Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – Resumption of Land – Proof of Grant – Absence of Original Records – Assistant Commissioner proceeded on assumptions without producing grant order or authenticated records – Mere reference to “documents available on record” insufficient – Order of resumption unsustainable [Paras 21–26].

PTCL Act – Burden of Proof – Claimants seeking resumption must conclusively establish that land was granted to a member of SC/ST with conditions against alienation – Confiscatory nature of resumption proceedings – Strict proof required – Deputy Commissioner rightly set aside resumption order in absence of proof [Paras 27–28].

Grant vs. Auction Sale – Darkhast Register – Material produced in appeal indicating that land was sold to original holder in public auction and not granted free or at concessional rate – Land sold in auction does not attract PTCL Act – Proceedings under PTCL Act not maintainable [Paras 18–20, 21–22].

Alienation of Land – Registered Sale Deed of 1951 – Long Possession of Purchasers and their Successors – Delay and Laches – Application for resumption filed after about 46–47 years – Such belated challenge to alienation held not maintainable [Paras 25, 30].

Single Judge’s Order – Error Apparent – Proceeded on assumption that grant in favour of Bovi community member stood proved – Failed to examine absence of original grant records and delay – Order set aside [Paras 16, 28–29].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order dated 17.11.2004 passed in W.P. No. 7988/2002 (SC/ST) set aside – Appellate order of Deputy Commissioner dated 15.10.2001 restored – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 31–32].

Customs and Excise – Export Oriented Unit (EOU) – De-bonding – Final Date of Exit – Suo Motu De-bonding Order – Appellant EOU engaged in manufacture of silk fabrics sought exit from EOU scheme – Dispute regarding duty liability on capital goods and raw materials on de-bonding – Deputy Development Commissioner clarified vide letter dated 10.05.2019 that suo motu de-bonding order dated 08.08.2006 is to be treated as final date of exit – Held: Said clarification is material and goes to the root of determination of duty liability and applicability of concessional provisions [Paras 8–9, 13].

EOU – Condition No.10 of Standard Conditions – Applicability on De-bonding – Condition No.10 provides for levy of customs duty on depreciated value of capital goods and specified treatment of raw materials and excisable goods upon de-bonding after export obligation period – Held: Authorities were required to examine applicability of Condition No.10 in light of final exit date of 08.08.2006 – Failure to do so vitiates the impugned orders [Paras 8–10, 12].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Remand – Duty to Decide on Merits – CESTAT earlier remanded the matter directing de novo consideration – Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously held that earlier assessment had attained finality and that he had no power to revisit the issue – Held: Once matter is remanded for de novo consideration, appellate authority is duty-bound to examine entire matter on merits – Such refusal amounts to jurisdictional error [Paras 10–11].

Quasi-Judicial Authorities – Requirement of Reasoned Orders – Failure to Apply Mind – Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT failed to consider core contention regarding status of appellant as 100% EOU till 08.08.2006 and effect of clarification dated 10.05.2019 – CESTAT merely extracted findings of Commissioner (Appeals) without independent reasoning – Held: Orders suffer from non-application of mind and are unsustainable in law [Paras 11–12].

Judicial Review – Substantial Question of Law – Interference Justified – Substantial question of law framed as to whether CESTAT decided appeal without considering issues directed to be examined earlier – Held: Question answered in favour of appellant – Impugned orders liable to be set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 3, 12–14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Final Order No.A/31463/2017 dated 11.09.2017 passed by CESTAT and Order-in-Appeal No.4 of 2004 (T) Cus dated 10.08.2004 set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration in accordance with law, taking into account clarification letter dated 10.05.2019 – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Arrest under Section 19 – Scope of Judicial Review – Petitioners challenged arrest orders, grounds of arrest and remand on the plea of non-existence of live scheduled offences and non-compliance of Section 19 PMLA – High Court reiterated that judicial review of arrest is limited and does not extend to a merits review of “material in possession” or sufficiency of evidence – Court can only examine existence of material, rational nexus with formation of belief and compliance with statutory safeguards [Paras 6, 9].

PMLA – Scheduled Offence – Effect of Stay or Cancellation of FIR – FIR registered pursuant to Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) CrPC, though subject to interim stay, held not wiped out nor rendered non-existent for purposes of PMLA – Settlement and subsequent acceptance of cancellation reports in predicate offences does not automatically invalidate ECIR or arrest under PMLA – Money laundering offence treated as independent offence [Paras 7–8].

PMLA – ECIR – Nature and Legal Status – ECIR held to be an internal, non-statutory document of the Enforcement Directorate – Non-inclusion of subsequently discovered FIRs in ECIR prior to arrest does not vitiate arrest – Addition of FIRs by addendum after arrest permissible and does not amount to retrospective creation of jurisdiction [Paras 8].

