Arms Act, 1959 – S. 25 – licensed Punjab weapon carried ~100 yards into Chandigarh bus route while petitioner asleep – no conscious possession, mens rea, or proof of territorial breach – conviction set aside, acquittal ordered.

Arms Act – Section 25 – Licensed Weapon Carried Beyond Jurisdiction – Acquittal – Petitioner held valid Punjab license for .32 bore revolver and 16 live cartridges – boarded bus from Jalandhar to Mohali with ticket purchased for Phase 6 Mohali – fell asleep and bus entered ~100 yards into U.T. Chandigarh – Held: No conscious possession or intent to violate law; prosecution failed to prove wilful disobedience or territorial transgression; conviction unsustainable [Paras 11-16, 20-23].

Criminal Law – Mens Rea – Conscious Possession – Requirement – Courts emphasized that ‘possession’ under Section 25 Arms Act must be conscious and intentional – absence of mens rea or unlawful objective negates offence – Delhi High Court precedents (Sonam Chaudhary; Mohd Tarique Rehman) applied [Paras 17, 20-22].

Evidence – Failure of Prosecution – No Proof of Prior Information or Location – Alleged wireless tip-off not substantiated; no record or official notification showing naka was beyond Punjab boundary – Prosecution failed to establish essential elements of offence [Paras 13-15, 23].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and Appellate Court set aside – Petitioner acquitted of all charges [Para 24].

Arms Act, 1959 – S. 25 – licensed Punjab weapon carried ~100 yards into Chandigarh bus route while petitioner asleep – no conscious possession, mens rea, or proof of territorial breach – conviction set aside, acquittal ordered

Execution Proceedings – Obstruction by Judgment Debtor – Plea of Tenancy – Barred by Res Judicata/Estoppel – Appellant (4th defendant) claimed tenancy rights in execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC – Trial Court had earlier in O.S. No. 71/2012 held appellant was not a tenant – No appeal filed against that finding – Held: Appellant estopped from re-agitating plea – Executing court rightly dismissed obstruction petition [Paras 13-18, 26].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reiterated interference lies only if substantial question of law arises – Concurrent findings on facts that appellant was not a tenant, and decree-holders entitled to possession, do not warrant interference – No substantial question of law made out [Paras 9-12, 28-29].

Tenant vs. Owner – Legal Principle – Even assuming tenancy existed, tenant cannot claim ownership rights or resist landlord’s title – Tenant cannot dictate terms to owner – Doctrine well settled – Applied against appellant [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent findings of courts below affirmed – Pending applications closed – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 29-30].

Religious Rights – State-sponsored Hindu festival – Invitation to non-Hindu public figure upheld – No violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution – Writ Petitions dismissed.

Freedom of Religion – Participation of Non-Hindu in State-sponsored Dasara Festival – Petition challenging invitation to Muslim public figure to inaugurate Hindu festival dismissed – Held: No violation of Articles 25 and 26 as the event is organized by the State and not a religious denomination – Constitutional protections not offended [Paras 1, 5, 8–9, 15].

Constitutional Law – Articles 25 and 26 – No Fundamental Right Infringed – Petitioners failed to establish that they represented a religious denomination whose rights under Article 26(b) were infringed – Participation of respondent No.4 in inauguration does not impede any religious practice – State has right to invite any citizen irrespective of religion [Paras 5, 8–9, 11].

Religious Endowments – Applicability of Precedents – Cited Supreme Court rulings (Shirur Mutt, Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal, Venkataramana Devaru) found inapplicable – Petitioners lacked locus to claim religious injury or violation of agamic traditions – State function cannot be equated to temple administration or ritual exclusivity [Paras 10–14].

Secularism – Equality and Non-discrimination – State’s invitation to accomplished author and social activist upheld – Past precedence of non-Hindu invitees recognized – Invitation does not indicate participation in exclusive religious rites – Inclusive gesture by State does not breach constitutional or religious boundaries [Paras 4–6, 15].

Final Decision – No merit found in any of the writ petitions – No violation of constitutional or religious rights – Petitions dismissed [Para 16].

Recovery Suit – Negligence of Employee – Corporation Alleged Loss of Stocks and Excess Gunny Bags – Departmental Enquiry Established Liability – Trial Court Partly Decreed Suit – Lower Appellate Court Reversed on Ground of Limitation – In Second Appeal, High Court confined to issue of limitation [Paras 1-7, 11-15, 19].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Commencement from Date of Knowledge – Corporation acquired knowledge of excess bags in 1988 and shortage of wheat on 09.01.1989 – Suit filed on 16.07.1992 – Held barred by three-year limitation under Article 58 of Limitation Act – Plea that limitation starts from date of final determination of loss rejected [Paras 20-22].

