Section 8 of the General Clauses Act 1897, forms prescribed under the old code are deemed prescribed under the corresponding provision of the new code — Mere reference to wrong provision does not vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is shown — No prejudice demonstrated by appellants [Paras 49–52].

Investigation — Tainted Investigation — Non-Recovery of Gun — Defects in Investigation Not Fatal if Charge Otherwise Proved — Non-recovery of the gun and minor investigative lapses do not entitle the accused to acquittal if the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt by reliable ocular evidence [Para 48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed — Conviction of Kamlesh (appellant 2) and Rajendra Prasad (appellant 3) under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment confirmed — Appeal on behalf of Raj Narain (appellant 1) had already abated upon his death — Appellants 2 and 3 directed to surrender within two weeks before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Unauthorized Absenteeism – Removal from Service – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner-Senior Assistant remained absent from duty from 22.04.2014 without obtaining leave or intimating the management, accumulating loss of pay for 993 days as on the date of the Charge Memo dated 29.03.2017 under Rules 4(7) and 4(8) of the CDA Rules 2014 – Petitioner neither replied to the Charge Memo nor participated in inquiry proceedings held between 13.07.2017 and 27.07.2017, leading to an ex parte inquiry report – After providing opportunity to respond to the inquiry report, Appointing Authority by order dated 10.01.2018 imposed penalty of removal from service – Appellate Authority and Chairman-cum-Managing Director both upheld the penalty – Held: No violation of principles of natural justice established; Petitioner herself chose to remain absent and not cooperate with inquiry proceedings; all notices and charge memos were duly served; penalty commensurate with prolonged unauthorized absence [Paras 9–11, 16, 31].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Punishment Not Disproportionate – Prolonged Absence for Over Three Years – The petitioner, relying on various precedents, contended that the penalty of removal was disproportionate to the misconduct – Held: The doctrine of proportionality is attracted only when the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the court – Petitioner's unauthorized absence extended for more than three years without any valid justification, without provision of contemporaneous medical evidence, and without cooperation with inquiry proceedings – Punishment commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and not shockingly disproportionate – Following North-Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Ashappa, 2006(5) SCC 137 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, 2014(4) SCC 108, remaining absent for a long period cannot be treated as a minor misconduct [Paras 14, 28–29, 31].

Medical Ground – No Contemporaneous Evidence – Afterthought – Petitioner claimed prolonged ill-health on account of Polymenorrhagia, fibroid surgery, fissures, piles and anaemia as justification for absence – Held: Medical certificates were produced belatedly, the additional affidavit containing documentary evidence filed in March 2025 appeared to be an afterthought – Petitioner's illness was not of such serious nature as to warrant absence from duty for over three years without keeping the management informed – Petitioner failed to provide medical evidence during inquiry or prior to the Charge Memo [Paras 11, 23, 31].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No costs.

Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Binding Effect – Partition Property – Karta – Appeal dismissed confirming Trial Court decree – Appellant entered into agreement of sale dated 06.09.2006 with 1st and 2nd defendants and deceased Rangasamy for purchase of agricultural land, paying total advance of Rs. 32,00,000/- in instalments duly endorsed in the agreement – Trial Court decreed the suit only in respect of shares of the 1st and 2nd defendants and Rangasamy and dismissed it against shares of defendants 3 to 6 on the ground that they were not parties to the agreement and held independent shares under partition decree in O.S. No. 805 of 1992 – High Court affirms – Agreement of sale did not contain any recital that 1st defendant and Rangasamy signed as Kartas of their respective Joint Hindu Families, nor any recital of existing debts or family necessity justifying the agreement – Held: Agreement cannot be enforced against shares of defendants 3 to 6 [Paras 35-43].

Joint Hindu Family – Karta's Power – Post-Partition Property – Properties allotted to parties under partition decree in O.S. No. 805 of 1992 became their self-acquired/independent property – 1st defendant and Rangasamy signed the agreement in their individual capacity and not as Kartas – Defendants 3, 4 and 5 held separate and distinct shares allotted to them under the partition decree and the 5th defendant had an undivided ½ share in A Schedule property while 3rd and 4th defendants held undivided 1/3rd shares each in B Schedule property – Held: Once separate and distinct shares are allotted in a partition, such shares become acquired property and allottees have absolute rights over them; 1st defendant and Rangasamy cannot be deemed Kartas of their respective Joint Hindu Families – Dictum in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar and Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 877 applied [Paras 38-41].

