Habeas Corpus – Missing Woman – Systemic Safeguards – Detenue untraced since Dec 2023 – Court reviews statutory provisions, government circulars, and judicial precedents – Held: FIR mandatory; proactive investigation within first 24 hours crucial; every missing woman/child case to be presumed trafficking/abduction unless proved otherwise – Petition disposed with comprehensive directions for systemic monitoring [Paras 2-7, 27-29].

Police Duties – Registration of Complaints – Police cannot refuse or delay registration of missing complaint; jurisdictional objections impermissible – FIR to be registered forthwith and forwarded to AHTU; DNA samples, recent photographs, forensic evidence, and wide publicity mandatory – Delay or refusal may invite disciplinary action [Paras 33A-C].

Committee Supervision – Court directs constitution of Committee comprising IGP, SP, and DySP – Committee to review cases pending over 2 months, oversee investigation, recommend change of IO if unsatisfactory – Reports to Registrar (Judicial) bi-annually until recovery or 7 years – State to notify and operationalize within stipulated time [Paras 23, 35-35.3].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court in Bachpan Bachao Andolan (2015), Hori Lal (2002), Pinki (2025); Karnataka HC in C. Shiva (2007), High Court Legal Services Committee (2018); Delhi HC in Vinod (2024), Lamboder Jha (2023) – Consistently mandated prompt FIRs, SOP compliance, victim-centric approach, inter-agency coordination, and task-force monitoring [Paras 17-22, 28-29].

State and Central Circulars – Karnataka Standing Orders and DGP circulars (1977–2020) and MHA Advisories (2005, 2012, 2013) integrated – JJ Act, 2015 and Rule 92 of Model Rules, 2016 codify mandatory enquiry and AHTU transfer if child not traced within 4 months – Court directs State to issue consolidated circular incorporating all prior SOPs, with disciplinary consequences for violations [Paras 26, 34].

Decision – Habeas corpus petition disposed of – Missing daughter not yet traced – Court institutionalizes framework: mandatory FIRs, forensic measures, technological tracking, publication, inter-agency cooperation, committee supervision, and compliance affidavits – Next compliance date fixed for 15.10.2025 [Paras 36-38].

Taxation Law - Income Tax Act – Scope of Rectification under Section 254(2) – Subsequent Decision Not a Ground – The ITAT had originally allowed the assessee’s appeal, holding the amendment to Explanation 5 of Section 43B to be prospective – Revenue sought rectification based on subsequent Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. – Held: The decision in Checkmate was rendered after the ITAT's original order and hence could not form the basis for rectification under Section 254(2) – There was no mistake apparent from the record at the time the ITAT passed its original order – The invocation of Section 254(2) in such context was held to be without jurisdiction [Paras 10–14, 24–26].

Judicial Discipline – Limited Scope of Review/Rectification – Section 254(2) is Akin to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – The High Court reaffirmed that subsequent overruling of a precedent or change in legal interpretation does not permit review or rectification – Cited Supreme Court precedents in Reliance Telecom Ltd., Gracemac Corporation, and K.L. Rathi Steels – Held: Judicial review or rectification cannot be founded on developments in law occurring after the judgment sought to be reviewed [Paras 15–20].

Precedential Value – Distinction Between Binding Ratio and Contextual Facts – Cited principle that judgments are not to be read as statutes – The Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. case was distinguished on facts, as it dealt with non-consideration of an existing precedent at the time of decision – Checkmate being a subsequent decision does not retrospectively create an error in the original order [Paras 14.3–14.8, 21–22].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – ITAT’s order recalling its previous order and dismissing the assessee’s appeal was quashed – Revenue's rectification plea was held to be without legal basis – IT Appeal dismissed as infructuous [Paras 25–30].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Accused stabbed PW2 in abdomen with knife after altercation regarding illicit liquor sale – Evidence of injured PW2 corroborated by wife (PW1), medical officers (PWs 3 & 4), and recovery of bloodstained knife (MO1) with matching blood group – Held: Injury and circumstances established intent/knowledge required under Section 307; conviction and sentence proper [Paras 9-14, 16-19, 26].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Higher Evidentiary Value – Testimony of PW2, injured victim, supported by PW1, consistent and reliable – Minor contradictions immaterial – Injured witness unlikely to falsely implicate and allows safe reliance; corroborated by scientific and medical evidence [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Intention vs. Result – Law Clarified – Citing precedents (State of M.P. v. Kashiram; State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil; R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka; Jage Ram v. State of Haryana; State of M.P. v. Kanha; State of M.P. v. Saleem) – Held: Section 307 does not require fatal injury; sufficient if act done with requisite intention/knowledge and overt act present [Paras 19-24].

Sentence – Seven Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment & Fine – Upheld considering seriousness of offence; no interference warranted [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Appeal by A1 Dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed; appeal abated qua A2 due to death; bail bond cancelled, A1 directed to surrender [Paras 2, 26-27].

