Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Acquittal – Victim’s Appeal and State Appeal – Prosecution alleged conspiracy and murder of deceased Jayaram by Accused Nos.1 to 4 using chopper and sickle – Trial Court acquitted accused for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 450 read with Section 34 IPC – High Court reappreciated entire evidence – Held: No perversity or illegality in acquittal warranting interference [Paras 1–2, 31–33].

Evidence – Appreciation of Testimony – Sole Alleged Eyewitness – P.W.4 claimed to have seen accused fleeing with weapons – Cross-examination revealed he was not present at spot at relevant time and had no direct knowledge of incident – His presence contradicted by evidence of P.W.3 and police witnesses – Held: P.W.4 was a chance witness and not a reliable eyewitness – Evidence not trustworthy [Paras 17, 23–24, 26–30].

Evidence Act – Section 6 – Res Gestae – Earliest Information – Complaint Ex.P.1 lodged by wife of deceased based on information received from others – No immediate statement by eyewitness to police – Information not forming part of same transaction – Held: Section 6 not attracted as statements lacked proximity and certainty [Paras 24, 27–30].

Witness Credibility – Interested and Related Witnesses – P.W.1 (wife) and P.W.2 (daughter) not eyewitnesses – Their evidence only hearsay as to occurrence – No corroboration from independent witnesses – Held: Their testimony insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 14–16, 31].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Section 27 Evidence Act – Alleged recovery of chopper, sickle and vehicle at instance of accused – Panch witnesses to seizure and recovery mahazars turned hostile – No independent proof of recovery – Mere FSL report showing blood group ‘O’ insufficient without proved seizure – Held: Recovery not established [Paras 18–20, 30–31].

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – Multiple Chop and Stab Injuries – Brutal nature of crime proved – However, medical evidence alone cannot connect accused in absence of reliable ocular or circumstantial evidence – Held: Medical evidence corroborative, not substantive [Paras 5, 11, 31].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Two views possible on evidence – Trial Court’s view plausible and based on appreciation of record – No compelling reason to overturn acquittal – Presumption of innocence reinforced – Held: Appeals liable to be dismissed [Paras 31–33].

Decision – Criminal Appeal No.1620/2025 (Victim’s Appeal) dismissed – Criminal Appeal No.1905/2025 (State Appeal) dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 13.06.2025 in S.C. No.1169/2017 affirmed.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Bail – Statutory Bar under Section 43-D(5) – Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act – Accused No.14 alleged to be District President of PFI and actively involved in conspiracy, radicalisation, recruitment and fund raising for terrorist activities – Trial Court rejected bail holding accusations prima facie true – Held: Material on record discloses reasonable grounds to believe accusations are prima facie true – Bar under Section 43-D(5) squarely attracted – No interference warranted [Paras 4, 10, 21].

Bail – Successive Bail Applications – Change in Circumstances – Accused had earlier bail applications rejected – Subsequent bail petition maintainable only on demonstrable change in fact or law – Grounds urged substantially similar to earlier applications except delay and sanction issues – Held: No substantial change in circumstances justifying grant of bail [Paras 11–12, 21].

UAPA – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 45 – Absence of Sanction under Section 18 – Contention that no sanction granted for offence under Section 18 UAPA – Held: Sanction requirement relates to taking cognizance of offences and not accused-specific – Cognizance already taken for scheduled offences – Absence of sanction qua a particular provision does not ipso facto entitle accused to bail [Paras 14–15].

UAPA – Terrorist Funding – Section 17 – Seizure of Cash – Alleged Non-Compliance with Section 25 – Appellant contended seized cash was legitimate and procedure under Chapter V not followed – Held: Procedural lapses, if any, in seizure do not go to root of prosecution case at bail stage – Allegations and material disclose involvement in fund raising – Whether ingredients satisfied is matter for trial [Paras 16].

Evidence – Bail Stage – Scope of Appreciation – At bail stage under UAPA, Court not required to conduct mini-trial or evaluate sufficiency of evidence in detail – Only prima facie satisfaction required – Held: Trial Court correctly applied settled principles [Paras 16, 21].

