Criminal Law – Theft of Electricity – Illegal Hooking – Ownership of Premises Not Established – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant was convicted for dishonest abstraction of electricity through direct hooking from LT line after disconnection of legal supply – Raid conducted without verifying house ownership – Prosecution witnesses admitted no proof or documents to confirm house belonged to appellant – Evidence revealed meter was in father’s name who had passed away – No attempt made to identify actual occupant at time of raid – Appellant not present during raid – Seizure list not signed by local witness or appellant – Held: Conviction unsustainable as prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5-10]

Criminal Trial – Burden of Proof – Conviction Based Solely on Official Witnesses – No Corroboration from Independent Source – No local resident was examined – No eyewitness evidence to show appellant was committing theft at the time – Seized items were generic household materials (PVC wire, lamp holder) – Articles not produced in court – Seizure list not proven according to law – Held: In criminal cases, prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Failure to link accused to offence fatally undermines prosecution case [Paras 6-10]

Criminal Procedure – Examination Under Section 313 CrPC – Accused Denied Allegations – No Admission Made – Appellant denied all incriminating circumstances put to him – No defence evidence adduced – Trial Court erred in shifting burden on accused and assuming guilt in absence of sufficient prosecution proof – Held: Mere denial by accused not sufficient to sustain conviction unless prosecution proves offence independently [Para 8]

Appellate Interference – Scope of Reappreciation of Evidence – Appeal Allowed in Absence of Conclusive Proof – High Court held that cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence were violated – Prosecution evidence riddled with inconsistencies, procedural lapses, and lack of lawful identification – Conviction set aside and appellant discharged [Paras 11-13]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant discharged from bail bond – Urgent certified copy directed to be supplied [Paras 12-14]

Service Law – Reinstatement – Notional Increment – Tribunal directed refixation of pay with notional increment for period when employee was out of service – Respondent reinstated without back wages pursuant to Labour Court order upheld by High Court – Held: In absence of specific direction for consequential benefits or notional increments, such benefits cannot be claimed for the period of absence – Reinstatement without back wages does not automatically confer right to notional increment [Paras 1, 7, 10] –

Continuity of Service – Scope and Limitation – Respondent claimed full pay fixation from date of initial ad hoc appointment in 1985 – Terminated in 1997, reinstated in 2012 without back wages – CAT granted benefit of one notional increment for intervening period – Held: Continuity of service in such reinstatement is only for limited purpose (e.g., pension/seniority), not for monetary or incremental benefits unless specifically directed – [Paras 2, 6, 10] –

Binding Precedents – Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Court relied on Andhra Pradesh SRTC v. Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 SCC 36 and V.V.G. Reddy v. A.P. SRTC, (2009) 2 SCC 668 – Held: Supreme Court has consistently ruled that increments are not earned during periods of absence from duty unless explicitly granted as consequential benefit – Deepali Gundu’s case does not overrule Abdul Kareem and is distinguishable [Paras 5-7] –

Increment – Not Earned in Absence – Increment can only be earned when employee is actually in service with good conduct – It is not automatic upon reinstatement unless backed by specific order or rule – Held: CAT erred in granting notional increment retrospectively for period of non-service – [Paras 9-10] –

Decision: Petition allowed – CAT’s order set aside – Original Application filed by respondent before CAT dismissed [Final Para].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Cheating and Forgery in Judicial Process – Petitioner accused of filing a writ petition using complainant’s name and forged signature to obtain favourable court orders – Judicial enquiry held by Registrar revealed lapses by petitioner’s advocate, advocate’s clerk, and oath commissioners in verifying documents – Held: Court declines to quash FIR as it raises serious issues requiring investigation – Judicial process cannot be compromised through procedural manipulation [Paras 1, 3, 7–10, 16–19]

