Family Law - Maintenance under Senior Citizens Act – Definition of "Relative" – Legal Heir Requirement – Liability Set Aside - The appellant, wife of the deceased nephew of the senior citizen, came into possession of property through a gift deed executed in 1992 in favour of her late husband – The senior citizen, being childless, claimed maintenance from the appellant under Section 4(4) of the Act – The Tribunal and learned Single Judge held the appellant liable, construing her as a “relative” on the basis of her possession of the property – Held: The appellant does not fall within the definition of "relative" under Section 2(g) as she is not a legal heir under applicable personal law – Possession alone, without being a legal heir, does not create obligation to maintain – Orders of Tribunal and Single Judge quashed [Paras 1, 6–10].

Interpretation of Section 2(g) – Legal Heir Must Be Under Personal Law – Construction Limited by Statutory Text - The term "legal heir" in Section 2(g) must be interpreted strictly in accordance with personal laws governing succession – A person in possession of property but not a legal heir cannot be fastened with maintenance liability under the Act – Interpretation adopted by Single Judge held to be contrary to plain statutory language [Paras 6–9].

Decision – Writ Appeal Allowed – Tribunal and Single Judge Orders Quashed – Rights of the senior citizen, if any, outside the Act (e.g., under gift deed), kept open for future adjudication [Para 10].

Bann on Movie - Cinematograph Certification – Section 5A & 5B – Prima Facie Presumption – Interim Relief Rejected – Petitioner sought stay on release of film based on incident in which he is an accused, alleging prejudice to fair trial – Film certified by CBFC after 55 cuts, 5 additional voluntary cuts, and disclaimer replacement – Held: Once certification granted by statutory Board, presumption of validity applies; freedom of expression under Article 19(1) cannot be curtailed absent proximate and direct nexus with danger to public interest – No prima facie case made out [Paras 17, 24-29, 37].

Fair Trial Rights vs. Free Speech – Courts Not Influenced by Films – Petitioner’s contention that film’s depiction of charge-sheet contents would influence trial rejected – Supreme Court precedents (Zee News v. Navjot Sandhu; Nachiketa Walhekar; Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society) applied – Judicial training ensures trials unaffected by cinematic portrayal; principle applies equally to criminal and civil trials [Paras 31-36].

Balance of Convenience – Harm to Producer vs. Speculative Prejudice – Producer invested lifetime earnings; postponement would cause financial loss and delay of six months in release – No irreparable harm to petitioner established – Balance of convenience in favour of producer [Paras 38-39].

Decision – Interim application for stay of release dismissed; prayer for in-camera viewing of film deferred to final hearing [Paras 40-42].

Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving – Death of Minor – Sentence Reduced – Petitioner, driver of a school jeep carrying 25 passengers including children, overturned vehicle on village mud road after seeing oncoming bullock cart—Trial Court convicted under Sections 304A and 338 IPC; Appellate Court affirmed conviction but reduced sentence—High Court upheld concurrent findings on guilt, holding evidence of eyewitnesses cogent and proving negligence, but considering mitigating factors (19 years since offence, no criminal antecedents, young age at time, attempt to rescue victims) reduced sentence to three months under Section 304A and one month under Section 338, to run concurrently [Paras 20, 28-32, 37-42].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – PWs 1-7’s consistent statements, corroborated by medical and mechanical inspection evidence, established negligent driving—Defence of slippery road and evasive action due to bullock cart rejected; driver failed to exercise caution expected when transporting children [Paras 12-20, 28-30].

Section 313 CrPC – Failure to Offer Explanation – Court noted accused’s silence during examination under Section 313 CrPC, despite being a direct participant, justified adverse inference [Paras 23-25].

Sentencing Principles – Court reiterated proportionality as guiding factor; no intoxication or deliberate recklessness involved; long lapse of time and conduct after accident warranted leniency in quantum of imprisonment [Paras 35-42].

Decision – Revision partly allowed; conviction under Sections 304A and 338 IPC affirmed; sentence reduced; accused directed to surrender within three weeks, with set-off for period already undergone [Para 42].

Criminal Law - Rape and House-Trespass – State Appeal Against Acquittal – Appeal Dismissed – Prosecution alleged accused entered victim’s house early morning, gagged and tied her, and committed rape—Sessions Court found material omissions in FIR, improbability of tying hands and legs without resistance, absence of injuries despite alleged force, contradictions between PW testimonies, possibility of consensual intercourse with husband, and five-day unexplained delay in FIR—High Court held findings plausible and not perverse—Acquittal affirmed [Paras 3-7, 20-32, 44-47].

Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Principles Reiterated – Court reiterated SC precedents (A. Shankar, Sanjay Thakran, Chandrappa) that double presumption of innocence applies; interference only if trial court’s view is perverse, manifestly illegal, or grossly unjust—Mere possibility of a different view insufficient [Paras 12-15, 40-43].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Vaginal smear report showed sexual intercourse but consistent with possibility of marital relations—Absence of resistance injuries and improbability of alleged physical acts undermined prosecution case [Paras 19-21, 25-30].

Delay in FIR – Incident on 31.08.2003 reported on 05.09.2003—Explanation of fear rejected; delay held fatal in light of settled law—Reliance on letters written years later irrelevant [Paras 32-37].

Decision – Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal in S.C. No. 425/2004 dated 15.02.2007 confirmed; no interference warranted [Paras 44-47].

Criminal Law – Revision Against Rejection of Discharge Application – Prima Facie Case – Allegations of Fraudulent Audit Reports – Revision Dismissed – The applicant, a Chartered Accountant, was accused of preparing misleading audit reports of M/s. Sai Infosystem (India) Ltd. for FYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 – The reports allegedly inflated debtor balances and enabled wrongful disbursement of ₹51.62 crores by Allahabad Bank – Held: Prima facie material supports allegation of conspiracy and fraudulent intent – Discharge rightly rejected by trial court [Paras 7, 10–14].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 397 CrPC – Limited Nature – No Interference Warranted – Revisional powers cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or conduct a mini-trial – Held: No jurisdictional error or perversity in trial court’s order – High Court refused to interfere with the trial court’s exercise of discretion [Paras 8, 13, 15].

Framing of Charge – Standards at Discharge Stage – Presumption in Favour of Prosecution – At the stage of discharge, court must assume prosecution’s material as true – Held: Documents and witness statements in the charge sheet disclose existence of ingredients of alleged offences – Charge can be framed without evaluating defence evidence [Paras 7–9, 12].

Auditor’s Responsibility – False Certification and Conspiracy – Accountability of Chartered Accountant – The applicant allegedly affirmed inflated debtor lists without verification and knowingly facilitated the company’s access to greater drawing power – Held: Auditor's conduct prima facie shows more than professional negligence – Charge under IPC and PC Act sustainable [Paras 11–14].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application dismissed – Order dated 30.12.2024 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural), rejecting discharge application, confirmed – Rule discharged [Para 16].

Tenancy Law - Eviction Suit – Default in Payment of Rent – Tenant's Failure to Comply with Section 12(3) of Bombay Rent Act – Eviction Upheld – Tenant failed to pay arrears within one month of notice and did not deposit rent with interest and costs before the first hearing – Courts below rightly held forfeiture of tenancy occurred – Money orders sent after suit filing and irregular deposits during trial were insufficient to establish “readiness and willingness” – Decree for eviction rightly passed on this ground [Paras 15-20].

Eviction Grounds – Erection of Permanent Structures and Change of User – Tenant Failed to Prove Landlord’s Consent – Valid Ground for Eviction – Evidence showed tenant erected tin sheds and conducted hotel business in residential premises – Trial court erred in demanding proof from landlord regarding timing of structural changes – Appellate court correctly reversed findings, placing burden on tenant to prove consent – Change of user and unauthorized structure upheld as eviction grounds [Paras 28-31].

Nuisance – Commercial Activity in Residential Premises – Valid Eviction Ground – Operating a hotel with a furnace in residential chawl caused discomfort to neighbours – Noise and waste were sufficient to constitute nuisance – Appellate court’s conclusion based on evidence and site inspection report upheld [Para 32].

Civil Procedure – Order 41 Rule 22 – Cross-Objection Not Mandatory to Assail Adverse Finding – Appellate Court Empowered to Reverse Trial Court’s Finding – Respondent not required to file cross-objection where decree is in their favour – Reliance on SC rulings in Saurav Jain v. ABP Design and S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore – District Judge rightly reversed negative findings on additional eviction grounds despite no cross-objection [Paras 21-26].

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – No Interference in Well-Reasoned Eviction Decree – Appellate findings based on sound legal reasoning and evidence – No perversity or jurisdictional error warranting writ interference – Petition dismissed with costs [Paras 33-35].

Civil Law – Declaration - Conditional Sale – Sale Deed Made Ineffective by Cheque Dishonour – Valid Declaration – The sale deed dated 16.06.2003 was executed on condition that a post-dated cheque for ₹45,00,000 would be honoured – As the cheque was dishonoured repeatedly for insufficient funds, the trial court declared the sale deed ineffective – Held: Parties had expressly agreed that dishonour would result in automatic cancellation, making the deed conditional and non-operative – Declaration upheld [Paras 6–7, 22–26, 31, 39].