Criminal Procedure – Case Diary – Section 172(2) CrPC – Application by Accused to Summon Case Diary – Appellant sought summoning of entire case diary under Section 482 CrPC – Held: Case diary can be called for only by Court for its aid – Accused has no right or locus to demand production – Application rightly dismissed [Paras 17–20].

Delay in Trial – Long Incarceration – Appellant in custody for over two years – Large number of witnesses cited – Held: Mere long incarceration and pendency of trial, in absence of exceptional circumstances, cannot override statutory embargo under Section 43-D(5) UAPA [Paras 6, 21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Order dated 02.05.2025 rejecting bail in Special Case No.744 of 2023 affirmed – I.A. No.2 of 2025 seeking summoning of case diary dismissed – No relief granted to appellant.

Disability Pension – Armed Forces Tribunal – Judicial Review – Constitutional/Lifestyle Diseases – Attributability and Aggravation by Service – Opinion of Medical Board – Scope of Interference – Union of India challenged a batch of orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Mumbai granting disability pension to Army and Navy personnel suffering from diseases such as diabetes mellitus, primary hypertension, obesity, dyslipidemia, leukemia, psychiatric disorders, hearing loss etc. – Tribunal held that disabilities were attributable to or aggravated by military service and granted disability pension with rounding-off – Union of India contended that Medical Board opinion declaring diseases as constitutional or lifestyle-related was final and binding under Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 and Navy Pension Regulations – Held: Opinion of Medical Board is not sacrosanct or immune from judicial scrutiny – Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine whether Medical Board followed statutory rules and recorded cogent reasons – Disability pension is a beneficial provision and must be interpreted liberally in favour of service personnel – Mere labeling of disease as “constitutional” or “lifestyle” is insufficient to deny disability pension [Paras 7–8, 14–18].

Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 – Interpretation – No Restrictive Shift from Pre-2008 Regime – Union of India argued that Rules of 2008 introduced a stricter regime requiring proof of causal connection – Held: Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 do not dilute or restrict entitlement but expand and clarify eligibility – Provisions relating to causal connection, aggravation and manifestation of disease are to be applied in a liberal and purposive manner – Rule 5 stating that mere manifestation of disease during service does not per se establish attributability does not negate presumption in favour of personnel when service conditions indicate contribution or aggravation – No substantial departure from Pension Entitlement Rules, 1982 [Paras 10–11, 18].

Attributability and Aggravation – Presumption in Favour of Military Personnel – Burden of Proof – If no disease is recorded at the time of entry into service, presumption is that the personnel was in sound physical condition – On subsequent invalidation or retirement in low medical category, burden lies on employer to establish that disease is wholly unrelated to service – It is unrealistic to expect personnel to prove causation of diseases like hypertension or diabetes by service rigours – Benefit of reasonable doubt must go to the serviceman [Paras 15, 17].

Medical Board Opinion – Requirement of Reasons – Transparency and Fairness – Medical Board must record clear, cogent and intelligible reasons while opining on attributability or aggravation – A bald opinion that disease is “constitutional” or “not connected with service” without reasoning vitiates denial of disability pension – Absence of reasons renders the decision arbitrary and unsustainable – Tribunal and High Court entitled to interfere where Medical Board opinion is unreasoned or contrary to service records [Paras 14, 16].

Service Records – Evidentiary Value – Operational and Stressful Postings – Service records reflecting postings in field areas, high altitude, operational zones and stressful conditions carry substantial evidentiary value – Diseases arising or worsening during or after such postings can be reasonably linked to service conditions – Continuous exposure to stress, extreme climate and operational duties may aggravate lifestyle or constitutional diseases [Paras 2–3, 13–14].

Voluntary Retirement / Superannuation – Low Medical Category – Entitlement to Disability Pension – Personnel retiring on superannuation, premature retirement or completion of tenure in low medical category are entitled to disability pension if disability is attributable to or aggravated by service and assessed at 20% or more – Invalidation is not the sole gateway for disability pension under the statutory scheme [Paras 2, 12].

