Criminal Law – Bail – Recall of Bail Order – Distinction Between Recall and Cancellation – Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by CGST Department seeking recall of bail granted by learned CMM – Held: Challenge to grant of bail on merits stands on a different footing from cancellation of bail based on supervening circumstances – Bail order can be interfered with only if found illegal, perverse, arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations [Paras 38–40].

Economic Offences – GST Evasion – Gravity of Allegations – Bail Considerations – Allegations of clandestine manufacture and sale of banned gutka with alleged GST evasion of Rs. 831.72 crores – Court observed that seriousness of offence alone cannot justify recall of bail when investigation is primarily documentary and material already in possession of Department – Prolonged incarceration not warranted merely on basis of estimated figures founded on assumptions [Paras 45–46].

Bail Order – Exercise of Judicial Discretion – No Perversity or Illegality – Learned CMM considered nature of allegations, role attributed to accused, period of custody, stage of investigation and material collected – Bail granted after due application of mind – Held: Discretion exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously [Paras 44–45].

Confessional Statements – Evidentiary Value – Bail Stage – Department relied heavily on voluntary statements recorded under CGST Act – Respondent claimed retraction and relied on law laid down in Toofan Singh – Court held that veracity and evidentiary value of such statements is matter for trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at bail stage [Paras 26, 46].

Bail – No Misuse of Liberty – Absence of Supervening Circumstances – Bail granted in March 2021 and no allegation of violation of bail conditions, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or obstructing trial – Held: In absence of misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances, recall of bail is not justified [Paras 47–48].

Socio-Economic Offences – Bail Jurisprudence – While economic offences require careful scrutiny, courts must still balance gravity with personal liberty – Bail once granted should not be interfered with mechanically or as a retaliatory measure by investigating agency [Paras 41–43].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Bail order dated 17.03.2021 upheld – No ground made out for recall or interference – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law – Ownership of Immovable Property – Licensee versus Owner – Respondent claimed exclusive ownership of suit property on basis of perpetual lease deed and conveyance deed – Appellant claimed ownership as HUF property and by oral partition – Allotment card of 1950 conferred only tenancy rights and not ownership – Proprietary rights accrued only on execution of perpetual lease deed in 1971 and conveyance deed in 1999 – Other legal heirs relinquished their shares in favour of respondent – Held: Respondent proved absolute ownership; appellant failed to establish HUF or joint family property [Paras 18–26, 41–45].

Hindu Law – Hindu Undivided Family – Burden of Proof – Mere existence of joint family or migration together does not raise presumption of HUF property – Burden lies on person asserting joint family property to prove nucleus and acquisition from joint family funds – Appellant led only bald averments without documentary evidence – Held: Suit property not proved to be HUF property [Paras 42–44].

Contract Law – License Agreement – Revocability – Agreement dated 24.09.1996 permitted appellant to occupy front portion of property during his lifetime – Agreement expressly recognised respondent as owner and excluded rights of appellant’s legal heirs – No interest in property created – Held: Agreement constituted a bare and revocable license under Section 52 of Easements Act [Paras 27–28, 52–59, 62–63].

Will – Nature and Effect – Will dated 24.09.1996 executed by respondent in favour of appellant admitted by appellant – Will revoked in 2009 – Will operates only after death of testator – Testator alive and beneficiary predeceased – Held: No rights accrued to appellant under Will; admission of Will amounts to admission of respondent’s ownership [Paras 29–31, 35–36, 50–51].

Admissions – Estoppel – Appellant and his son admitted execution and contents of Agreement and Will acknowledging respondent as owner – Earlier suit filed by appellant based on same documents claiming only possessory rights – Held: Appellant estopped from disputing respondent’s ownership [Paras 30–37].

Res Judicata – Amendment Application – Rejection of amendment application in earlier suit seeking declaration of ownership does not operate as res judicata – No adjudication on merits regarding ownership in earlier proceedings – Held: Trial Court erred in applying res judicata, but finding did not affect final conclusion on merits [Paras 38–40].

Limitation – Suit for Possession by Licensor – Cause of action arose upon cancellation of Will in 2009 and revocation of license by notice dated 03.05.2010 – Suit filed in 2010 within limitation – Article 59 and Section 65 of Limitation Act not applicable – Held: Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 65–69, 71].

Displaced Persons Law – Section 29 of 1954 Act – Applicability – Protection under Section 29 applies only to evacuee properties or notified classes – Suit property not evacuee property – Appellant neither tenant nor allottee under Act – Held: Section 29 inapplicable [Para 70].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Testimony of respondent’s siblings relied upon by appellant suffered from contradictions and admitted strained relations – Evidence required heightened scrutiny – Held: Trial Court rightly discarded their testimony [Paras 45–49].