PMLA – “Reasons to Believe” and “Grounds of Arrest” – Allegation of Mechanical Exercise – Mere similarity or overlap between reasons to believe and grounds of arrest does not establish non-application of mind – Recording of material facts in both documents held permissible – Court declined to interfere absent perversity or lack of nexus between material and conclusion [Paras 9].

PMLA – Section 19(2) – Forwarding of Arrest Material to Adjudicating Authority – Compliance – Court found that arrest orders, grounds of arrest and material in possession were forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority on the same day in prescribed manner – Allegation of violation of Section 19(2) rejected – Factual disputes in this regard held impermissible to be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction [Para 10].

Remand under PMLA – Validity – Once arrest held lawful and statutory safeguards complied with, subsequent remand orders cannot be faulted – Special Court found to have applied mind while granting limited custodial remand – Arrest not for mere investigation but for tracing money trail and proceeds of crime [Paras 4.2, 10].

Decision: Criminal writ petitions dismissed – Arrest, grounds of arrest and remand orders upheld – No violation of Sections 19(1) or 19(2) PMLA found – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 11–12].

Civil Suit – Recovery of Money – Friendly Loan – Promissory Notes – Plaintiff claimed recovery of ₹50 lakhs advanced as interest-free friendly loan to deceased borrower – Two promissory notes executed for consolidated amounts of ₹45 lakhs and ₹5 lakhs – Defendants denied loan and alleged forgery – Held: Promissory notes valid in law – Signatures of executant not specifically denied in pleadings – Minor discrepancies immaterial – Plaintiff entitled to decree for recovery [Paras 18–19, 24].

Negotiable Instruments – Undated Cheques – Evidentiary Value – Five undated cheques with blank payee name issued by deceased borrower – Cheques not constituting bills of exchange – However total amount matched promissory notes – Held: Though unenforceable as cheques, documents had corroborative value supporting existence of debt [Paras 11(i), 20].

Evidence – Proof of Signatures and Handwriting – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff summoned bank witness to prove signatures on cheques – Defendants neither denied signatures specifically nor produced counterfoils or specimen signatures – No evidence led to disprove handwriting – Held: Initial onus discharged by plaintiff – Defendants failed to rebut – Preponderance of probabilities favoured plaintiff [Paras 21–24].

Civil Trial – Pleadings – Effect of Absence of Specific Denial – Written statement did not specifically plead that signatures or handwriting on promissory notes were forged – No steps taken for expert comparison – Held: Defendants could not be permitted to challenge execution at stage of arguments [Paras 19, 23].

Standard of Proof – Civil Proceedings – Civil suits decided on balance of probabilities – Trial Court correctly appreciated oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or infirmity found in decree for principal amount [Para 24].

Interest – Pendente Lite Interest – Section 34 CPC Principles – Trial Court granted future interest but denied pendente lite interest without reasons – Held: Successful plaintiff entitled to pendente lite interest even if promissory notes did not stipulate interest – Interest awarded @ 9% per annum from date of suit till decree [Paras 25–27].

Costs – Award of Costs – Successful Party – Trial Court failed to award costs despite plaintiff succeeding – Earlier order recorded that Local Commissioner’s fee to be recovered as costs – Held: Plaintiff entitled to full costs including remuneration of Local Commissioner [Para 28].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 96 CPC – No error in appreciation of evidence by Trial Court – Money decree upheld – Cross-objections partly allowed on interest and costs [Paras 29–30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree for ₹50 lakhs upheld – Cross-objections allowed – Pendente lite interest @ 9% p.a. granted – Costs awarded – Registry directed to release balance deposited amount with accrued interest to plaintiff [Paras 29–31].

Defamation – Cyber / Online Defamation – Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 19 CPC – Suit filed alleging reputational harm due to allegedly defamatory content in a web series streamed nationwide – Plaintiff pleaded accessibility and effect of content across India including Delhi – Held: In cases of online defamation, “wrong done” occurs where defamatory content is accessed and consumed by third parties who know the plaintiff and in whose esteem his reputation is lowered – Mere nationwide accessibility of online content does not confer jurisdiction everywhere [Paras 16–21].

Civil Procedure – Section 19 CPC – “Wrong Done” – Includes Effect and Consequences – Expression “wrong done” includes not only the act of defamation but also its effect and consequences – However, such effect must be real and not speculative – Jurisdiction cannot be founded on a mere possibility or tendency of harm [Paras 29, 63].

Defamation Jurisdiction – Natural Forum and Unnatural Forum – Ordinarily, reputation of an individual is presumed at place of residence and of a corporation at its registered office – These constitute “natural forums” where specific pleadings of third-party perception may not be required – When suing at an “unnatural forum”, plaintiff must plead specific facts showing reputational harm in the eyes of persons at that place [Paras 30–31].