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – High Court will interfere with Tribunal orders only if findings are perverse, based on irrelevant material or ignore vital evidence – No such perversity found in Tribunal’s orders granting disability pension – Tribunal applied settled principles and statutory provisions correctly – No ground made out for interference [Paras 18–19].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed – Orders of Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension upheld – Interim orders vacated.

Service Law – Assistant Teacher – Appointment Obtained by Fraud – Cancellation After 15 Years of Service – Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2010 and continued in service for nearly 15 years – Appointment cancelled by District Basic Education Officer on verification of records and STF enquiry finding educational and domicile certificates forged and belonging to another person – Held: Length of service does not sanctify an appointment obtained by fraud – Fraud vitiates everything [Paras 2–5].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Fraudulent Appointment – Plea of violation of principles of natural justice rejected – Where appointment is secured on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, no detailed enquiry or opportunity of hearing is required – Beneficiary of fraud cannot invoke protections of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [Paras 5, 7].

Judicial Review – Alternative Remedy – Writ Maintainability – Though alternative remedy of appeal was available, writ petition not pressed on that ground at final stage – Court held that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar where plea of denial of opportunity of hearing is raised – Nevertheless, on merits, no interference warranted [Paras 6–7].

Precedents – Fraudulent Appointments – Consistent View of High Court – Reliance placed on earlier decisions holding that appointments obtained by fraud are void ab initio and can be cancelled without departmental enquiry – Fraud unravels all acts and confers no enforceable right [Para 5].

Public Employment – Education System – Systemic Fraud – Court expressed serious concern over large-scale appointments of Assistant Teachers on forged certificates with collusion or connivance of officials – Such illegal appointments undermine purity of education system and prejudice students’ interest, which is paramount [Paras 8–9].

Directions – State-wide Scrutiny – Mandamus Issued – Principal Secretary, Basic Education directed to conduct comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of appointments of Assistant Teachers across the State – Action to include cancellation of fraudulent appointments, recovery of salary wherever permissible, and disciplinary/penal action against erring officials – Exercise to be completed preferably within six months [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Cancellation order upheld – Mandatory directions issued to State authorities for State-wide verification and action against fraudulent appointments – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order for immediate compliance [Paras 7, 10–12].

Departmental Inquiry – Appointment of Inquiry Officer – Retired Public Servant – Inquiry conducted by retired Deputy Secretary appointed as Inquiry Authority – Challenge based on Rule 11(2) of EIA Rules contending that only serving public servant can be appointed – Held: Expression “public servant” in Rule 11(2) includes retired public servant – No express or implied exclusion in Rules – Appointment valid [Paras 33–55].

Service Law – Interpretation of Disciplinary Rules – Doctrine of Exclusion – Exclusion of retired officers must be expressly provided or flow by necessary implication – Rule 11(2) of EIA Rules contains no such exclusion – Applying principles laid down in Union of India v. Alok Kumar – Retired officer remunerated for inquiry falls within ambit of “public servant” under Section 21 IPC [Paras 43–54].

Rule 11(4), EIA Rules – Personal Hearing – Scope and Stage – Requirement to ask delinquent employee whether he desires to be heard in person operates at stage immediately after service of charge-sheet – Personal hearing contemplated during inquiry proceedings, not post submission of inquiry report – No requirement of separate personal hearing by Disciplinary Authority after inquiry report if findings accepted – Learned Single Judge erred in contrary interpretation [Paras 59–73].

Principles of Natural Justice – Compliance – Charged officer participated in inquiry proceedings – Supplied with inquiry report and afforded opportunity to submit representation – Full compliance with procedural safeguards under EIA Rules – No violation of natural justice established [Paras 68–70, 78].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Proceedings – Limited Scope – Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence – Findings of guilt recorded after consideration of evidence – Not a case of “no evidence” – Reliance on Bhupenderpal Singh Gill held misconceived [Paras 74–77].

