Criminal Law – Bail – MCOCA and UAPA - Prolonged Incarceration – Constitutional Rights – Terror Case – Appellant accused of providing shelter to co-accused in 13/7 Mumbai bomb blasts – In custody for over 13.5 years – Trial commenced in 2021, only 167 out of 400 witnesses examined in over 4.5 years – Court held that indefinite pre-trial detention violates Article 21 – Right to speedy trial is not merely statutory but a constitutional guarantee [Paras 11-16].

Special Statutes – MCOCA and UAPA – Statutory Restrictions on Bail – Constitutional Override – High Court relied on Supreme Court’s decision in K.A. Najeeb to hold that bail can be granted despite rigours of special laws where trial unlikely to conclude and incarceration excessive – Court held constitutional liberty must prevail over statutory bar in such cases [Paras 17-19].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Not on Merits – Role of Appellant Limited – Accused not directly involved in execution of blasts – Confessional statement under Section 18 MCOCA indicated role confined to harbouring co-accused – Bail granted not on merits but on constitutional considerations due to trial delay and age of accused (65 years) [Paras 14, 15, 19].

Delay in Trial – Systemic Delay – Court observed that delay was not mere procedural lapse but a denial of justice – Trial Court failed to conclude trial despite specific directions from High Court – Possibility of completing trial in near future held to be bleak [Paras 10, 14, 15].

Final Order – Bail granted with stringent conditions – PR bond of ₹1,00,000 with local sureties – Regular reporting to ATS – Surrender of passport – Restrictions on movement and communication with witnesses – Violation to lead to cancellation of bail [Para 20].

Civil Law - Adverse Possession – Ownership Claim – Revenue Records Prevail Over Oral Testimony – Plaintiffs claimed title to agricultural land through adverse possession since 1957 – Trial Court accepted oral evidence and decreed ownership – First Appellate Court reversed, relying on consistent revenue entries showing plaintiffs and their predecessors as cultivating tenants on 1/3rd batai – Held: Oral assertions unsupported by documents cannot override public revenue records – Claim of adverse possession contradicted by own documentary evidence – No open, hostile assertion against true owner proved – Finding of permissive possession upheld [Paras 8–12, 16].

Ceiling Law – Surplus Land Declaration – Validity of Allotment – Plaintiffs challenged surplus declaration and allotment orders on ground of non-service of notice – Held: Plaintiffs had no title or legal standing to challenge orders passed under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act – Balbir Kaur, recorded owner, was duly heard – Civil Court’s jurisdiction barred under Section 26 of the Act – Allotment upheld [Paras 18–19].

Civil Procedure – Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Suit defective – 12 kanal portion of land owned by Smt. Kishan Kaur (non-surplus) adjudicated without impleading her as party – Held: Suit defective under Order I Rule 9 CPC – Decree cannot be sustained in her absence [Para 17].

Documentary vs. Oral Evidence – Revenue Entries – Jamabandis and khasra girdawaris from 1920 to 1982 showed plaintiffs' father and uncle as tenants, not owners – Held: Revenue records carry presumption of truth under Section 44 of Punjab Land Revenue Act – Oral evidence of plaintiffs’ witnesses unreliable, uncorroborated, and in some cases hearsay – Trial Court’s reliance on such evidence was misplaced [Paras 9–15].

Decision: Second appeals dismissed – No perversity or illegality in findings of First Appellate Court – Trial Court’s decree rightly reversed – Civil Court had no jurisdiction to set aside orders under Ceiling Act – Plaintiffs failed to prove title or adverse possession.

Criminal Law – Corruption – Discharge – Prevention of Corruption Act – Accused public servants (Chairman and General Manager, HLL Lifecare Ltd.) alleged to have entered into criminal conspiracy with private party (M/s Rama Shipping Services) in awarding contract for export of iron ore – Advance of ₹2 crore released without bank guarantee, contrary to earlier agreement – Post-dated cheques issued as security later dishonoured – CBI alleged pecuniary loss to HLL exceeding ₹4 crore including interest – Held: Materials on record (D2 email, D48 minutes, witness statements CW7, CW8, CW25) prima facie disclose active involvement of both accused – Recommendation “for necessary action” by CMD on email not addressed to him indicates conscious participation facilitating irregular advance – No ground for discharge – Strong suspicion sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 10–16].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge – Scope – Annexure 5 “Delegation of Powers” produced by defence not part of prosecution record – Court cannot rely on defence documents at stage of discharge – Even otherwise, delegation memo shows Managing Director retained full signing powers for company contracts – Hence plea of non-involvement untenable [Para 15].

Evidence – Prima facie case – Statements of CW7 and CW8 establish that accused No. 1 (CMD) met private supplier and took personal interest in release of advance – Statement of CW25 (Executive Secretary to CMD) proves that CMD endorsed D2 email recommending payment – These, with documentary record, form sufficient ground to frame charges [Paras 12–14].