Advocates and Clerks – Misuse of Authority – Signing of Petitions and Affidavits – Court strongly deprecated practice of advocate’s clerk or unauthorized persons signing pleadings and affidavits on behalf of parties – Held: Advocates are duty-bound to uphold the sanctity of judicial records – Unauthorized filing with incorrect signatures amounts to serious misconduct and undermines public trust in the justice system [Paras 11–14, 22–23]

Investigation – Role of Registrar’s Enquiry – Court directed Investigating Officer to proceed based on findings of internal judicial enquiry – Held: If cognizable offence is found, action to be taken after issuing notice under Section 35 of BNS – Otherwise, matter to be closed if no prejudice caused – Court emphasized High Court’s duty as Court of Record to prevent misuse of judicial process [Paras 7–8, 18–21]

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR not quashed – Investigation to proceed independently based on judicial enquiry – Investigating Officer to act in accordance with law and without being influenced by Court’s observations [Paras 17–21]

Child Custody – Interim Custody – Appeal – Appellant-father challenged Family Court order granting interim custody of two minor children to respondent-mother – Alleged failure of Family Court to apply welfare principle and omission to record children’s wishes – Held: Family Court rightly prioritised emotional and psychological well-being of children over material considerations – Welfare of child is paramount – No ground for interference in appeal [Paras 1, 7, 26-27]

Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Family Court applied Section 17 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and relevant case law – Assessed stability, caregiving capacity, emotional needs of children – Held: Welfare principle was correctly applied – Physical custody alone not determinative – Emotional nurturing and continuity of care weighed over financial stability [Paras 17-20.1, 23]

Custody – Unilateral Removal by Father – Appellant took both children to Gurugram without mother’s consent – Claimed to be primary caregiver since 2023 – Held: Temporary unilateral custody cannot override long-standing caregiving role of mother – Family Court merely restored prior custody status – No vested right created by father’s self-assumed custody [Paras 5, 20.2, 20.3]

Child’s Preference – Daughter’s Choice to Reside with Mother – Court found elder child to be mature, articulate, and clear in expressing desire to live with respondent-mother – Held: Preference is genuine and not result of coercion or inducement – Supported by confidential in-camera interactions and continued voluntary residence with mother [Paras 13, 20.6, 21, 24]

Allegations Against Mother – Claims of Extra-marital Affairs – Appellant alleged respondent was unfit due to alleged extra-marital relations and erratic behaviour – Held: Allegations were unsubstantiated and speculative – No adverse impact on children’s welfare established – Custody decisions cannot be based on conjecture or moral assumptions [Paras 15.4, 20.4, 20.5]

Parental Alienation – No Proof of Manipulation – Appellant claimed daughter was alienated by respondent – Held: No credible evidence of such alienation – Court interactions showed daughter’s discomfort in father’s exclusive custody – Continued residence with mother based on her own volition [Paras 20.6, 21]

Violation of Visitation Orders – Appellant Took Children Abroad – Appellant took children to Dubai in March 2024 despite court’s visitation orders – Held: Conduct frustrated court’s directions and reflects disregard for legal process – Undermines claim of being responsible custodial parent [Paras 6, 22]

Sibling Bond – Split Custody Arrangement – Daughter residing with mother, son with father – Court observed such split is not ideal – Directed Family Court to explore ways to preserve sibling bond and ensure gradual transition if appropriate [Paras 25, 29]

Judicial Role – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Court emphasised its duty to protect minors’ welfare over adversarial rights of parties – Approach must be child-centric, not parent-centric – Reaffirmed from Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal [Paras 18-19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned Family Court order upheld – Interim custody arrangements to continue for 8 weeks – Parties permitted to seek modification from Family Court – All pending applications closed [Paras 27-30]

