Criminal Law - Fundamental Rights of Prisoners - Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 300A - Right to execute Power of Attorney while in judicial custody - Petitioner undertrial in NDPS case sought execution of General Power of Attorney in favour of brother to sell joint property for family financial needs - Special Judge NDPS cases rejected application on hypothetical assumption that property might be proceeds of crime - High Court noted absence of any evidence collected by investigating agency showing property was proceeds of crime - High Court observed mere incarceration does not result in civil death and prisoner retains fundamental right to hold and dispose of property - Procedural mechanisms exist under Registration Act and Prison Rules for attestation within jail premises - Held - Impugned order based on imagination set aside - Superintendent of Jail directed to attest and register General Power of Attorney - Petitioner directed to seek Trial Court permission before actual execution of sale deed - Petition allowed - [Paras 1-21].

Civil Law - Registration of Documents in Prison - Registration Act 1908 - Sections 31 and 38 - Rajasthan Prison Rules 2022 - Rules 202 and 526 - Mechanism for execution - Section 38 of the Registration Act exempts a person confined in jail from personal appearance at the registration office - Registering authority may depute an officer to the place of confinement - State prison rules expressly permit under trial and convicted prisoners to execute power of attorney before Jail Superintendent or Magistrate - Held - The legal capacity to contract and transfer property remains intact despite imprisonment provided procedural safeguards and statutory restrictions regarding attached properties are followed - [Paras 9-12].

Constitutional Law - Civil Rights of Prisoners - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Extent of civil rights during incarceration - Relying on Supreme Court precedents it is settled that an under trial or pre-convict prisoner continues to enjoy civil rights not inconsistent with the fact of imprisonment - Right to carry on trade and alienate property is not eclipsed by continuing incarceration - An undertrial does not forfeit the right to alienate his property unless the same is case property or specifically attached by a competent court under procedural laws - [Paras 8-17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 03.06.2025 quashed and set aside – Superintendent of Central Jail Jaipur directed to forthwith attest the General Power of Attorney and facilitate its registration – Petitioner directed to submit an application before the Trial Court seeking permission before the execution of any sale deed.

Family Law - Matrimonial Dispute - Misappropriation of gold and money - Appeals by wife against Family Court order dismissing claim for return of thirty five sovereigns of gold and money allegedly appropriated by husband - Wife alleged husband took gold on three occasions including before and after delivery - Family Court dismissed petition finding Ext B5 series photographs showed wife wearing gold ornaments long after birth of children indicating gold was with her - Ext A1 receipt from goldsmith found unreliable by Family Court - Wife failed to adduce evidence for payment of alleged amounts to husband - High Court upheld Family Court findings observing total lack of evidence - Held - Family Court justified in holding wife failed to prove claim for gold and money - Appeals dismissed - [Paras 1-12].

