Money Laundering — PMLA, 2002 — Sections 3 and 4 — Bail — Twin Conditions under Section 45 — Bail Rejected — Applicant, a director of M/s Aviral Building Construction Pvt. Ltd., sought regular bail — Predicate offence registered against main accused Saurabh Sharma (constable) under Prevention of Corruption Act for acquiring disproportionate assets — ED registered ECIR on basis of scheduled offence — Investigation revealed applicant and co-accused directors had no independent financial capability to purchase properties worth crores; funds were arranged by main accused through unsecured loans, shell companies and fictitious credit societies — 9 immovable properties worth Rs. 6,44,33,000/- purchased in company's name — Statements under Section 50 PMLA of co-accused and applicant corroborate his active role in laundering — Held: Twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA are mandatory; Court must have reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail — Evidence establishes prima facie involvement of applicant in organized money laundering scheme — Bail rejected [Paras 12, 34-39].

PMLA — Section 50 — Statements Recorded During Inquiry — Admissibility — Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA are not hit by Articles 20(3) or 21 of the Constitution — Such statements are deemed judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) and are admissible in evidence — They can be considered at the stage of bail application [Paras 14, 15, 37, 38].

PMLA — Section 45 — Twin Conditions — Mandatory Nature — Bail in Economic Offences — Economic offences constitute a distinct and serious class of offences — The stringent twin conditions under Section 45 must be satisfied regardless of the form of proceedings, including those under Section 438 CrPC or before Constitutional Courts — Denial by accused alone is not sufficient to negate mens rea — Courts must apply a different approach in matters of bail in socio-economic offences [Paras 12, 12.2, 12.3, 33, 37].

Decision: Bail application rejected.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Sub-Inspector of Police – Demand of Illegal Gratification – Absence of Material Evidence – Petitioner-accused No.3, working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Kamareddy Police Station, was arrayed in Crime No.05/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020 for offences under Sections 7(a)(c) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B read with Section 34 of IPC – The primary allegations of demand of Rs.5,00,000/- illegal gratification were directed against accused No.1 (Inspector of Police) and accused No.2 (a private person) – The name of the petitioner-accused No.3 surfaced for the first time only in a subsequent complaint dated 13.11.2020, alleging demand of Rs.20,000/- for granting station bail and accepting sureties in Crime No.404 of 2020 – Held: The allegation rests on a solitary and uncorroborated statement; no trap was laid and no recovery was effected from the petitioner; proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 6, 8, 10, 11].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 7(a) – Sine Qua Non of Demand and Acceptance – Statutory Presumption under Section 20 – For constituting an offence under Section 7(a) of the Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non – In the absence of proof of both demand and acceptance, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked – No official favour or act was pending with petitioner-accused No.3 in relation to the complainant; matter had been entrusted to another Sub-Inspector – Essential ingredients of Section 7(a) read with clause (c) conspicuously absent [Para 10].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Meeting of Minds – To sustain a charge of criminal conspiracy or common intention under Sections 120B and 34 of IPC, cogent material demonstrating an agreement or meeting of minds to commit an illegal act is required – Scrutiny of the record discloses no material indicating that petitioner-accused No.3 entered into any agreement with other accused to demand or accept illegal gratification – Prosecution failed to establish any nexus or linkage suggestive of criminal conspiracy or common intention [Para 10].

Quashing – Proceedings against Co-Accused – Effect – Proceedings against accused No.1 (Inspector of Police) were already quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.9027 of 2021 vide order dated 01.08.2022 – Though quashing of proceedings against one accused does not automatically absolve other accused, the primary substratum of allegations having been set aside, and no independent material existing against petitioner-accused No.3, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Para 9, 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings against petitioner-accused No.3 in Crime No.05/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020/ACB of ACB, Nizamabad Range, quashed – Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 454 and 427 – House Trespass and Mischief – Landlord Trespassing into Tenanted Premises – Ownership No Defence – Accused, the owner of a room let out to PW1, entered the tenanted room in PW1's absence and threw out his household articles causing damage of Rs. 10,000/- – Convicted by Trial Court and sentence modified by Appellate Court – Revision filed challenging conviction – Held: Offences of criminal trespass and house trespass are offences against possession and not against ownership; even the true owner cannot under the guise of ownership unlawfully enter premises in the lawful possession of another with intent to commit an offence; conviction affirmed [Paras 16–18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – High Court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC exercises supervisory jurisdiction to correct miscarriage of justice and cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate court or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible – Evidence of four independent eyewitnesses (PW3, PW4, PW5, PW9), who had no motive to falsely implicate the accused, found consistent and free from material contradictions – Concurrent findings of courts below do not warrant interference [Paras 13–15].