Mesne Profits – Proof Required – Respondent sought enhancement of mesne profits beyond Rs. 5,000 per month awarded by Trial Court – No evidence led regarding prevailing market rent of comparable properties – Held: Enhanced mesne profits cannot be granted without evidence; liberty granted to initiate separate proceedings [Paras 73–75].

Relief – Possession and Injunction – License validly revoked – Appellant in unauthorised occupation thereafter – Respondent entitled to possession, damages, interest and permanent injunction – Appeals dismissed [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 16.05.2013 affirmed – Respondent held absolute owner – Appellant directed to hand over possession – Decretal amount with interest to be released to respondent – Liberty granted to seek mesne profits separately.

Criminal Law – POCSO Conviction – Kidnapping of Minor Girl – Section 363 IPC – “Taking” from Lawful Guardianship – Consent of Minor Irrelevant – Victim aged 11 years voluntarily accompanied accused after telephonic conversation – Accused took minor from guardianship without consent of lawful guardian – Active role of accused in taking victim on motorbike and to his house established – Reliance on S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras distinguished on facts – Held: Ingredients of “taking” under Section 361 IPC satisfied – Conviction under Section 363 IPC upheld [Paras 14–21].

Age of Victim – Proof – Birth Certificate and Oral Testimony – Minority Established – Birth certificate (Exh. 27) and testimony of victim and mother consistently proved date of birth as 19.09.2010 – No effective challenge in cross-examination – Held: Victim was minor at time of incident [Para 13].

Rape – Section 376-AB IPC – Requirement of Penetration – Failure of Proof – Medical and Ocular Evidence – Victim’s testimony indicated attempt to have physical relations but refusal by victim – No categorical assertion of penetration, insertion or manipulation – Medical evidence showed no injuries and intact hymen – Statement regarding “forceful physical relations” found to be result of impermissible leading question in examination-in-chief – Held: Offence of rape not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 376-AB IPC set aside [Paras 24–35].

POCSO Act – Section 4(2) – Penetrating Sexual Assault – Acquittal – Ingredients under Section 3 POCSO akin to Section 375 IPC – In absence of proof of penetration or equivalent acts – Conviction under Section 4(2) POCSO unsustainable – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 35–36].

Sexual Assault – Section 8 POCSO – Physical Contact with Sexual Intent Without Penetration – Conviction Sustained – Victim deposed accused woke her up, took her to room and attempted forcible physical relations – Conduct demonstrated sexual intent and physical contact – Presumption under Sections 29 and 30 POCSO not rebutted by accused – Held: Offence under Section 8 POCSO proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 36–42].

Sexual Harassment – Section 354-A(2) IPC – Ingredients Established – Unwelcome physical advances and sexual overtures proved through victim’s consistent testimony – No effective cross-examination to discredit evidence – Conviction under Section 354-A(2) IPC upheld [Paras 38–42].

Evidence – Leading Questions – Effect on Conviction – Answer elicited through leading question in examination-in-chief without Court’s permission cannot be sole basis for conviction in serious offences like rape – Courts must scrutinize such testimony with caution – Held: Such evidence insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 376-AB IPC [Paras 26, 34].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 363 IPC, 354-A(2) IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act maintained – Conviction under Section 376-AB IPC and Section 4(2) POCSO Act set aside – Acquittal recorded for said offences – Pending applications disposed of.

Specific Performance – Execution of Decree – Deposit of Balance Sale Consideration – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Decree directed execution and registration of sale deed within stipulated time and permitted deposit of balance consideration if required during execution – Decree-holder filed execution petition within stipulated period and undertook to deposit entire balance consideration with interest – Executing Court permitted deposit though order passed beyond prescribed period – Held: Since decree-holder applied within time, delay attributable to Court cannot prejudice decree-holder – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference [Paras 1–3, 6–9].

Execution Proceedings – Powers of Executing Court – Bound by Decree – Executing Court cannot rewrite or travel beyond decree but is empowered to facilitate compliance with decree terms – Where decree-holder expresses readiness and willingness and seeks permission to deposit consideration within time, Executing Court acts within jurisdiction in allowing such deposit – No violation of decree conditions established [Paras 6–8].

Section 28, Specific Relief Act – Rescission of Contract – Scope – Judgment-debtor sought rescission of alleged unregistered sale deed and recall of order permitting deposit – Held: Section 28 aims to balance equities between parties – When decree-holder sought compliance within stipulated period and delay occurred due to Court process, rescission not warranted – Application rightly dismissed [Paras 6–9].