Family Law - Maintenance - Past maintenance - Claim by wife and children for past maintenance from July 2017 to January 2019 - Family Court negatived claim noticing wife was employed as Village Extension Officer since 2016 and husband was maintaining children - Wife admitted in cross examination that husband was paying Rs 1500 per month towards maintenance and producing evidence of school fee payments - Children already awarded maintenance at Rs 3000 per month in a connected petition - Held - No reason to interfere with Family Court judgment - [Paras 2-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of the Family Court upheld – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - Discharge - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 239 - Petitioners being the Assistant Director of Agriculture and a planter challenged the dismissal of their discharge petitions by the Special Judge - Prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy where bogus receipts and estimates were created in the name of non existent firms to claim agricultural subsidy for drip irrigation - Vigilance inspection revealed no such work was executed in the properties of the third accused - First accused sanctioned the subsidy amount in cash violating procedural norms requiring cheques or demand drafts for amounts exceeding one thousand rupees - Special Judge held that procedural irregularities and forged documents raised strong suspicion regarding the complicity of the accused - High Court observed that evidence for conspiracy is circumstantial and the materials produced by the prosecution prima facie substantiate the involvement of the accused - Held - Strong suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused in the alleged misappropriation is sufficient for framing a charge and proceeding with the trial - Impugned common order rejecting the discharge petitions is sustainable - Criminal revision petitions dismissed - [Paras 1-14].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) - Misappropriation of government funds - First accused sanctioned huge subsidy amount based on forged documents submitted by the third accused and certified by the second accused - Cash disbursed directly bypassing standard procedures - Held - Deviations from established norms regarding disbursement of public funds coupled with creation of bogus receipts give rise to a grave suspicion regarding the involvement of the public servant in misappropriation - Strong suspicion suffices at the pre trial stage to frame charges - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Criminal revision petitions dismissed – The Special Court is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Service Law - Reservation in Promotion - Constitution of India - Articles 16(4A) and 335 - Consequential Seniority - Writ petitioners belonging to reserved categories were granted accelerated promotion to Loco Pilot Goods and Loco Pilot Passenger with consequential seniority - Promotions were effected after Railway Administration collected quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation and administrative efficiency - Private respondents belonging to unreserved category challenged these promotions before Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad which quashed the seniority lists - High Court reversed Tribunal order observing that post Eighty Fifth Constitutional Amendment consequential seniority is a legally permissible incident of reservation in promotion once parameters laid down in M Nagaraj case are satisfied - High Court noted that administration had correctly assessed cadre strength and compliance with constitutional requirements was established - Held - Grant of accelerated promotion and consequential seniority to petitioners is valid in law and cannot be disturbed - Impugned Tribunal orders quashed - Paras 1-24 and 38-39.

Service Law - Promotion against Unreserved Vacancies - Constitution of India - Articles 16(1) and 16(4A) - Own Merit Principle - Writ petitioners were considered for promotion to Loco Pilot Mail against unreserved vacancies based on their consequential seniority attained in the feeder cadre - Unreserved candidates contended that such promotion amounts to excessive reservation and requires fresh quantifiable data - High Court rejected this contention holding that promotion to Loco Pilot Mail is a continuation of existing promotional hierarchy and governed by inter se seniority prevailing in the feeder cadre - Held - Reserved category candidate is not disentitled from competing for or occupying an unreserved post merely because of belonging to reserved class - Candidates selected on their own merit cannot be counted against reserved quota - Paras 25-37.

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Orders dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench are quashed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Partition - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Section 96 - Joint family properties versus self acquired properties - Appellants challenged the trial court decree which partly decreed the partition suit holding only schedule A properties as joint family properties while dismissing claims over schedules B to E - Trial court relied on earlier claims to hold that properties were self acquired by the karta and another son - High Court reevaluated evidence and previous admissions in connected suits - High Court found clear admission by the contesting respondent in cross examination and prior pleadings that certain schedule properties were joint family properties - Burden shifts to the party claiming self acquisition when a sufficient joint family nucleus is established - Contesting respondents failed to prove that properties were purchased by the maternal grandfather - Admissions made by parties in pleadings operate proprio vigore - Trial court misread evidence and erroneously dismissed claims for partition of other properties - Held - Common judgment of the trial court set aside - Suit decreed allotting 1/7th share to each of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 in respect of joint family properties - Appeals allowed in part - [Paras 36-93].

Civil Law - Admission in Pleadings - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 17 and 18 - Evidentiary value of admissions - A litigant cannot take contradictory statements in the same case though they may take different stands in different proceedings - Admissions made by a party in pleadings are admissible against them proprio vigore - Contesting respondent admitted in written statements in connected suits and in cross examination that schedule B and C properties were joint family properties - Held - Such admissions are binding and sufficient to conclude the joint nature of the properties - [Paras 45.6-50].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Joint Hindu Family - Presumption of jointness - There is no presumption that a family because it is joint possesses joint property - The person alleging the property to be joint must establish that the family possessed sufficient nucleus with the income of which the property could be acquired - Once such nucleus is established the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of joint family funds - Held - Plaintiffs successfully discharged their initial burden whereas the contesting respondents failed to prove independent purchase - [Paras 43.1-70].