Subsequent Purchasers – Lis Pendens – Even during pendency of the suit, defendants 3 to 6 sold the suit properties to defendants 10 to 13, who further sold to defendants 16 to 19 – No relief was sought in the plaint to declare these sale deeds null and void and no pleading that they are not binding on the plaintiff – Court declines to interfere with findings of Trial Court – Appeal dismissed – No costs [Paras 35-44].

Decision: Appeal suit dismissed – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court confirmed – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs.

POSH Act – Internal Complaints Committee – False Complaint – Instigator Named as "Unknown Source" – ICC Erred in Selective Omission – Complainant (Respondent No. 4) filed a sexual harassment complaint against the Petitioner on 29.11.2024 – Within weeks, she issued a retraction letter on 06.01.2025 specifically naming the Principal (Respondent No. 3) as having coerced and instigated her to sign a pre-prepared false complaint, on threat of dire consequences – ICC, relying on the retraction letter, closed the proceedings recording the complaint as malicious, but described the source of instigation as an "unknown source" instead of naming Respondent No. 3 – Held: ICC cannot selectively omit to name the source of instigation while relying on the very retraction letter that names him – Conclusion of ICC modified under Article 227 to record that Respondent No. 3 instigated Respondent No. 4 to file the false complaint [Paras 16, 20-21].

POSH Act – Section 18 – Right of Appeal – Maintainability – "Person Aggrieved" – Industrial Tribunal dismissed appeal as not maintainable holding that the Petitioner suffered no direct injury and that the retraction statement could not be relied upon to establish malicious intent without a substantive inquiry – Held: It is not necessary for a person aggrieved by recommendations of the ICC to show direct injury; the Petitioner has a statutory right to appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act – The retraction statement's unverified nature cannot, by itself, be a ground to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable – Order of Tribunal quashed [Paras 17-19].

Section 14, POSH Act – Scope of Punishment for False or Malicious Complaint – Limited to the Complainant – Petitioner sought disciplinary action against Respondent No. 3 (Principal/instigator) under Section 14 – Held: Section 14 empowers the ICC to recommend action only against the woman or person who made the complaint under Section 9 – The POSH Act does not contemplate punishment for a person who instigated the complainant – Respondent No. 3 is neither the aggrieved woman nor the complainant – Prayer for action against Respondent No. 3 under Section 14 rejected – However, Petitioner at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against Respondent No. 3 before an appropriate forum [Paras 25-26, 29].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Correction Without Remand – Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error in failing to address the Petitioner's limited grievance regarding omission of Respondent No. 3's name – Held: Remanding the matter to the Tribunal would be an exercise in futility; this Court is well-equipped under Article 227 to correct the error in the Inquiry Report directly – Conclusion of the ICC modified accordingly [Para 20-21].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Rule made partly absolute – Order of Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court dated 26.11.2025 in Appeal No. SH-01/2025 quashed and set aside – Conclusion of ICC Inquiry Report dated 10.01.2025 modified to read that Respondent No. 3 instigated Respondent No. 4 to file a false sexual harassment case against the Petitioner – Prayer for disciplinary action against Respondent No. 3 under the POSH Act rejected – Petitioner at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against Respondent No. 3 before an appropriate forum.

Hindu Succession – Intestate Succession of Female Hindu – Section 15 HSA – Plaintiff's Entitlement – Interim Relief Refused – Plaintiff-brother filed administration suit claiming sole heirship of his deceased sister who died intestate, contending that the gift deed and Will executed by her were void – Defendant No.1 appointed Executrix under Will dated 10.04.2023, and probate obtained on 07.03.2026 – Held: Under Section 15(1) of the HSA, property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolves first upon sons, daughters and husband, secondly upon heirs of the husband, thirdly upon mother and father, fourthly upon heirs of the father, and lastly upon heirs of the mother – Since deceased had no children, her husband pre-deceased her, but her husband's sister Mrs. Shridevi Ruparel survived, the latter falls in entry 'b' (heirs of husband) under Section 15(1) and, by virtue of Section 16, excludes the plaintiff who falls in entry 'd' (heirs of father) – Plaintiff therefore has no entitlement to the estate of the deceased under intestate succession [Paras 57–69].