Conspiracy – Inference – Meeting of minds inferred from conduct of accused in altering agreement (D56) to dilute clause on bank guarantee and facilitating advance release – Common intention to cause wrongful gain and corresponding loss to PSU established prima facie [Paras 8, 26].

Decision – Discharge petitions dismissed – Special Judge’s order upheld – Trial to proceed expeditiously – Interim stay vacated – Observations confined to disposal of revision and not binding at trial [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Framing of Charges – Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Charge Sustained – Accused allegedly conspired to dispossess the complainant from his land, leading to fatal assault on his son – Evidence of threats, long-standing land dispute, and coordinated movement of accused supported by CCTV footage, CDRs, and eyewitness accounts – Held: Trial court rightly framed charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 447, 147, 201, and other IPC provisions – Material creates grave suspicion, sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 40–55].

Criminal Law – Nature of Offence – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Prima Facie Case of Murder Established – Argument that single blow rules out murder rejected – Repeated blows with bricks and iron pipe on the deceased’s head with full force show intention to kill – Injury pattern and conduct reveal deliberate targeting – Held: No basis to convert charge to Section 304 IPC at this stage – Trial court justified in framing charge under Section 302 IPC [Paras 51–58].

Criminal Conspiracy – Inference from Circumstances – Land Dispute Escalation – Shared Intent – History of land transactions and threats point to common design among accused – Execution of illegal dispossession plan amounts to conspiracy – Even non-present accused implicated by pre-event meetings and CDR data – Held: Conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and surrounding facts – Presence at spot not essential for conspiracy charge [Paras 45–50].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge of Accused – High Court Revisional Power Limited – Discharge of Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh upheld – Evidence against them not sufficient to infer intent or participation – No direct or reliable role assigned – Trial court applied correct legal test – Held: High Court will not interfere unless manifest illegality or perversity exists – Discharge justified [Paras 66–71].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Serious Offences – Bail Rejected – Bail sought on merits and medical grounds – Accused charged with murder and conspiracy – Evidence indicates continuing threat to complainant – Trial at initial stage with material witnesses pending – Medical conditions found manageable in jail – Held: Gravity of offence, conspiracy angle, and threat to complainant warrant rejection of bail [Paras 74–78].

SARFAESI Act – Delay in Filing Securitisation Applications – Limitation Act Applicability – Section 17 Proceedings Are Original in Nature – DRT Has Jurisdiction to Condon Delay – Borrowers filed writ petitions challenging DRT orders rejecting their SAs for delay beyond 45 days – Petitioners argued that the DRT erred in holding that it lacked power to condone delay – Held: There is no express exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act in SARFAESI – Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies – Provisions of the Limitation Act including Section 5 apply to applications under Section 17 – DRT is a judicial forum and proceedings under Section 17 are original in nature – Borrowers cannot be non-suited merely on technical delay [Paras A-24, A-28, C-1, C-2]

SARFAESI and RDB Acts – Harmonious Construction – DRT Jurisdiction – Both Acts Complementary – Borrowers’ Right to Fair Adjudication Requires Delay Condonation Where Justified – Courts emphasized that the SARFAESI and RDB Acts operate in the same field and DRT has overlapping jurisdiction – When banks/financial institutions can seek benefit of Limitation Act under RDB Act, same cannot be denied to borrowers under SARFAESI – Tribunal cannot mechanically reject SAs without examining grounds for delay [Paras A-17 to A-21, A-30]

Interpretation of Special Laws – Section 29(2) of Limitation Act – No Express Exclusion in SARFAESI – Hence, Sections 4 to 24 Apply – Court held that in absence of express exclusion, general limitation provisions remain applicable – Provisions of Limitation Act to be read as supplementing SARFAESI – DRT can condone delay based on judicial discretion [Paras A-23, A-24, A-45]

COVID-19 Pandemic and Practical Difficulties – Consideration of Bonafide Delay Grounds – Technical View Not Justified – Court observed that borrowers often explore loan settlement or OTS schemes, during which time limitation may expire – Physical absence of DRT at local seats and pandemic-related disruptions further justified delay – Such factors must be considered while applying limitation principles [Paras A-31, P-7 to P-9]

Precedents Followed – Apex Court Rulings in Transcore, Mardia Chemicals, Consolidated Engineering, Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal, M.P. Steel Corporation – High Court in Fair Style Embroidery Works – All Support Applicability of Limitation Act to SARFAESI Proceedings – Ratio of Supreme Court judgments confirms that Limitation Act applies to original proceedings before Tribunals unless expressly excluded – Section 5 applicable for condonation of delay, and Section 14 for exclusion of time due to bona fide proceedings [Paras A-32 to A-36, A-41, A-42]

Decision: Miscellaneous Petition No. 6432 of 2023 and Miscellaneous Petition No. 4104 of 2023 allowed – Impugned DRT orders set aside – Matters remanded to DRT for deciding Section 5 Limitation Act applications afresh – Review Petition No. 453 of 2024 dismissed [Para C-3]