NDPS Act – Vehicle Confiscation – Owner Not Accused – Confiscation Order Set Aside – Trial Court convicted two accused under Section 20(b)(i) NDPS Act and ordered confiscation of truck bearing Reg. No. ABK-799 used to transport ganja – Appellant, who was the registered owner but not an accused in the criminal case, challenged the confiscation – Held: Appellant was not involved in the crime and has remained in possession of vehicle under orders of this Court – Confiscation order liable to be set aside as appellant’s ownership was undisputed and prosecution did not implicate her [Paras 2, 9-10]

Criminal Procedure – Section 454 CrPC – Appeal Against Confiscation – Maintainability – Appeal filed under Section 454 CrPC against order of confiscation passed as part of judgment in Sessions Case – Appellant established interest in property and had been granted interim release (zima) upon furnishing security – Held: Long pendency and absence of clarity on appeals by convicts warrants allowing appeal – Confiscation quashed [Paras 1, 4-11]

Evidence – Lack of Record – Inability of State to Confirm Status of Vehicle – Despite repeated directions, State unable to produce record of vehicle or confirm status of criminal appeal by convicts – Excise Officer reported that case record related to confiscation could not be traced – Held: No useful purpose served by prolonging litigation – Confiscation order unsustainable [Paras 6-8]

Interim Relief – Zima Granted and Security Furnished – Final Relief Accorded – Vehicle was released to appellant during pendency of appeal on furnishing cash and property security – Security stood for over three decades – Held: Security to be released, confiscation set aside, appeal allowed [Paras 4, 11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Confiscation order dated 11.02.1994 in Sessions Case No. 229 of 1993 set aside – Security furnished by appellant released – No costs [Para 11]

Civil Law – Second Appeal – Limitation – Dismissal of Appeal on Ground of Delay – Plaintiff-Appellant challenged sale of religious Math property by Mahant, claiming such property was public trust – Suit dismissed; appeal dismissed for limitation – Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC filed challenging dismissal of first appeal – Held: Appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal on ground of limitation – Appellant failed to show “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Mere ignorance of judgment despite public notice held insufficient – Appeal rightly held time-barred [Paras 6, 7, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22].

Limitation – Delay in Filing Appeal – Section 5, Limitation Act – Appellant filed first appeal nearly 2 years and 10 months after decree – Claimed delay due to late knowledge of judgment – Held: Delay not properly explained – Appellant was aware or should have been aware via public notice published in 2011 – Long delay without valid justification fatal – No sufficient cause shown – Liberal interpretation of delay cannot apply where negligence and lack of diligence are proved – Law must be applied with full rigour in absence of bonafide explanation [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16].

Representative Suit – Locus Standi – Right to Appeal – Appellant not a party in original representative suit – No leave obtained to file appeal – No evidence of connection to Math or authority to represent it – Held: Appellant lacked locus standi – Not an “aggrieved person” as required under law – Appeal not maintainable without leave of court – Cited precedents including V.N. Krishna Murthy v. Ravikumar and Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties – Mere sentimental or imagined grievance not sufficient to sustain appeal [Paras 10, 11, 17, 18, 19].

Civil Procedure – Person Aggrieved – Right to Appeal by Stranger – A person not party to a decree can appeal only with leave of court – Must show he is prejudicially affected or bound by the decree – Held: Appellant failed to prove prejudice or binding effect – No substantial right affected – Allegations of collusion between plaintiffs and defendants not supported by any evidence – Leave to appeal rightly not granted [Paras 17, 18, 20].

Judicial Discretion – Delay Condonation – Principles Reiterated – Courts must adopt liberal but cautious approach – Delay cannot be condoned merely on equitable grounds – Sufficient cause must be real, substantial, and shown with evidence – Delay arising from negligence, inaction or want of bonafide not condonable – Cited Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer – Emphasized that legal rights cannot be resurrected by vague pleas or procedural sympathy [Paras 13, 14, 16].