Distinguishing Precedents – Kunj Behari Misra and Yoginath D. Bagde – Requirement of opportunity arises only when Disciplinary Authority disagrees with findings of Inquiry Authority – No such disagreement in present case – Said judgments inapplicable [Para 79].

Decision – Letters Patent Appeals – Appeal by employer (LPA 1045/2024) allowed – Appeal by employee (LPA 313/2024) dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Punishment order and appellate order restored – No order as to costs [Paras 80–82].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Interim Compensation – Section 143-A – Trial court directed accused to pay 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation – Accused denied issuance of cheque, denied signature and existence of bank account – Held: Power under Section 143-A is discretionary and can be exercised only upon prima facie satisfaction of ingredients of Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–18].

Cheque Dishonour – Prima Facie Case – Burden of Proof – Though statutory presumption arises once execution of cheque is admitted – In present case accused specifically denied issuance and signature on cheque – Bank Manager (PW2) testified that cheque account belonged to a third person and not to accused – Defence found prima facie plausible – Interim compensation not warranted at this stage [Paras 22–25].

Evidence – Bank Testimony – Account Not of Accused – PW2, Branch Manager of concerned bank, stated that cheque account was in name of another individual – Supports defence that accused had no account in concerned bank – Serious disputed questions of fact requiring full trial – Grant of interim compensation held imprudent [Paras 23–25].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – While revisional powers are limited – Interference permissible where trial court fails to properly apply statutory parameters under Section 143-A – Impugned order granting interim compensation set aside as not based on correct prima facie evaluation [Paras 20, 25–26].

Criminal Proceedings – Expeditious Trial – Cheque bounce case pending since 2021 – Trial court requested to endeavour to complete trial expeditiously considering pendency and nature of dispute [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 26/09/2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari directing payment of interim compensation of 20% of cheque amount quashed and set aside – Trial to proceed on merits expeditiously [Paras 26–28].

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement to Sell – Suspicious Circumstances – Plaintiff relied upon two Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 for same property, same parties, same consideration – No plausible explanation for execution of two agreements – Explanation that first was handwritten and second typed found unconvincing – Held: Multiple unexplained agreements for same transaction cast serious doubt on genuineness of contract [Paras 12].

Agreement on Pre-Signed / Blank Papers – Evidentiary Inference – Typed Agreement dated 16.12.2005 showed abnormal narrow gaps in last lines – Thumb impressions only on last page – Admissions by plaintiff that signatures were obtained at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan and attestation done later at Gurgaon – Stamp papers purchased by plaintiff – Held: Strong inference that thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and agreement typed subsequently – Agreement surrounded by suspicious circumstances [Paras 13–15].

Admissions in Evidence Contradicting Pleadings – Plaintiff denied in replication that agreement was executed at Nihalpura – In cross-examination admitted execution/signatures obtained at Nihalpura and attestation elsewhere – Held: Plaintiff took false stand in pleadings – Such inconsistencies materially affect credibility and proof of contract [Paras 14, 17].

Sale Consideration – Contradictions between Agreement and Sale Deed – Agreement mentioned total consideration of ₹2,00,000/- – Sale Deed prepared by plaintiff mentioned ₹1,50,000/- as full consideration – No pleading or proof as to payment of balance ₹50,000/- – Stamp papers purchased and Sale Deed prepared prior to target date without explanation – Held: Serious discrepancies go to root of transaction and render agreement unreliable [Paras 15, 18].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Mere affidavits of attendance before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Plaintiff failed to prove availability of balance consideration – Failed to plead or prove when and how remaining amount was paid – Held: Mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness not satisfied [Para 18].

Burden of Proof – Fraud and Execution – Onus lies first on plaintiff to prove execution of agreement beyond doubt – Only thereafter burden shifts to defendant to prove fraud – Trial Court correctly applied burden of proof – First Appellate Court wrongly shifted burden on defendant merely on admission of thumb impressions [Paras 17, 19].