Sentence – Modification – Landlord-Tenant Dispute – No Criminal Antecedents – Although conviction upheld, sentence of three months' simple imprisonment each for both offences confirmed by Appellate Court held to be somewhat harsh given that the genesis of the offence lay in a landlord-tenant dispute and no criminal antecedents were proved against the accused – Held: Sentence reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court for both offences; direction to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(3) CrPC maintained; default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of compensation; substantive sentences to run concurrently [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Revision petition allowed in part – Conviction under Sections 454 and 427 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court for both offences; compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(3) CrPC; default of one month simple imprisonment – Accused directed to appear before Trial Court on 01.06.2026 to undergo sentence [Paras 20–21].

Essential Commodities Act – Kerosene – Possession Beyond Permissible Limit – Conviction Upheld – Accused found in possession of 27 litres of kerosene oil in three tins at his shop during surprise inspection on 25.05.1990 — possession in excess of 10 litres without a valid dealer's licence prohibited under Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 — accused's defence that 20 litres belonged to another person rejected — prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 duly established seizure — Held: Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act affirmed [Paras 3–6].

Probation of Offenders Act – Section 4 – Long Delay – Reformative Approach – Incident of 1990 — appeal pending for about 33 years — appellant was in his mid-twenties at the time of the offence and is now in his late fifties — no criminal antecedents — leading a settled and dignified family life — minimum sentence prescribed under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 not a bar to invoking Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being a later enactment — court has a mandatory duty to consider probation; if declined, special reasons must be recorded — Held: Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act extended; appellant directed to execute bond of Rs. 500/- with one surety for one month under supervision of Probation Officer [Paras 7–10].

Decision: Criminal Appeal partly allowed — Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act upheld — Appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for one month on executing bond of Rs. 500/- with surety within fifteen days.

Criminal Law – Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Public Servant – Sections 332/34 IPC – Process Server assaulted while serving injunction order – Appellant no.1 abated on death – Conviction of appellant no.2 upheld – Process Server (P.W.4) went to serve injunction order passed in Misc. Case No. 14 of 1997 arising out of Title Suit No. 22 of 1996 – Both appellants caught hold of, assaulted and dragged P.W.4 and snatched red banners and forced him to sign a blank paper – P.W.4 being a public servant with no enmity towards accused, his uncorroborated but credible testimony acted upon – Hostile eye witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3) partially corroborated the prosecution version – Held: Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction under Sections 332/34 IPC affirmed [Paras 4–11].

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Partial Reliance – P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 turned hostile but their evidence that the Process Server had gone to serve injunction order and both accused persons were present at spot stood unchallenged – Held: Even evidence of hostile witnesses can be partly relied upon if found trustworthy; their testimony consistent with P.Ws. 4 and 6 on material aspects [Para 10].

Probation of Offenders Act – Section 4 – Reformative Justice – Long Delay – Appellant no.2, now aged about 48 years, was in his early twenties at the time of the incident in 1997 – Appeal pending for over 26 years – No criminal antecedents – Living a settled family life – Incarceration at this belated stage would be counter-productive and serve no penological purpose – Court has a mandatory duty to consider grant of probation where circumstances so warrant – If declined, special reasons must be recorded – Held: Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act extended; appellant directed to execute bond of Rs. 5,000/- with surety for six months under supervision of Probation Officer – Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- awarded to victim under Section 5 of the Act [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Criminal Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 332/34 IPC upheld – Instead of imprisonment, appellant no.2 released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for six months on executing bond of Rs. 5,000/- with surety – Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- payable to victim within one month.

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – Maintainability – Judicial Orders of Criminal Courts – Petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of orders dated 12.12.2025 and 21.02.2026 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 3894 of 1999 – State raised preliminary objection that judicial orders of criminal courts are not amenable to writ of certiorari under Article 226 – Petitioner contended that where order is passed without jurisdiction, certiorari would lie relying on Radhey Shyam (supra) – Held: The passage relied upon by petitioner from T.C. Basappa was merely quoted in Radhey Shyam but not approved; Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam concluded that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to Article 226 and jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct – Same standard applies to criminal courts – High Court disabled from entertaining writ petition under Article 226 against judicial orders of criminal courts – Petition dismissed as not maintainable at admission stage – Liberty granted to file petition under Article 227 [Paras 3–12].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable — judicial orders of criminal courts not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India — petitioner granted liberty to file fresh petition under Article 227.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide vs. Murder – Altercation over a mobile phone – Appellant hit the deceased on the head with a lathi, causing a fatal injury – Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC – Appellant contended lack of premeditation and intent, seeking modification of conviction – High Court observed that the incident occurred suddenly when the accused was called to the spot and struck a single blow – Held: While the accused lacked the specific intention to cause death, inflicting an injury on a vital part (head) demonstrates knowledge that the act was likely to cause death – The act falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and modified to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 27–29].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PW-2 accompanied the deceased to the spot and witnessed the appellant arriving and striking the deceased on the head with a lathi – Testimony corroborated by PW-1 (who arrived shortly after) and medical evidence (PW-15) confirming death due to hemorrhagic shock from a lacerated head injury – Held: The oral evidence of the eyewitness is natural, unrebutted, and inspires confidence, proving the appellant's act of assault beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 22–26].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action – Privity of Contract – Appellant, a logistics provider, executed approximately 30 consignments for transportation of grapes from cold storage facilities to ports for export to Russia during COVID-19 lockdown between 11.03.2020 and 09.05.2020 and raised invoices totalling Rs. 9,13,087/- — Commercial Court identified thirteen anomalies in the plaint suo motu before issuance of notice and rejected the plaint on the ground that export documentation featured appellant's sister concern M/s SPJ Cargo Private Limited and therefore no privity of contract existed between appellant and respondent — Held: Court under Order VII Rule 11 must restrict scrutiny to the four corners of the plaint read with documents and take them to be true; cause of action is a bundle of facts which if proved would entitle relief; by pleading direct solicitation of services, delivery of cargo and issuance of invoices accepted without protest, appellant met the threshold — premature adjudication of a mixed question of fact and law impermissible at admission stage [Paras 15–16].