Consideration – Conditional Sale and Incomplete Transfer – No Transfer of Title – Though a sale deed was executed and registered, only ₹1,00,000 out of ₹46,00,000 was paid – In light of the explicit condition tying validity to full payment, and non-transfer of possession, the contract was held incomplete and ownership did not pass – Trial court rightly found no enforceable transfer of property rights [Paras 22–28, 35–36, 38].

Possession – Not Delivered – Right to Injunction – Continued Possession of Seller – The Plaintiff remained in physical possession and the Defendant admitted non-possession – In light of the ineffective sale deed, a permanent prohibitory injunction was rightly granted restraining interference by the Defendant [Paras 13, 43–45].

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Additional Evidence Rejected – Abuse of Process – Defendant filed belated and irrelevant documents, including an unsigned agreement and abated proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act – Court held that none satisfied the legal tests under Order 41 Rule 27 – Applications dismissed as tactics to delay and alienate property [Paras 46–52].

Contract Law – Agreement Without Consideration is Void – As 98% of the sale consideration remained unpaid, the contract was void under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act – A sale deed without substantial consideration does not confer legal rights or ownership – Trial court rightly denied cancellation relief for want of proper court fees, but affirmed declaration and injunction [Paras 53–55].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Trial Court’s findings declaring the sale deed as ineffective and granting permanent injunction were affirmed – No perversity or legal infirmity found – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs – Applications under Order 41 Rule 27 also dismissed [Para 55].

Criminal Law - Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Reversed – Acquittal – The appellant was convicted for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence including recovery of blood-stained clothes and forensic findings – No eyewitness or motive was established – Held: The prosecution failed to prove a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances to conclusively link the accused to the crime – Conviction set aside [Paras 7-19].

Proof of Guilt – Panchsheel Principles – Circumstantial Evidence – Incomplete Chain – The Court reiterated that the five principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda must be fully met for conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Held: The prosecution failed to exclude all other hypotheses and establish a consistent and conclusive chain – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 7-8, 18-19].

Forensic Evidence – Blood Group Analysis – Lack of Correlation – Though FSL found human blood of Group “A” on seized items and accused’s clothes, the prosecution did not prove the blood group of the deceased or accused – Held: Forensic results were inconclusive and could not independently support conviction [Para 12].

Seizure Evidence – Lack of Independent Witnesses – Procedural Lapses – Recovery of blood-stained articles and accused’s clothes occurred without any neutral public witness despite being in public places – Held: Absence of independent corroboration and lapses in evidence handling undermined prosecution’s case [Paras 10-11, 13].

Motive – Absence of Proven Motive – Relevance in Circumstantial Cases – No enmity or motive was attributed to the accused – Held: While motive is not indispensable, in circumstantial cases its absence becomes a critical gap – Weakens prosecution narrative [Para 17].

Appellate Power – Section 386(b)(i) CrPC – Power to Acquit – The Court invoked its power under Section 386(b)(i) CrPC to reverse the conviction – Held: As the accused had already undergone over 13 years of actual custody and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal was warranted [Paras 20-23].

Final Judgment – Appeal Allowed – Acquittal Ordered – Section 302 IPC – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Accused-appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case – Personal and surety bonds directed under Section 437-A CrPC [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law - Defamation – Section 199 Cr.P.C. – No Bar to Magistrate's Direction under Section 155(2) – Petition Dismissed - Petitioner challenged the registration of NCR and filing of chargesheet under Section 500 IPC based on the ground that defamation offences under Chapter XXI IPC can only be prosecuted by private complaint under Section 199 Cr.P.C. – Held: Section 199 bars registration of FIR or investigation through Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., but does not bar investigation initiated under a Magistrate’s direction under Section 155(2) for non-cognizable offences – Hence, no illegality found in process [Paras 6-7.1].

Magisterial Powers – Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. – Magistrate Can Direct Investigation in Non-Cognizable Cases – Validity Upheld - The Court affirmed the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to direct registration and investigation in non-cognizable offences – Once legal opinion confirmed prima facie defamation, the Magistrate’s direction was valid – NCR and chargesheet lawfully filed [Paras 6, 6.1, 7].

Distinction Between Section 155(2) and 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Defamation Cases – FIR vs. NCR - The petitioner wrongly relied on precedents that bar FIR in defamation cases via Section 156(3) – Held: Present case arose from NCR registered under Section 155(2) and not FIR under Section 156(3); thus, the bar under Section 199 Cr.P.C. does not apply [Paras 7-7.1].

*Decision – Petition Dismissed – Magistrate's Order and NCR Upheld – No Illegality Found - The Court held that the direction issued by the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to register NCR and conduct investigation was lawful – Filing of chargesheet under Section 500 IPC was valid – Petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 8].