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Acquittal – Respondent No. 2 accused of showing obscene videos and attempting to molest a minor girl – FIR lodged after delay of 4 days – No medical evidence or certified age document produced to prove minority of victim – Photocopy of birth certificate not verified per statutory requirement – Held: Prosecution failed to establish victim’s age under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of JJ Rules – Absence of proof of age fatal to prosecution under POCSO [Paras 10–14, 28]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Trial Court had acquitted respondent on findings that victim’s testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated – No recovery of mobile phone, video, or other evidence – Witnesses other than victim were hearsay – Delay in lodging FIR not explained – Held: Acquittal based on plausible view supported by record – Appellate court not to interfere unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – No compelling reason found to reverse acquittal [Paras 15–29]

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – Victim’s version introduced for first time during examination-in-chief not supported by earlier Section 161/164 CrPC statements – Contradictions noted in testimony – Recovery not made – Investigating Officer admitted lapses in probe and failure to verify key evidence – Held: Prosecution evidence lacked consistency and credibility – Trial Court justified in treating evidence as insufficient [Paras 18, 28]

Burden of Proof – Failure of Prosecution – Held: Burden to prove guilt always lies on prosecution – Minor inconsistencies could be ignored, but failure to prove key ingredients (age, recovery, corroboration) undermines case – Burden never shifts unless prima facie case made – Trial Court’s reasoning not contrary to settled law [Paras 26–29]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No. 2 upheld – No interference warranted by appellate court – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasoned view based on evidence.

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – MDMA 70 gms – FSL positive – Twin conditions – Bail refused – Accused No.3 sought bail under Sec. 483 BNSS/439 CrPC for offences under Secs. 8(c), 21(c) & 22(c) NDPS – Court held seizure of 70 gms MDMA from petitioner established prima facie by mahazar and FSL report – Quantity is commercial – No grounds to believe petitioner not guilty nor that he would not commit offence on bail – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–9].

Delay/Procedure – Sec. 42 & Sec. 57 NDPS – At bail stage – Petitioner’s contentions that the seizing officer did not comply Sec. 57 and that Sec. 42 was not followed held to be matters for trial – Not determinative at bail stage when commercial quantity recovered [Para 8].

Factual Foundation – Arrest & Seizure – Petitioner arrested on 18.12.2024 – 70 gms MDMA and a mobile phone seized – Charge-sheet filed; case fixed for hearing – No criminal antecedents pleaded, but gravity and statutory rigour under Section 37 outweigh plea for bail [Paras 3, 4, 7–8].

Public Interest – Drug offences against society/youngsters – Court notes societal impact and likelihood of re-offending as factors against grant of bail in commercial quantity cases [Para 4].

Decision: Criminal petition dismissed – Bail refused [Para 9].

Excise Law – Illegal Transportation of Liquor – Acquittal – Accused intercepted while allegedly transporting 55 cartons of country liquor without permit – Prosecution relied solely on police testimony as independent witness turned hostile – Photographer did not confirm seizure proceedings – No photographs of search or sealing of liquor bottles produced – Held: Serious procedural lapses and contradictions in prosecution version created reasonable doubt – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld [Paras 6, 17, 19, 22].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – Reaffirmation of legal principles that interference is warranted only if trial court’s view is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or if no other conclusion except guilt is possible – Held: Trial court’s evaluation of evidence was plausible and based on contradictions and lack of independent corroboration – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 13, 23].

Witness Credibility – Hostile Witness – Independent witness denied witnessing seizure and stated he signed on police request – Police failed to examine any other neutral witnesses despite the seizure occurring at a public bus stand – Held: Non-association of independent witnesses and hostile testimony cast doubt on fairness of investigation – Prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 20–22].

Contradictory Testimony – Chain of Events Not Plausible – Rukka, site plan, and officer testimonies conflicted on number of officials chasing vehicle and their mode of travel – Motorcycle could not carry four police personnel – Discrepancies undermined the reliability of prosecution story – No clear evidence of actual seizure at the stated spot [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – Trial Court’s judgment found to be a reasonable view based on gaps in evidence, contradictions, and lack of corroboration – High Court declined to interfere under settled principles of appellate review against acquittal.

Maintenance – Income Assessment – Section 125 CrPC – Family Court awarded Rs. 22,000 per month to wife based on net salary of Rs. 90,562 of the petitioner – High Court held award constitutes ~25% of net income, consistent with guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha – Upheld as fair and reasonable [Paras 5, 7].

Matrimonial Dispute – Desertion – Petitioner argued wife had deserted him and was unwilling to reconcile – High Court held that unless desertion is adjudicated under Section 9 HMA in pending Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020, maintenance cannot be denied – Allegations of desertion alone not sufficient to bar entitlement [Paras 4, 7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Court reiterated that in exercise of revisional powers, it cannot reappreciate factual findings unless there is patent illegality or material irregularity – No such error found in the trial court’s maintenance order – Revision dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Maintenance Claim – Alleged unwillingness to reconcile or prior settlement proceedings cannot negate statutory entitlement to maintenance – Trial court’s findings based on admitted income and legal entitlement upheld [Paras 3, 5, 6].