First Appellate Court – Duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Judgment of First Appellate Court reversed detailed trial court findings without framing points for determination or discussing evidence – Cryptic reasoning ignoring material discrepancies and trial court analysis – Held: Judgment suffers from patent illegality and non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – Relief cannot be granted on shaky, inconsistent and suspicious evidence – Courts must examine intention of vendor from attendant circumstances – Grant of specific performance by First Appellate Court held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–23].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference Justified – Though scope is limited, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or ignore mandatory legal requirements – Present case falls within exception – High Court entitled to restore trial court decree [Para 23].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 of Trial Court restored – Suit for specific performance dismissed, decree for recovery of ₹50,000/- upheld.

Tenancy Rights – Heritability – Death of Tenant – Punjab Village Common Lands Act – Tenant Kulwant Rai held to be in cultivating possession as gair maurusi for decades – Upon his death, tenancy rights devolved upon legal heirs – Gram Panchayat failed to show any statutory provision extinguishing tenancy on death – Held: Tenancy rights are heritable and plaintiffs lawfully stepped into shoes of deceased tenant [Paras 12].

Village Common Land – Dispossession by Gram Panchayat – Requirement of Due Process – Earlier civil decree recognised tenant’s possession and restrained dispossession except in accordance with law – Panchayat initiated ejectment proceedings under Section 7 but resorted to auction during pendency – Held: Panchayat could not dispossess tenants or their heirs without completing statutory ejectment proceedings [Paras 11, 14].

Auction of Panchayat Land – Validity – Auction conducted during pendency of injunction and ejectment proceedings – Found to be a short-cut method to oust tenants – Held: Auction dated 06.04.1985 illegal, null and void and incapable of conferring lawful possession on auction vendees [Paras 7.1, 11].

Injunction – Dispossession During Pendency of Suit – Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiffs dispossessed despite interim injunction order – Civil court competent to restore possession and grant mandatory injunction to restore status quo ante – First Appellate Court rightly ordered restoration of possession [Paras 7.2, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellate Court’s findings based on revenue record, prior judgments and evidence – No perversity or misapplication of law shown – Held: Interference in second appeal not warranted [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 21.11.1997 passed by First Appellate Court affirmed – Plaintiffs entitled to declaration of tenancy and restoration of possession.

Pre-emption – Tenant’s Right – Municipal Area – Extinguishment of Right – Sale of co-sharer’s land effected after inclusion of village within municipal limits – Held: Right of pre-emption stood extinguished – Suit for pre-emption not maintainable [Paras 8].

Tenancy – Proof – Gair Maurusi Entry – Absence of Rent – Revenue records consistently showed plaintiff in possession as gair maurusi with entry “bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan” – No entry of rent, no lease deed, no pleadings or proof regarding creation of tenancy – Held: Possession simpliciter or gair maurusi entry without rent does not establish tenancy – Tenancy being bilateral relationship cannot be inferred merely from possession [Paras 10.1–10.2, 13].

Pleadings and Evidence – Beyond Pleadings – Plaintiff attempted to improve case during evidence by alleging tenancy under Gram Panchayat at nominal rent – Such plea neither pleaded nor supported by documents – Held: Evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered – No amount of evidence can substitute absence of pleadings [Paras 10.2].

Earlier Judgments – Binding Effect – Parties Not Same – Earlier civil judgment relied upon by plaintiff did not bind defendants who were not parties thereto – Subsequent suit dismissal did not adjudicate nature of possession – Held: Earlier judgments do not conclusively prove tenancy [Paras 10.3, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope – Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court being final court of facts reversed trial court’s finding on tenancy after detailed re-appreciation of evidence – Findings neither perverse nor illegal – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Interference declined [Paras 13–14].

Possession – Protection – Due Process of Law – Though tenancy not proved, plaintiff found to be in settled possession – Held: Plaintiff cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law [Paras 8, 15].

Contempt Petition – Not Pressed – COCP dismissed as not pressed [Para 16].

Decision: RSA dismissed – Finding affirmed that plaintiff is not proved to be tenant though in possession – Protection against dispossession except by due process upheld – COCP No. 3975 of 2018 disposed of as not pressed.