Appeal Dismissed – No Merit – Appellant failed to point out any legal error or infirmity in judgment of trial or appellate court – No error in appreciation of evidence – Trial Court rightly held Defendant to be lawful Mahant with ownership as per family tradition and documents – Sale of land found valid – No procedural irregularity shown – Second Appeal dismissed for lack of merit and limitation [Paras 6, 19, 20, 21, 22].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Appellant failed to establish locus standi, sufficient cause for delay, or any illegality in concurrent findings – Pending applications disposed [Paras 22, 23].

SARFAESI Act – Redemption of Mortgage – Right extinguished – Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging sale of mortgaged property by bank under SARFAESI Act – Appellants contended undervaluation and fraudulent sale of property worth ₹15 crore at ₹5.78 crore – Bank had attempted sale on four occasions and reduced reserve price due to lack of bidders – High Court held: Once sale certificate is registered, mortgagor's right of redemption extinguished – No procedural lapse or fraud established – Writ petition rightly dismissed – Appeal rejected [Paras 1–19]

SARFAESI Act – Compliance with Statutory Procedure – Bank had issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) – Symbolic possession taken – Physical possession obtained under Section 14(1) – Repeated attempts made to auction the property – Proper valuation, publication and notice of auction conducted – Sale held on 29.09.2021 after 4 failed attempts – Sale certificate issued and registered in favour of respondent No.4 – No procedural violation found – Borrowers' contention of fraud and undervaluation rejected [Paras 7–8, 18–19]

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(8) – Right of Redemption – Appellants sought to redeem property after sale certificate was issued – Held: Right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is overridden by amended Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act – Right to redemption ceases upon publication of auction notice – Writ petition filed after sale certificate was registered – No right of redemption remained [Paras 9, 12, 13, 14, 16–17]

Writ Jurisdiction – Availability of Alternate Remedy – High Court reiterated settled law that writ petition under Article 226 should not be entertained when effective alternate remedy under SARFAESI Act exists – Appellants had already approached DRT twice (S.A. No.174/2018 and S.A. No.212/2019), both dismissed – No exceptional ground shown for invoking writ jurisdiction – Reliance placed on Satyawati Tondon and Mathew K.C. – Writ rightly dismissed by Single Judge [Paras 9–11]

One-Time Settlement (OTS) – Borrower’s Entitlement – Appellants sought mandamus to consider OTS proposal – Held: No legal right to claim OTS – Grant of OTS lies within commercial wisdom of the bank – Writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce OTS – Borrower must satisfy eligibility criteria under scheme – Reliance placed on Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Meenal Agarwal – Request for OTS rightly rejected [Paras 5, 7, 15]

Undervaluation Allegation – Reduction of Reserve Price – Appellants alleged fraudulent undervaluation – Bank demonstrated that reserve price was reduced proportionally after repeated failed auctions – Final sale fetched higher than reserve price – Court found no mala fides or irregularity in sale process – Allegation of collusion between bank and purchaser not substantiated [Paras 8, 19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No procedural violation or fraud by bank – Right of redemption extinguished after registered sale – No entitlement to OTS – No error found in Single Judge’s order – Writ petition and intra-court appeal devoid of merit [Paras 17–19]

Succession Law – Probate – Will – Appeal – Probate petition filed by appellant (son of deceased Testatrix) seeking Letters of Administration based on unregistered Will dated 10.05.1989 – Learned Single Judge dismissed probate petition and allowed partition suit filed by other legal heirs – Held: Will proved through attesting witnesses and scribe – Suspicious circumstances found by Single Judge were neither pleaded nor put to witnesses in cross-examination – Suspicion unfounded – Will upheld – Probate granted – Partition suit dismissed [Paras 1, 2(i)-(ii), 4, 35, 38-40]

Execution of Will – Attestation and Proof – Section 68, Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Will was attested by two witnesses (PW2 and PW6) and scribed by daughter-in-law (PW5) – All deposed consistently affirming execution of Will in presence of Testatrix – No cross-examination on alleged suspicious circumstances – Held: Due execution proved as per law – No rebuttal by objectors – Testatrix’s second signature not explained as no opportunity was given to witnesses – Burden was on objectors [Paras 10, 21-22, 23-24, 35]