Case Law – Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Court applied ratio in Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 779, reiterating that limitation begins when cause of action first accrues or from date of knowledge – Distinction between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” rejected – Suit beyond time barred under Section 3 of Limitation Act [Paras 23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of Lower Appellate Court upholding bar of limitation sustained – No infirmity or illegality found – Cross-objections and pending applications also disposed of [Paras 24-26].

Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act – Succession to Atiyat Grants – Power of Attorney not valid basis for succession – Impugned order appointing Mutawalli quashed – Matter remanded for fresh inquiry [Paras 22–28].

Atiyat Grant – Succession by Inheritance – Power of Attorney Not Sufficient – Collector’s Order Quashed – Respondent No.4 was declared successor to the Atiyat grant and entitled to possession of resumed land and auction proceeds – Petitioners contended that succession to Atiyat grants is hereditary and cannot be claimed on basis of power of attorney – Held: Atiyat succession must be determined by lawful inheritance under the Act; power of attorney loses effect upon death of executor – Appointment as Mutawalli cannot be made under the Atiyat Act – Impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh inquiry [Paras 8, 17, 22–28].

Personal Law Dispute – Role of Civil Court under Section 12(2) of the Act – Civil Court Decision Prevails – The Court reiterated that where succession, legitimacy, or other personal law questions arise, the Atiyat Court must refer parties to the Civil Court and act upon its final decision [Para 14].

Illegal Possession – Interim Relief – Disregard of Status Quo Order – Though interim relief granted earlier had lapsed briefly, possession taken by Respondent No.4 was improper considering pendency of writ petition since 2014 – Possession of land reverted to Government pending decision – Authorities permitted to auction land on Ek Sal Lavani basis [Paras 24–26].

Decision – Order of Additional Collector dated 07.03.2014 quashed – Matter remanded to Atiyat Court for fresh inquiry into rival succession claims – Status quo judgment stayed for 6 weeks to allow appeal to Supreme Court [Paras 27–34].

Criminal Law – Murder Trial Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld with Modification – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC for the murder of victim last seen with them on 30.10.2012 – Case rested on last-seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act – Defence challenged credibility of confession, reliability of witnesses, absence of motive, and lack of blood-group matching – High Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent with guilt, extra-judicial confession voluntary and corroborated, and recovery of weapons incriminating – Conviction sustained – Sentence modified granting set-off under Section 428 CrPC for period of detention undergone – Appeals dismissed [Paras 26-31, 32-47, 48-60, 68-89, 91].

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Victim last seen in company of appellants by independent witnesses – Dead body recovered next morning – Medical and forensic evidence corroborated prosecution – Chain complete and consistent with guilt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 32-47, 83-89].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Voluntariness and Corroboration – Accused confessed before villagers to killing victim – Confession corroborated by recovery and witness testimony – Distinguished cases where confession was weak, retracted, or inconsistent – Held reliable [Paras 48-60].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Offending Weapons and Motorcycles – Accused led police to recovery of blood-stained stone, broken glass, motorcycles – Forensic report confirmed human blood – Recovery held admissible and corroborative – Lack of blood-group testing not fatal [Paras 68-82].

Motive – Not Essential When Circumstantial Chain Complete – Prosecution failed to prove motive, but conviction valid – Motive unnecessary when guilt established beyond reasonable doubt [Para 85].

Principles – Circumstantial Evidence – Reiterated legal principles from Hanumant Govind Nargundkar, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, and Padala Veera Reddy – Minor inconsistencies in witness statements immaterial when overall chain intact [Paras 26-31, 86-87].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC sustained – Sentence modified to allow benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC – Connected applications also disposed of [Paras 89-91].

GST – Search and Seizure – Section 67 CGST Act – Delhi HC upholds July 2025 raids on Gumber family firms; validates “reasons to believe” but directs safeguards on CCTV privacy, lawful access, official communications, and adjudication of coercion allegations.

GST Search and Seizure – Section 67 CGST Act – Validity and Safeguards – Surprise search of Gumber family firms upheld; Court finds “reasons to believe” properly recorded – However, directs safeguards: CCTV footage from residence to be accessed only in presence of family; entry via tenant’s keys cautioned against; all communications to be official (email, not WhatsApp); allegations of coercion to be tested in adjudication – Petitions disposed with directions [Paras 21-23, 33-41].