Cyber Defamation – Merger Rule (Tejpal Principle) – Where the place where the wrong is done coincides with the place where the defendant resides or carries on business, plaintiff has no option and must sue only at that place – Plaintiff cannot rely on the fact that wrong was also done elsewhere to institute proceedings in another forum – Section 19 CPC gives an option only when the place of wrong and defendant’s residence are different [Paras 33–36, 66.2(c)].

Cyber Defamation – Maximum Wrong Rule – In cases where wrong is done in multiple jurisdictions and not at the place of defendant’s residence, suit must ordinarily be filed where maximum harm is caused, usually the plaintiff’s place of residence or registered office – Departure permissible only if pleaded and shown that harm at the natural forum is minuscule compared to another place [Paras 38–39, 66.2(d)].

Forum Shopping – Clever Drafting – Jurisdiction – Courts must read plaint meaningfully and not formally – Clever drafting to create illusion of jurisdiction, including impleadment of unnecessary or improperly described parties, cannot confer territorial jurisdiction – Jurisdiction cannot be engineered to bypass binding precedent [Paras 51–54, 65].

Impleadment of Parties – Abuse of Process – Defendant impleaded only to create jurisdictional nexus held to be neither proper nor necessary – Misdescription and absence of pleaded role in alleged defamation disentitled reliance on such impleadment for jurisdiction [Para 65].

Application of Tejpal Decision – Binding Precedent – Principles laid down in Escorts Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia reaffirmed and explained – Coordinate Bench decisions are binding and cannot be bypassed unless referred to a larger Bench – Merger Rule and Maximum Wrong Rule evolved to prevent libel tourism and forum shopping [Paras 34–49].

Maintainability – Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction – Plaintiff and main contesting defendants were residents of Mumbai – As per plaintiff’s own pleadings, alleged defamatory content was published and its effect felt across India including Mumbai – Held: Wrong was done at Mumbai where defendants reside – Merger Rule squarely applies – Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction [Paras 64–66].

Decision: Plaint returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before competent court – Liberty granted to plaintiff to seek appropriate directions under Order VII Rule 10A CPC – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Arms Act – Conviction under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 – Proof of Seizure – Hostile Independent Witnesses – Benefit of Doubt – Appellant convicted for unlawful possession and use of firearm based on alleged police raid and recovery of pipe-gun and cartridges – Independent witnesses cited as members of raiding party and seizure witnesses (PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6) categorically denied participation in raid and witnessing seizure – Seizure list not proved to have been prepared in their presence – PW2 and PW6 admitted signing seizure list at instance of police without seeing seized articles – Held: Proof of conscious and lawful recovery is sine qua non for conviction under Arms Act – When seizure witnesses deny recovery and preparation of seizure list, prosecution case regarding recovery becomes highly doubtful – Conviction cannot be sustained. Acquittal [Paras 20–25].

Evidence – Police Witnesses – Requirement of Corroboration – Prosecution case resting primarily on testimony of police personnel – Independent witnesses examined but turned hostile and contradicted prosecution story – Though conviction can be based on police testimony alone, such evidence must inspire confidence – Where independent witnesses not only fail to corroborate but demolish prosecution case, implicit reliance on police version is unsafe – Lack of corroboration fatal to prosecution [Paras 26–32].

Evidence – Hostile Witness – Failure to Declare Witness Hostile – Effect – PW5 cited as member of raiding party categorically denied being on duty or having knowledge of incident – Prosecution neither declared him hostile nor cross-examined him – His unchallenged testimony binds prosecution and further weakens case – Indicates serious lapses in prosecution and undermines alleged constitution of raiding party [Paras 33–35].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Prosecution failed to establish lawful constitution of raiding party and credible recovery of arms – Serious contradictions and omissions in prosecution evidence – Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt not satisfied – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 36–38].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 27.06.1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri, in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1990 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act – Appellant discharged from bail bonds and set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case – Direction issued under Section 437A Cr.PC for execution of bail bonds for six months.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Eye-Witness Testimony – Ocular Evidence Accepted – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering the deceased with a billhook following a long-standing property dispute – Conviction based on the direct and credible testimony of PW2 (daughter of the deceased), who witnessed the attack and heard dying declaration – Court found her testimony to be of “sterling witness” quality – Fully corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses – Held: Conviction sustainable based on ocular and corroborative evidence – No reason to disbelieve prosecution case [Paras 7–10]

Evidence Act – Dying Declaration – Section 32 – Admissibility – PW2 testified that the deceased stated before death that appellant inflicted the injuries – Held: Such statement qualifies as dying declaration – Supports conviction independently and corroborates eye-witness account [Para 10]