Constitutionality of Section 15(1) HSA – Single Judge Finding Not Binding – The plaintiff relied upon Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa (2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1685) wherein a Single Judge declared Section 15(1) unconstitutional – Held: The Single Judge had directed that the issue of constitutionality be referred to the Division Bench; the Division Bench declined to decide the constitutional question on the ground that it was unnecessary on the facts of that case and gave no finding of unconstitutionality – Section 15(1) has not been declared unconstitutional and continues to be applied by the Supreme Court – Law Commission's 207th Report recommending modification of Section 15 has not been legislatively implemented and cannot carry the plaintiff's case further [Paras 62–71].

Probate – Effect on Interim Relief – Probate as Authenticated Evidence of Will – Defendant No.1 obtained probate of the Will dated 10.04.2023 on 07.03.2026 – Plaintiff failed to file a caveat in the probate proceedings, which amounts to an admission of absence of caveatable interest – By virtue of the probate, the property of the deceased vested in Defendant No.1 from the date of the deceased's death – Unless and until the probate is revoked, interim reliefs in the administration suit cannot be granted – Plaintiff's petition for revocation of probate to be decided by the Testamentary Court on its own merits [Paras 77–79].

Interim Relief – Prima Facie Case – Maintainability – Principles Reiterated – Following Asma Lateef and Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad and Ors. (2024) 4 SCC 696, a court hearing an interim application must record at least a prima facie satisfaction on maintainability before granting relief – Where, at the interim stage, the plaintiff fails to establish even prima facie interest in the estate of the deceased, interim reliefs are liable to be refused [Paras 82–85].

Decision: Interim Application (L) No.26854 of 2025 rejected – No order as to costs.

"No Caste No Religion" Certificate – Writ of Mandamus – Disposal of Pending Application – Petitioner, described as an eminent actor and film maker professing no religion or caste affiliation, submitted an application on 20.03.2026 to the Tahsildar, Velachery for issuance of a "No Caste No Religion" Certificate – Application transferred to the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur on jurisdictional grounds under Na.Ka. No.A1/626/2026 dated 23.03.2026 – Application not considered till date – Petitioner invoked the precedent of the Division Bench order dated 10.06.2025 in W.A. No. 401 of 2025 directing issuance of such certificate within one month – Government Advocate submitted that a similar certificate was already issued by the Tahsildar, Tirupattur on 05.02.2019 and undertook to pass an appropriate order by 29.04.2026 – Held: Direction issued to the 3rd Respondent to issue "No Caste No Religion" Certificate to the petitioner on or before 29.04.2026, in terms of the Division Bench order in W.A. No. 401 of 2025 – Matter listed for reporting compliance on 29.04.2026 – Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs [Paras 3–6].

GST – Cancellation of Registration – Section 29(2)(a) CGST Act – Input Tax Credit – Fake Invoices – Physical Movement of Goods – Appellant, a proprietorship firm, availed ITC of approximately Rs. 18,62,11,749/- on purchases of goods – During inspection, business premises found insufficient for transactions of such magnitude – Show cause notice issued for non-proof of actual movement of goods – Appellant produced only e-way bill printouts and claimed goods were transported by tricycle/motorcycle – Held: Mere production of e-way bills is not proof of real physical transportation of goods – Proof of freight charges, loading and unloading charges, lorry receipts and way bills necessary to establish physical movement under Section 16(2)(b) – Having failed to produce such documents, cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(a) upheld [Paras 3-5].

GST – Co-location of Premises – Mere Shared Premises Not Sufficient Ground for Cancellation – Appellant contended that sharing premises with M/s Gaurav Metal (a distinct entity which had surrendered GST after dissolving partnership) cannot by itself justify cancellation, absent evidence of overlapping operations, intermingling of stock or common financial nexus – Held: While co-location alone may be insufficient, in the present case cancellation is justified on independent and substantive ground of failure to establish physical movement of goods supporting ITC claims – Constitution guarantees only genuine and honest trade, not illegal and fake trade intended to defraud revenue [Paras 2, 4].

GST – Section 86A – Action Against Fake Suppliers – Consequential proceedings under Section 86A for blocking ITC and action under Section 74 initiated against the suppliers as well – Allegation that no action taken against suppliers found factually incorrect – Appellant's challenge on that score rejected [Para 4].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Appellant attempted to canvass questions of fact in writ jurisdiction which had been held against it concurrently by both first and second respondents – Held: Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition after examining records – Division Bench affirms the order [Para 5].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of cancellation of GST registration affirmed – No costs.