Delay Attributable to Court – Litigant Not to Suffer – Well-settled principle that party should not be prejudiced for delay caused by Court – Permission to deposit granted later does not defeat decree-holder’s rights when application was filed in time – No illegality in Executing Court’s approach [Para 9].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments in V.S. Palanichamy Chettiar, P. Shyamala, and Chanda v. Rattni distinguished – In cited cases, decree-holders failed to seek extension or deposit within reasonable time – Present case stands on different footing as execution petition with readiness to deposit was filed within prescribed period [Paras 5–9].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court to interfere only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, perversity, or grave injustice – Impugned orders reflect lawful exercise of discretion by Executing Court – No ground for supervisory interference made out [Paras 1, 9].

Decision: Civil revision dismissed – Orders dated 20.03.2025 and 19.08.2025 upheld – No interference under Article 227 warranted – Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Civil Law - Probate Proceedings – Revocation of Probate – Scope and Limitations – Appeal filed challenging dismissal of application for revocation of probate granted in respect of a registered Will – Held: Probate Court is concerned only with proof of due execution and attestation of the Will – Issues relating to title, possession of property documents, or validity of adoption are beyond the scope of probate jurisdiction [Paras 3, 10].

Caveatable Interest – Remote Heirs – Effect of Adoption – Appellants were widow and son of brother’s son of husband of testatrix – Second respondent was adopted son of testatrix – Adoption admitted in earlier civil proceedings and not specifically denied – Held: By virtue of Section 12 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, adopted son becomes Class I heir – Remote Class II heirs stand excluded and have no caveatable interest [Paras 6–7, 19–20].

Pleadings – Admission – Effect of Non-Denial – In earlier partition suit, appellants had admitted relationship showing second respondent as adopted son of testatrix – No specific denial in written statement – Held: In view of Order VIII Rule 5 CPC and Section 53 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, admitted facts need not be proved and cannot be reagitated in subsequent proceedings [Paras 7–11].

Revocation of Probate – Section 263 Indian Succession Act – ‘Just Cause’ – Grounds such as defective proceedings, fraud, concealment, untrue essential allegations, or inutilisation of grant examined – Held: None of the statutory grounds for revocation established by appellants – Mere allegations regarding adoption or possession of title deeds insufficient [Paras 13–15].

Limitation – Application for Revocation of Probate – Article 137 Limitation Act – Probate granted in 2009 – Application for revocation filed in 2022 after nearly 13 years – No explanation for delay – Held: Application hopelessly barred by limitation – Article 137 applies to applications under Indian Succession Act as settled by Supreme Court [Paras 16–18].

Adoption – Effect on Succession – Exclusion of Collateral Heirs – Once adoption is admitted and not challenged by independent proceedings – Adopted son deemed natural son for all purposes – Collateral relatives cannot claim succession or caveatable interest [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order of learned Single Judge upheld – No interference warranted.

Bail – Murder Case – Conspiracy – Accused Not Present at Scene of Crime – Petitioner (Accused No.11) alleged to have only intimated the movement of the deceased to principal accused – No overt act of assault attributed to him – Petitioner not present at the place of occurrence – Role limited to prior intimation – Held: Case distinguishable from main assailants and comparable to co-accused granted bail [Paras 7–9].

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused Nos.8 and 9, who were present at the spot but not armed and had not assaulted the deceased, already granted bail – Petitioner’s role held to be similar or lesser in gravity – Ground of parity applicable – Bail cannot be denied when similarly placed co-accused are enlarged on bail [Para 9].

Bail – Prolonged Custody – Delay in Trial – Petitioner in judicial custody since 28.07.2021 (over 4½ years) – Charge sheet cites 111 witnesses – Only some witnesses including major eye-witnesses examined – About 80 witnesses yet to be examined – Trial likely to take considerable time – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Continued incarceration held unjustified [Paras 10–12].

Bail – Suppression of Earlier Bail Petition – Effect – Though petitioner had earlier bail petitions dismissed, subsequent circumstances including long incarceration and delay in trial constitute change in circumstances – Suppression alone not sufficient to deny bail when liberty under Article 21 is implicated [Paras 4, 6, 13].

Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Prosecution failing to secure witnesses on scheduled dates – Adjournments granted for want of witnesses – Prolonged trial infringes right to personal liberty – Bail granted without expressing opinion on merits [Paras 10–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Principles laid down in Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268 applied – Long incarceration and delayed trial justify grant of bail [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner granted bail subject to conditions including execution of bond, non-tampering of witnesses, regular appearance before trial court, and non-involvement in further offences.

Criminal Law - Sexual Offences – Rape – Deaf and Mute Victim – Conviction under Section 376 IPC challenged – Victim was deaf and dumb – Her testimony was recorded without following mandatory requirements of Section 119 of Indian Evidence Act – No videography, no record of signs/gestures, no oath administered to interpreter – Held: Evidence of victim inadmissible due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards – Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC set aside [Paras 17, 21].