Evidence Act – Res Gestae – Section 6 – Spontaneous Statements Admissible – Statements made by deceased, accused, and PW2 during or immediately after the incident accepted as part of same transaction – Held: Admissible under res gestae exception to hearsay rule – Adds evidentiary value to PW2's testimony [Para 10]

Criminal Procedure – Blood Group Discrepancy – Contamination Explained – Blood group mismatch between postmortem report and chemical analysis report explained as due to bacterial contamination – Doctor’s explanation based on authoritative forensic literature accepted – Held: No impact on core prosecution case based on direct evidence – Scientific inconsistency not fatal [Paras 11–12]

Criminal Law – Right to Private Defence – No Evidence to Support – Appellant pleaded self-defence claiming deceased attacked first – No medical evidence of injuries on accused – Property not under immediate threat – Held: No proof that appellant was not aggressor – Plea of private defence rejected [Para 14]

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings – Trial court had carefully appreciated all material – High Court affirmed conviction after independent review – Held: No perversity or miscarriage of justice – Conviction and sentence upheld [Para 14]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld – Life imprisonment and fine confirmed – Court affirms trial court judgment based on credible eye-witness evidence, dying declaration, and medical corroboration – Plea of private defence and reliance on forensic discrepancy rejected.

Caste Certificate – Adopted Child – Biological Parents Unknown – Child abandoned and adopted under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – District Court passed adoption order declaring adoptive parents as legal parents and directing issuance of birth certificate accordingly – Competent Authority issued caste certificate in favour of adopted child on basis of adoptive mother’s Special Backward Category – Certificate cancelled on complaint and cancellation upheld by Scrutiny Committee – Held: Statute governing caste certificates does not expressly prohibit grant of caste certificate to adopted child – Legal effect of adoption must be considered [Paras 1–6].

Adoption – Legal Effect – Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Meaning of “adoption” under Section 2(aa) – Adopted child permanently separated from biological parents and becomes legitimate child of adoptive parents with all rights, privileges and responsibilities – Adoption under Section 41 meant for orphaned, abandoned and surrendered children – Once adoption order is passed by competent court, legal fiction operates fully – Committees failed to consider this statutory effect [Paras 8–14].

Caste Determination – Adoptive Parents’ Status – When caste of biological parents is unknown – Adopted child must be treated as belonging to caste of adoptive parents – Otherwise child’s legal and social status would remain uncertain – Interpretation of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 must be harmonised with Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Adoption order and consequential birth record constitute valid foundation documents [Paras 6, 11–14].

Precedent – Applicability – Division Bench decision in Dr. Sonal Pratapsingh Vahanwala v. Deputy District Collector followed – Supreme Court observations in Rameshbhai Dabbhai Naika v. State of Gujarat relied upon – Principles governing effect of adoption equally applicable to adoption under Juvenile Justice Act [Paras 4, 7].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 21/02/2018 and Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 31/12/2018 set aside – Scrutiny Committee directed to issue caste validity certificate to adopted child as belonging to Special Backward Category within four weeks [Paras 14, Order].

Criminal Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Summoning Order – Defamation by Media Telecast – Applicants, Editor, Reporter and Anchor of News18 Punjab, sought quashing of summoning order in complaint alleging defamatory news telecast against an IPS officer – Allegation that applicants projected complainant as receiving illegal money from criminals – Magistrate issued summons after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. – Held: At the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court cannot evaluate evidence or conduct a mini-trial – Matter requires adjudication during trial [Paras 1–3, 24–28].

Defamation – Media Trial – Applicability of Exceptions to Section 499 IPC – Applicants contended that telecast was fair reporting and protected by exceptions under Section 499 IPC – Held: Benefit of exceptions to defamation is a matter of defence and cannot be examined at the stage of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 10–12, 26].

Summoning Order – Scope of Interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate considered inquiry report, statements of complainant and witnesses, and relevant materials before issuing summons – Held: When prima facie case is disclosed and due application of mind is evident, inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised to stifle prosecution [Paras 23–27].

Parity with Co-Accused – Effect of Supreme Court Order – Similar quashing order in favour of another news channel set aside by Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.14790 of 2023 – Supreme Court held that Magistrate had considered inquiry report and relevant material and discretionary relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not warranted – Held: Present case stands on same footing and applicants not entitled to quashing [Paras 18–23].

Principles Governing Quashing – No Mini Trial – Reliance placed on Neeharika Infrastructure, Aryan Singh, Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao – Held: While considering quashing, Court must proceed on allegations in complaint as they stand and cannot assess reliability or truthfulness of allegations [Paras 26–28].

Decision: Application dismissed – Summoning order dated 12.12.2018 and criminal proceedings to continue – No interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – No order as to costs.