Privity of Contract – Course of Dealing – Implied Contract – Segmented Logistics Arrangements – Respondent had historical course of dealing with appellant evidenced by prior direct payments into appellant's bank account — appellant's role limited to road transportation from warehouse to port while sister concern handled ocean freight and customs clearance — Commercial Court erroneously concluded from mate's receipts and ocean freight documents that appellant was an interloper — whether appellant acted as principal or agent is a matter of evidence requiring trial — privity can be inferred from conduct of parties and implied contracts — modern logistics frequently involves segmented contracts among affiliated entities — Held: Commercial Court embarked on a mini-trial and its inference is fundamentally flawed [Paras 16–17].

Procedural Law – Technical Defects – Curable Irregularities – Thirteen anomalies cited by Commercial Court including lack of registration under Carriage by Road Act and errors in Statement of Truth are largely procedural and do not go to the root of cause of action — procedural laws are handmaids of justice and should not be used as tripwires to defeat substantive claims — defects curable by amendment — rejection while amendment application pending constitutes grave procedural irregularity — Held: Summary rejection for technical defects unsustainable [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed — impugned order/deemed decree dated 09.12.2023 set aside — suit restored to original number — parties directed to appear before Commercial Court on 07.04.2026.

Stamp Act – Recovery Against Legal Representatives – Liability Limited to Inherited Estate – Section 48, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with Section 181, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 – Petitioners, sons of the deceased purchaser against whom deficiency and penalty were imposed under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, challenged recovery certificate issued against them after their father's death – Contended that they inherited no property from their father and that since the sale deeds were declared null and void by civil court, no property stood transferred – Held: Under Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act, chargeability of duty is referable to the date of execution and the instrument includes every document which purports to create any right or liability; consequently the civil court's declaration of the sale deed as null and void is wholly irrelevant for determining liability under the Stamp Act – Legal representatives fall within the category of "defaulters" under Section 181 of the Code, 2006 and recovery proceedings may be continued against them as if they themselves are defaulters – However, proviso to Section 181(1) limits their liability strictly to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to their hands [Paras 12–25].

Stamp Duty – Legal Representatives – Mode of Recovery – Inquiry Before Execution – Section 48 of the Stamp Act permits recovery by any mode prescribed for recovery of arrears of land revenue and the Collector may adopt any one or more modes under Section 170(1) of the Code, 2006 including arrest and detention, attachment of movable or immovable property, attachment of bank account, or appointment of receiver – The explanation to Section 170(1) permits simultaneous enforcement of two or more processes – Held: The respondents are well within their rights to give effect to the recovery certificate but must do so keeping in mind the mandate of the proviso to Section 181(1) which confines liability to the inherited estate – Whether the petitioners have inherited property from their father is a pure question of fact requiring investigation and cannot be accepted at the writ stage on the basis of affidavits – Collector directed to conduct inquiry after receiving petitioners' objections along with Income Tax Returns [Paras 15–27, 33].

Instrument – Definition – Declaration of Null and Void by Civil Court – Irrelevance for Stamp Liability – Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act defines instrument to include every document by which any right or liability is or purports to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded – Held: The expression "purports to be created" ensures that even if a right or liability is not actually created but the document purports to create the same, it falls within the definition of instrument – Subsequent declaration of sale deed as null and void by the civil court has no bearing on the question of chargeability to stamp duty [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of — Petitioners directed to file objections before Collector, Agra within one month along with Income Tax Returns — Collector to conduct inquiry into extent of inherited estate and decide objections within four months by reasoned order — Petitioners restrained from creating third party rights over movable and immovable properties and from withdrawing amounts from bank accounts in excess of the impugned levy, until decision on objections — No coercive action, arrest or detention against petitioners till decision on objections or four months whichever is earlier.