Privacy and CCTV Seizure – Right to privacy of family members must be protected – Residential CCTV data to be viewed only in presence of family/representative; only relevant data may be copied, balance to be returned [Paras 34-36, 40(1)].

Access to Business Premises – Tenant’s keys used to enter premises – Court holds not unlawful in facts, but ordinarily access must be provided by investigated person; if denied, locks may be broken under Section 67(4) with reasons recorded [Paras 37-38, 40(2)].

Official Communications – Email/WhatsApp – All GST communications must be via official email with officer’s designation; WhatsApp only in exceptional emergencies; informal channels deprecated [Para 40(3)].

Alleged Coercion – Payments and refund withdrawals claimed under duress – Competing versions noted – Issue left to be examined in show cause/adjudication proceedings; refunds may be revived if petitioners succeed [Paras 12, 40(4)].

Precedents – R.J. Trading (Del HC, 2021), Santosh Kumar Gupta (Del HC, 2023), Deepak Khandelwal (Del HC 2023; SC 2024 dismissal of SLP), ITC Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (SC 2025) – Principles of “reasons to believe” and due process reiterated [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Searches valid and not contrary to law – Court issues systemic directions on privacy, lawful access, official communication, and adjudication safeguards – Petitions disposed with liberty to raise all issues in SCN/adjudication [Paras 39-45].

Civil Revision – Recording of Evidence at Residence – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Challenge Dismissed – Plaintiff, aged 84 years, sought recording of her evidence at home citing medical condition – Earlier similar application dismissed when health was stable – Fresh medical record showed supervised rest advised – Trial court allowed application under Order 10 CPC, appointed Local Commissioner – High Court held: Res judicata not rigidly applicable to interlocutory orders; change in circumstances justified order – Wrong provision cited immaterial when substantive power exists under CPC – Revision dismissed [Paras 1-3, 6-9, 11-12].

Res Judicata – Interlocutory Orders – Not Rigidly Applied – Earlier dismissal of application (31.05.2025) not bar to subsequent application where fresh medical record produced – Change of circumstances material for reconsideration [Para 6].

Wrong Citation of Provision – No Bar to Relief – Though application filed under Order 10 CPC, power to record evidence by commission flows from Order 18 Rules 16 & 19 and Order 26 Rule 1 CPC – Wrong mentioning of provision does not vitiate order if substantive power exists [Para 7].

Recording Evidence at Disputed Property – Not Improper – Plaintiff residing in disputed house – Mere pendency of dispute does not bar recording of evidence at that location – Local Commissioner as officer of court ensures decorum and impartiality [Para 8].

Affidavit in Chief – Already Filed – To be Tendered Before Commissioner – Plaintiff’s affidavit in examination-in-chief already on record; cross-examination to be conducted before Local Commissioner in presence of both parties – No prejudice caused to petitioner [Para 9].

Case Law – Cited Precedents Distinguished – Reliance on Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd. v. Harbans Lal (2010) 8 SCC 452 and Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuv (2013) 4 SCC 97 rejected as those cases dealt with immediate recording of evidence before trial commenced – Present case involved evidence stage after framing of issues [Para 10].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Trial court’s order upheld – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Seven eyewitnesses deposed that appellants 2, 3 & 4 restrained the deceased while appellant 1 stabbed his neck and chest – Medical evidence corroborated deep clean cut injuries – Court held appellants acted in concert with predetermined plan – Non-mention of Section 34 in trial court’s judgment held inadvertent error – Conviction sustained under Section 302/34 IPC [Paras 32–36, 47–51].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony and Minor Discrepancies – Minor contradictions regarding exact location (front/rear gate), number of persons present, or precise wound sites not fatal – Court reiterated principle that minor inconsistencies do not erode core prosecution case when multiple eyewitnesses inspire confidence – [Paras 37–42].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Though trial court did not base conviction on dying declaration, evidence of PW-6, PW-8 and PW-13 indicated deceased named appellants – Court held ocular testimony of eyewitnesses sufficient; motive not essential where direct evidence exists – [Paras 32, 38, 44].

Alibi Defence – Rejected – Appellants claimed absence from scene; Court held burden of strict proof not discharged – Presence established by credible eyewitnesses – Plea of alibi disbelieved [Paras 43].

FIR and GD Entry – Delay Explained – GD Entry at 8 p.m. followed by FIR at 11 p.m. – Court held delay not fatal where evidence consistent; absence of accused names in GD entry not decisive – FIR with names and subsequent chargesheet valid [Paras 46].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Life sentence and fine confirmed – No interference warranted [Paras 51–52].