Suspicious Circumstances – Grounds raised suo motu by Court – No foundation laid by objectors – Single Judge doubted Will based on folding of document, lack of prior draft, venue of execution, absence of photographs, and exclusion of daughters – Held: Such grounds not pleaded or proved – Exclusion of daughters not unusual given social context of 1989 – Testatrix had right to bequeath property to any heir – Folding of Will and storage by Class VIII educated scribe (daughter-in-law) not suspicious – Signature mutilation due to folds explained – Absence of birthday photos immaterial in pre-mobile era [Paras 6(i)-(ix), 25-30, 32-34]

Testatrix’s Capacity – Educational Background – Testatrix studied up to Class II – Held: Mere limited formal education not a bar to executing a Will – Document was in Hindi, contained no legal jargon – Scribed by Class VIII educated daughter-in-law – Recitals in Will explained reasons for bequest – Objectors failed to disprove stated reasons [Paras 20, 27-28]

Comparison with Earlier Unproved Will – Will dated 06.02.1989 withdrawn by husband of Testatrix – Single Judge compared signatures of subject Will with that unproved Will – Held: Improper to compare with document not proved in accordance with law – No handwriting expert examined by objectors – Signatures on subject Will not disproved [Paras 5, 26, 36]

Legal Principle – Testamentary Freedom – Testatrix is free to bequeath property to any heir – No legal obligation to divide equally or include all children – Absence of strained relationship does not invalidate selective bequest – Disinheritance of married daughters not uncommon for era – Will reflects genuine last wish of Testatrix – Must be respected [Paras 31-32]

Partition Suit – Not Maintainable – In light of proved Will bequeathing entire property to appellant, suit for partition by other legal heirs fails – Will operates to exclude them – Partition decree set aside [Paras 2(ii), 39]

Conclusion – Will validly executed and proved – Suspicious circumstances not established – Impugned Judgment set aside – Probate granted – Partition suit dismissed – Appeal allowed [Paras 37-40]

Criminal Law – UAPA – Regular Bail – Section 43-D(5) – Prolonged Custody – Appellant in custody for over 2 years and 10 months without trial due to pendency of sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA – No evidence linking weapons recovered from appellant to terrorist activity or declared terrorists – Held: Long incarceration without trial violates Article 21 – Bail granted despite UAPA charges [Paras 3, 10, 12]

UAPA – Prima Facie Case – Section 43-D(5) – Standard of Review – Prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe accusations under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA to be prima facie true – No evidence linking accused to any act of terrorism – No record of WhatsApp communication or joint jail presence with alleged terrorists – Court held mere possession of arms without terror link insufficient for continued detention under UAPA [Paras 9-10]

Criminal Law – Parity in Bail – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Appellant's role not graver than co-accused already granted bail – Persons from whom arms were recovered, and others who allegedly supplied the weapons, all released on bail by Trial Court or Coordinate Bench – Held: Parity and lack of distinguishing features support grant of bail [Paras 10, Table under Para 10]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail as Safeguard – Delay in framing charges and conclusion of trial despite completion of investigation violates fundamental right under Article 21 – Supreme Court precedents in K.A. Najeeb, Jalaluddin Khan, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen, and Javed Shaikh applied – Held: Bail cannot be denied solely on seriousness of charges where trial is indefinitely delayed [Paras 11–16]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposed stringent conditions including ₹10 lakh bond, weekly police attendance, undertaking for trial participation, and prohibition on inducement or fresh offences – Prosecution permitted to seek cancellation if conditions breached [Paras 17–19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 22.12.2023 denying regular bail set aside – Appellant granted regular bail subject to stringent conditions including high bond, weekly marking, and undertaking for trial compliance – Observations made not to affect merits of trial – Trial Court permitted to impose additional safeguards – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 17–21]