Service Law – Pension Recovery – Excess Payment – Recovery Barred – Petitioner, a widow, subjected to deduction of family pension for alleged excess payment between 2008 and 2019 – No fraud, misrepresentation, or connivance on her part; excess caused by systemic lapse – Held: Recovery from retired employees or widows impermissible as per Supreme Court ruling in Rafiq Masih; recovery quashed [Paras 3, 5, 7-8].

Precedent – Applicability of Rafiq Masih – Excess Payment Recovery – Court reiterated five categories where recovery cannot be effected, including retired employees, payments beyond 5 years, and cases of undue hardship – Petitioner’s case squarely covered; recovery unjust and inequitable [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Respondents restrained from effecting further recovery from petitioner’s pension – Writ petition disposed of in favour of petitioner [Paras 7-8].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Stay Pending Application to Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Article 227 – Order 21 Rule 26 CPC – Executing Court’s refusal upheld – Court reiterated that ex-parte decree remains valid and enforceable until set aside – Application for stay must be made before the Court where proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 are pending – Executing Court correctly declined stay [Paras 3-5].

Scope of Order 21 Rule 26 CPC – Limited Jurisdiction – Executing Court may stay execution for reasonable time to enable judgment-debtor to approach Court passing decree or appellate Court – Where JD instead filed stay before Executing Court itself, rejection proper – No irregular exercise of jurisdiction [Para 5].

Relief in Interest of Justice – Protective Interim Order – Though dismissal upheld, High Court granted protective stay of one week to enable petitioner to move application for stay in pending Order 9 Rule 13 proceedings – Directed expeditious disposal of such application within 15 days – Execution stayed till decision of such application [Para 5].

Decision – Civil Revision dismissed with observations – Executing Court’s order sustained – Interim protection granted to petitioner for one week, extendable till decision on stay application in main proceedings [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Unlawful Assembly – Partly Allowed – Trial Court convicted both appellants under Sections 302, 149, 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Appellant Kamakhya Singh’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC upheld based on direct evidence and credible eyewitness testimony – Conviction of Binod Singh under Section 302/149 IPC set aside due to lack of proof of unlawful assembly or shared common object – However, Binod Singh convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing gunshot injury – Sentences modified accordingly – Trial Court’s reliance on related witnesses upheld – Appeal disposed of with directions for surrender [Paras 1, 78-85].

Criminal Trial – Murder – Credibility of Related Witnesses – Conviction Upheld in Part – Prosecution’s witnesses were close relatives and three were injured in the incident – Court held that relatedness alone does not undermine credibility when testimony is consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and withstands cross-examination – Presence at crime scene proved – Kamakhya Singh’s conviction sustained on this basis [Paras 32-36, 64-70].

Unlawful Assembly – Conviction Under Section 149 IPC – Set Aside – Trial Court’s finding that accused acted in furtherance of common object not supported by evidence – No proof of assembly of five or more with shared common object – Omnibus allegations against unidentified persons insufficient – Binod Singh’s conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside – Also Section 148 IPC not attracted [Paras 37-52].

Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Affirmed – Eyewitnesses Baleshwar, Umesh, and Dharmendra were also victims of gunshot injuries – Court emphasized high value of testimony of injured witnesses – Medical evidence supported injuries – Their version remained unshaken under cross-examination [Paras 33-36, 64-70].

Identification of Accused – Source of Light – Objection Overruled – Although lanterns were not seized by the Investigating Officer, witnesses consistently stated they identified accused in lantern light – Court accepted explanation, noting accused were known residents of the village – Held: Identification reliable – No prejudice caused by minor investigative lapses [Paras 76-77].

Defective Investigation – Impact – No Benefit to Accused – Though the investigation was perfunctory and lacked sketch map, independent witnesses, or seizure of lighting source, court held that lapses did not affect prosecution case where eyewitness testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated – Conviction based on substantive evidence upheld [Paras 60-61].

Vicarious Liability – Constructive Liability Under Section 149 IPC – Not Established – Court reiterated legal standards for invoking Section 149 IPC – Mere presence in a group with arms not enough without clear proof of common object – Prosecution failed to prove that those standing outside shared intent – Hence, constructive liability under Section 149 IPC not attracted [Paras 38-52].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Ocular Testimony – Strengthened Prosecution Case – Post-mortem and injury reports confirmed firearm injuries sustained by deceased and injured victims – Though one Medical Officer was not examined, his report was accepted without dispute – Court found consistency between medical records and witness statements [Paras 70-75].

Decision: Modification of Conviction and Sentence – Kamakhya Singh’s life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC upheld – Binod Singh’s conviction under Section 302/149 IPC reversed – He was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI with fine – Court directed set-off for time already served and ordered surrender [Paras 78-85].