Civil Law - Transposition of Parties - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 23 Rule 1A - Withdrawal of appeal by original plaintiffs - Transposed parties cannot blow hot and cold by taking a stand contrary to their original pleadings in the suit - In a partition suit every party is deemed to be a plaintiff and defendant - If original plaintiffs withdraw any defendant claiming a share can continue the suit - Held - Transposed respondents are estopped from resiling from their original claim that properties are joint family properties - [Paras 78-88].

Civil Law - Additional Evidence in Appellate Court - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Application to receive certified copy of plaint from another suit filed in 2025 as additional evidence - No averment of due diligence in the affidavit - Documents sought to be filed do not assist the appeal as the properties are already part of the schedule properties in the present suit - Held - Application for additional evidence lacks merit and dismissed - [Paras 27-32].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part - Common judgment and decree passed by the trial court set aside - Suit decreed allotting 1/7th share to each of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 without costs - Interim orders if any stand vacated.

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Sections 138 and 141 - Vicarious liability of Director - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner arraigned solely on account of his designation as a Director of the accused company - Complaint was completely silent regarding the role played by the petitioner in the affairs of the company his participation in the transaction his involvement in the issuance of the cheque or any overt act attributable to him - Trial Court proceeded against the petitioner - Revisional application filed for quashing the proceedings - High Court observed that Section 141 creates a legal fiction extending vicarious criminal liability requiring strict construction - Mandatory requirement of a specific averment that the accused was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the offence was completely absent - General statements without specifying who signed the cheque are insufficient - Allowing proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of process of law - Held - Proceedings against the petitioner quashed - Revisional application allowed - [Paras 1-23].

Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 141 - Essential averments in complaint - Sine qua non for invoking Section 141 is a specific averment that the accused was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business - Expressions was in charge of and was responsible to the company must be read conjunctively - Mere designation as a Director does not satisfy the statutory requirement - In the absence of specific role qua the participation of a director in the alleged transaction no director can be implicated by virtue of Section 141 - Held - Requirements under Section 141 are totally absent in the present complaint - [Paras 4-21].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – Proceedings of Case No. C-2371 of 2021 pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore are quashed in respect of the petitioner.

Criminal Law - Summoning of additional accused - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 - Section 14-A(1) - Appellant filed appeal against trial court order rejecting application to summon opposite party no 3 being the son of the chargesheeted accused - Initial FIR and statement under Section 161 CrPC named both father and son but Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet only against the father finding no evidence against the son - During trial injured witness PW-3 stated only the father was taken to hospital and denied presence of anyone else while PW-2 was not an eyewitness - Trial court refused to summon opposite party no 3 observing no specific role assigned and lack of presence at spot - High Court observed that power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and requires evidence stronger than mere probability of complicity - Held - Trial court reasoning does not suffer from any error or illegality warranting interference - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 5-18].

Criminal Law - Power to summon additional accused - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Discretionary and extraordinary power - Must be exercised sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against other persons - Evidentiary standard requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity and must be more than a prima facie case though short of satisfaction for conviction - Held - Trial court rightly rejected the application as no strong and cogent evidence surfaced against the opposite party no 3 during trial - [Paras 11-15].