Testimony of Disabled Witness – Section 119 of Evidence Act – Interpretation Requirements – Proviso mandates assistance of interpreter and video recording – Multiple interpreters used at different stages – No proof of oath to interpreters or record of gestures – Held: Trial vitiated for failure to adhere to statutory procedure in recording evidence of disabled witness [Paras 20-21].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Inconsistencies in Date of Occurrence – Victim’s mother gave contradictory versions – Statements under Section 164 CrPC and oral testimony at variance – Evidence raised serious doubt whether rape occurred on 18.11.2015 or 27.11.2015 – Held: Unexplained delay and contradictions weaken prosecution case [Paras 10, 18, 19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Relationship between Parties – Victim was a major – Appellant’s marriage proposal to victim’s sister rejected – Panchayat held to compel appellant to marry victim – Medical report confirmed sexual intercourse but no injuries or signs of force – Held: Facts indicate prior relationship rather than forcible act – Offence made out under Section 417 IPC, not rape [Paras 22–24].

Decision: Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC modified to Section 417 IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to victim under Section 357(3) CrPC – Criminal Appeal partly allowed [Paras 24–26].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Proof – Conviction Upheld – Accused, Village Man, alleged to have demanded and accepted ₹500 as illegal gratification for facilitating transfer of Jama rights and land revenue mutation – Prosecution relied on evidence of complainant (PW1), decoy witness (PW2) and trap proceedings – Phenolphthalein test positive and tainted currency recovered from accused – Held: Evidence of PW1 regarding demand and acceptance remained unshaken – Foundational facts proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act sustained [Paras 9–20].

Public Servant – Competence to Perform Official Act – Irrelevant for Bribery Offence – Defence contention that accused was not competent authority to measure land rejected – Held: Even if accused was not statutorily empowered, demand and acceptance of bribe for influencing official process attracts offences under PC Act – Complainant entitled to rely on representations made by public servant [Paras 14, 20].

Trap Case – Minor Contradictions – Effect – Alleged inconsistencies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding handing over of money and positioning during trap – Held: Minor discrepancies not affecting core prosecution case – No material contradiction to discredit demand and acceptance [Paras 6, 20].

Legal Principles – Demand as Sine Qua Non – Application of Neeraj Dutta Doctrine – Court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance is essential for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) – Reliance placed on Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Found that prosecution satisfied twin requirements through cogent oral and circumstantial evidence [Paras 17–19].

Sentence – Appellate Interference – Leniency – Considering facts and circumstances, sentence reduced to minimum permissible while maintaining conviction – Rigorous imprisonment reduced while fine maintained – Substantive sentences to run concurrently [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction confirmed – Sentence modified – Bail cancelled – Accused directed to surrender to undergo modified sentence.

Motor Vehicles Act – Claims Tribunal Procedure – Deletion of Party – Prematurity – Order Quashed – Claimants challenged MACT order deleting insurer (Respondent No.2) at preliminary stage on ground that policy covered only own damage – Tribunal passed order before completion of pleadings, framing of issues and recording of evidence – Held: MACT cannot decide insurer’s liability piecemeal without full inquiry as mandated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Impugned order contrary to statutory scheme and Rules – Deletion set aside [Paras 3–4, 15, 18].

Claims Tribunal – Applicability of CPC – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Applicable – Goa Motor Vehicles Rules specify limited application of CPC provisions to MACT proceedings – Order I Rule 10 CPC not extended to Tribunal under Rule 300 – Tribunal lacks power to drop or implead parties based on preliminary examination without inquiry – Pleas regarding liability must be adjudicated after evidence [Paras 14–15].

Insurance Liability – Determination Requires Evidence – Contract of Insurance – Dispute whether vehicle was insured only for own damage or also for third party risk – Existence of multiple insurers pleaded – Held: Determination of inter se liability of insurers depends on proof of insurance contracts and evidence – Such issues cannot be decided at threshold [Paras 5, 7, 15, 18].

Summary Procedure – Not Piecemeal Adjudication – Though MACT follows summary procedure, it must decide all issues together in one inquiry – Reliance placed on Bimlesh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Tribunal erred in deciding maintainability and liability in isolation – Inquiry must culminate in a comprehensive award [Paras 16, 18].

Deletion of Party – Demurrer Principle – Premature Exercise of Power – Plea that claim discloses no cause of action against insurer must be tested assuming pleadings to be true – Following Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Manish Kumar – Deletion at preliminary stage before evidence held impermissible [Paras 17–18].

Consequential Directions – Recasting of Issues and Fresh Inquiry – Respondent No.5 later filed written statement during pendency of writ petition – Issues framed in absence of Respondent No.2 held unsustainable – Tribunal directed to recast issues after restoring Respondent No.2 and proceed with evidence and final award [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 10.08.2023 deleting Respondent No.2 quashed and set aside – MACT directed to recast issues after completion of pleadings and decide claim petition after recording evidence of all parties – Rule made absolute [Para 20].