Customs Law – Export Incentives – RoDTEP Scheme – Sugar Exports – Denial of Benefit – Petitioners engaged in export of white refined sugar (ITC(HS) Code 17011490) availed duty credit under RoDTEP Scheme – Export policy of sugar amended from "free" to "restricted" by Notification No. 10/2015-20 dated 24 May 2022, with exports permitted under specific permission of Directorate of Sugar – Revenue denied RoDTEP benefit treating such exports as ineligible "restricted" exports under Notification No. 76/2021-Customs (N.T.) – Held: Sugar exported with specific permission under prescribed conditions cannot be treated as a totally restricted or prohibited item so as to deprive petitioners of RoDTEP benefits – Petitioners entitled to duty credit under the Scheme [Paras 3-4, 9, 22].

Export Policy – Restricted vs. Prohibited Exports – RoDTEP Ineligibility – Item No. 1 of Table 1 to Notification No. 76/2021 excludes from RoDTEP duty credit goods "restricted or prohibited for export" – Revenue contended that sugar, post-Notification dated 24 May 2022, became blanketly ineligible – Held: The said notification does not impose a total embargo; it permits export with specific permission and prescribed quota – Characterising quota-permitted exports as "restricted/prohibited" is a misreading of the notification – Revenue's position contrary to the policy conditions set out in the notification itself [Paras 19-22].

Precedent – Finality of High Court Decision – Uniform Policy – Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. and M/s. Satyendra Packaging Ltd. held that RoDTEP benefit cannot be denied to sugar exporters acting under specific Government permission – Department's SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on 26 April 2024 – Department's own communications accepted finality of the Gujarat High Court orders and proceeded to grant benefit to those petitioners – Held: Once an issue has attained finality in view of an authoritative pronouncement by a High Court, the department ought not to re-agitate the same before other High Courts; doing so invites conflicting interpretations and judicial chaos – Principle of inter-High Court comity and uniform policy on Central legislation affirmed following Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd. and Jayantilal Ramanlal & Co. [Paras 23-25].

Relief – Refund with Interest – Petitioners who were not granted RoDTEP benefit directed to be granted the same – Where benefit was already granted but subsequently recovered from petitioners, refund of amount so recovered directed within four weeks along with interest at 6% per annum – No coercive recovery action to be taken where benefit has been granted [Paras 26-27, Order clauses (i)-(iv)].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Petitioners held entitled to RoDTEP benefit – Respondents directed to grant rebate under the Scheme to petitioners who exported sugar under specific permission – Petitioners from whom benefit was recovered directed to be refunded with 6% p.a. interest within four weeks – No coercive action for recovery to be taken – Rule made absolute. No costs.

Civil Law – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Substantial Question of Law – Appellant/plaintiff challenged concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court dismissing his suit for declaration of ownership and injunction over suit land comprised in Khasra Nos. 76 and 77, Village Bamta, Bilaspur – Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1, in collusion with revenue authorities, got Mutation No. 287 attested in her name for 0-1 bigha of land wrongly carved out of plaintiff's land, and thereafter illegally sold the same to Defendant No. 2 vide sale deed dated 29.01.2001 – Both Courts below found that plaintiff failed to adduce concrete evidence establishing that the area sold to Defendant No. 2 formed part of Khasra Nos. 76 and 77 – Held: All points raised in the second appeal are purely questions of fact; no substantial question of law is involved; no perversity demonstrated in the impugned judgments – Appeal dismissed [Paras 26–35].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Limits of High Court's Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, can interfere with findings of fact only on limited grounds viz. finding based on inadmissible evidence, ignorance of relevant admissible evidence, misreading of evidence, or perversity – A pure finding of fact is not open to challenge in second appeal even if appreciation of evidence is palpably erroneous – First appellate court is the final court of fact – Held: Concurrent findings by Courts below do not warrant interference in absence of any of the recognised exceptional grounds [Paras 30–35].

Substantial Question of Law – Tests and Principles – A question of law becomes a substantial question of law if it is debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and has a material bearing on the decision of the case – There must be a foundation for the question laid in the pleadings, and it must emerge from sustainable findings of fact – An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter – Held: No substantial question of law arose in the instant appeal; appellant failed to discharge the sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC [Paras 31–35].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed — Judgments and decrees of the trial court dated 06.12.2007 and of the first appellate court dated 24.12.2024 affirmed — Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.