Professional Ethics - Conduct of Advocates - Adjournments - Advocates sought adjournment in High Court citing engagement in District Courts - High Court noted none of the three engaged counsel appeared to assist the court - Held - Seeking repetitive adjournments on the pretext of pendency before subordinate courts shows lack of respect towards professional duties and towards the High Court - Dispensation of justice by the Court is a duty that can proceed even without assistance from advocates if they refrain without just cause - Lawyers requested to refrain from seeking adjournments on frivolous grounds which artificially increases pendency - [Paras 1-4 19-20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Trial court order rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC affirmed - Remarks passed advising members of the Bar to refrain from seeking adjournments in the High Court on grounds of being engaged in subordinate courts.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 147 148 149 323 325 120B and 201 - Prosecution alleged that twelve accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the deceased and injured witnesses at midnight - Trial Court acquitted all accused finding the prosecution evidence unreliable - State preferred appeal - High Court observed that the testimony of the wife of the deceased was highly contradictory as she admitted in cross examination that she gave names of only four accused and the remaining were named at the behest of villagers - One named accused had died ten years prior to the incident - Medical evidence revealed only one fatal head injury which contradicted the prosecution theory of simultaneous assault by twelve armed persons - Further there was no electricity at the scene making identification at midnight highly doubtful - Other injured eyewitness admitted he ran away out of fear and did not see the actual assault - Panch witnesses turned hostile - Held - Trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal - Evidence on record is not convincing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged crime - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-24].

Evidence Law - Interested Witnesses - Reliability - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 134 - Assessment of testimony of sole or interested witnesses - High Court noted that the testimonies of family members of the deceased were contradictory and did not inspire confidence - The wife of the deceased substantially washed out the prosecution story in her cross examination - Brother of the deceased woke up after the incident and did not witness the assault - Held - While quantity of witnesses is not material the quality must be cogent and credible - Where there are serious doubtful aspects in the conduct of witnesses it is not safe to convict without corroboration - [Paras 13-16].

Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Scope of interference - High Court reiterated the settled legal position that an appellate court has full power to review evidence but must bear in mind the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused upon acquittal - Held - If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality or the conclusion is perverse - [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is confirmed - Bail bonds stand cancelled.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 328 - Appellants convicted by trial court for administering Aluminium Phosphide to the deceased husband of one appellant - High Court set aside the conviction noting fatal delay in FIR and material inconsistencies in testimonies of the first informant and witness regarding dying declaration and hospital admission - FSL report held inadmissible due to lack of scientific criteria and reasons - Prosecution failed to prove safe preservation of viscera sample over a one year delay before FSL examination - Scientific literature confirms Aluminium Phosphide has a pungent garlic odour making homicidal ingestion in food highly improbable and it is mostly consumed for suicidal purposes - Held - Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and judgment of the trial court is perverse - Appellants acquitted - [Paras 1-82].

Evidence Law - Expert Opinion - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 45 - Admissibility of FSL report - Viscera report merely recorded the ipse dixit of presence of Aluminium Phosphide without disclosing data or tests conducted - Expert opinion bereft of reasons or basic scientific criteria is inadmissible and of no avail - Post mortem doctor was not confronted with the FSL report to corroborate symptoms of poisoning - Held - FSL report inadmissible in evidence and discarded - [Paras 49-72].

Criminal Law - Preservation of Evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 293 - Viscera sample chain of custody - Delay in examination - Sample drawn during post mortem and received by FSL after a month but examined after more than one year - No evidence regarding safe laboratory conditions during the prolonged gap - Burden is on prosecution to prove safe storage and appropriate conditions for preservation - Held - Unsafe conditions render the sample unfit for future testing - Prosecution failed to discharge the burden - [Paras 73-76].

Medical Jurisprudence - Toxicology - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Aluminium Phosphide poisoning - Scientific characteristics - Medical authorities and texts confirm Aluminium Phosphide has a strong pungent garlic odour making accidental or homicidal administration in food highly improbable - Supreme Court precedents establish that such poisoning is overwhelmingly suicidal - Appellants responses under Section 313 CrPC established they rushed the deceased to the hospital for prompt medical attention - Held - Forced administration or accidental consumption scientifically unlikely thereby gravely denting the prosecution case - [Paras 57-77].

Decision: Appeals allowed - Impugned judgment of trial court set aside - Appellants acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith - Specific suggestions issued to Director General of Police and FSL Directors to strictly maintain scientific protocols and safe preservation standards for viscera samples.