Tenancy Law - Civil Revision – Eviction Orders under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Sham Sale Transaction – Revisions Allowed – The petitioners-tenants challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on grounds of bona fide requirement and ceased occupation under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – Authorities below accepted the landlord’s title on basis of registered sale deed – High Court held that the transfer of property in favour of the landlady was a sham transaction devised to procure eviction, evidenced by intra-family conveyance, contradictory testimony, and inconsistent consideration – Findings of bona fide requirement and ceased occupation based on misreading and ignoring crucial evidence – Held: Eviction orders unsustainable – Revisions allowed and appellate orders set aside [Paras 8, 12–17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – Interference when findings are perverse/misread – Applied – The Court reiterated that while revisional power does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as in appeal, interference is warranted where findings are perverse, based on misreading, or lead to miscarriage of justice – Relying on Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the Court examined whether the authorities below misread crucial evidence and concluded that they did, justifying interference [Paras 11–12].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Attornment on Transfer – Title enquiry in rent proceedings – Exception for apparent fraud/sham – Though a registered sale deed generally suffices to establish landlordship and attornment follows transfer, the Court held that, on the peculiar facts (intra-family transfers, earlier NRI proceedings, immediate re-transfer, and inconsistent testimony), the sale in favour of the landlady was a sham devised to procure eviction – Authorities below erred in treating the sale as unimpeachable without engaging with the broader context and record [Paras 12.2, 14–16].

NRI Eviction Proceedings – Earlier petitions withdrawn – Res judicata – Not a bar to fresh cause – Contextual relevance – The earlier NRI petitions withdrawn after leave to defend did not operate as res judicata; however, their sequence (transfer to NRI relative to invoke special provisions, withdrawal upon challenge, followed by reconveyance and fresh eviction plea) was material context evidencing a contrived scheme, which the authorities below failed to weigh [Paras 13, 14.1–14.3].

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Documentary Inconsistencies – Sale consideration timing (cheque dated 06.12.2016) vis-à-vis sale deed (12.12.2017) – Non-negotiation of price – Ignorance of market rate/ownership change – Cash vs cheque contradictions – Cumulative effect – The landlady’s evidence revealed material inconsistencies suggesting lack of genuine consideration and awareness—indicative of a colourable device; authorities’ omission to grapple with these contradictions amounted to misreading of evidence [Paras 15.1–16.2].

Eviction Grounds – Bona fide Requirement & Ceased Occupation – Concurrent findings set aside – Since the foundational premise (genuineness of landlord’s title and bona fides) was vitiated by misreading and perversity, the resultant eviction orders on bona fide requirement and ceased occupation could not stand – Revisions allowed; impugned appellate orders set aside [Paras 8, 16.3–17].

Service Law – ACR/APAR – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Writ Court not Appellate Over Tribunal – Where the Competent Authority gives reasoned orders on each adverse entry after examining records and partially expunges where warranted, Tribunal’s refusal to re-appraise is not perverse – High Court affirms that grading and personality-assessment are matters of subjective satisfaction, ordinarily immune from interference absent perversity or procedural illegality [Paras 18-21].

CCS (Conduct) Rules – Rule 3(2)(ii) “Best Judgment” – Officer’s Duty to Act Judiciously vis-à-vis Superiors’ Directions – “Best judgment” does not license an officer to sit in judgment over or defy lawful directions – Tribunal’s construction upheld as a plausible view in writ jurisdiction – Mere disagreement with policy/implementation cannot sanitize adverse entries when targets remain unachieved and record shows non-cooperation [Paras 15-16, 19-20].

Adverse Remarks – Communication and Representation – AIS (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 r.8 & r.10 – DoPT OMs (20/05/1972; 14/05/2009; 23/07/2009) – Procedural Compliance – Representations considered through detailed, reasoned orders; some pejorative phrases expunged while core remarks retained – Such calibrated consideration satisfies r.10 and administrative instructions; no ground to quash surviving entries [Paras 17-19].

Post-Retirement Challenge – Consequential Relief – Petitions filed after superannuation without specific consequential claims – Government’s contention that dispute is academic noted – Court decides on merits but finds no case for interference – Reliefs held inconsequential in the absence of demonstrated legal infirmity in the process or perversity on the face of the record [Paras 11, 20-22].

Connected Matters – Mixed Outcomes Before CAT – In OA 436/2014 the Tribunal directed consideration for deletion of the observation “prone to commit financial irregularities”; others dismissed – High Court, addressing the common challenge by the Petitioner for fuller expunction, declines to expand relief and maintains the Tribunal’s calibrated orders [Paras 5, 20-22].

Decision – Original Petitions Dismissed – CAT’s view sustained; no perversity or procedural violation shown – Appreciation recorded for amicus curiae [Paras 21-23].

NDPS – Possession of 20 kg Poppy Husk – Section 15 NDPS Act – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Appellant convicted for intermediate quantity – No minimum punishment prescribed – Trial Court imposed 1½ years RI – High Court considered that appellant already served 4 months, faced trial for 14 years, not involved in other cases, and has since lived peacefully – Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 10,000 – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 6, 9-11].

Sentencing – Discretion and Proportionality – Awarding of sentence not a formality – Courts must balance deterrence with reformation and proportionality – Reliance placed on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., AIR 2017 SC 1166 – Punishment should suit crime and offender; undue harshness avoided [Paras 7-8].

Right to Speedy Trial – Delay in Proceedings – Occurrence in 2011, conviction in 2012, appeal decided in 2025 – Prolonged pendency and mental agony considered as mitigating factor – Sentence reduced accordingly [Paras 6, 10].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction maintained – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 payable within one month, default leading to one month RI – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 11-12].