Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Ownership Requirement under Section 14(1)(e) – Proof of Better Title Sufficient – Landlady sought eviction on ground of bona fide requirement – ARC dismissed petition on ground that ownership and landlord-tenant relationship were not proved – Held: Landlady produced registered sale deed and rent receipts proving better title than tenant – ARC exceeded jurisdiction by venturing into detailed title examination contrary to settled law – Eviction petition cannot be defeated merely because landlady is not absolute owner – Revision allowed and eviction ordered [Paras 1–6, 10–11].

Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Discretion of Landlady – ARC failed to consider landlady’s residential need – Landlady sought more space for herself and her growing family – Held: It is landlady who is best judge of her requirement – Tenant failed to rebut claim with any credible evidence – Bald denials not sufficient – No evidence of alternative suitable accommodation – ARC erred in not considering material on record [Paras 12–13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – When Justified – Though revisional court cannot substitute its view as appellate court, it can interfere where trial court acts beyond jurisdiction or misapplies settled law – Held: ARC’s finding based on ownership was contrary to binding precedents – Interference warranted to correct miscarriage of justice [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition allowed – Judgment of ARC dated 31.01.2019 set aside – Eviction order passed – Tenant granted six months to vacate premises in terms of Section 14(7) DRC Act [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act – Arms Act – Wildlife Offences – Grant of Bail in Multi-offence FIR – Prolonged Custody – Petitioners Rinku Thapar and Divyam arrested in connection with FIR alleging recovery of drug money, arms, wildlife articles, and narcotics – Petitioners in custody for over one year and two months – Charges framed, but trial yet to commence – 42 witnesses cited, no prior criminal record – Held: Bail granted considering prolonged incarceration, completion of investigation, and parity with co-accused [Paras 2, 6, 7, 11]

NDPS Act – Section 21(c) – Recovery Below Commercial Quantity – Effect on Bail Consideration – From petitioner Divyam, only 381 grams of charas recovered – Less than commercial quantity of 1 kg – Bail plea considered favourably due to lesser offence severity under NDPS Act [Para 10]

Arms and Wildlife Protection Act – Recovery From Co-accused – No Independent Recovery From Petitioner – Bail Not Barred – From petitioner Rinku Thapar, arms, wildlife articles, and cash recovered – However, no recovery of narcotics – Bail granted in absence of bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act and considering lack of past criminal record [Paras 6(viii), 10]

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Trial – Bail Justified – 42 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined – Trial expected to be prolonged – Petitioners not involved in other cases – No purpose served by continued incarceration – Bail granted [Paras 7, 11]

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Co-Accused Already Granted Bail – Seven co-accused granted regular bail earlier by High Court – Petitioners’ case found on parity – Bail granted on equal footing [Para 6(vii)]

Decision: Regular bail granted to petitioners Rinku Thapar and Divyam – Ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of Trial Court – Trial Court to proceed independently and expeditiously.

Professional Misconduct – Chartered Accountant – Disciplinary Proceedings – Reference to High Court – Reference made by Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India seeking action under Section 21(6) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 – Allegations based on SEBI investigation relating to manipulation of public issue of Bharthari Financial Services Ltd. – Disciplinary Committee after detailed enquiry held respondent guilty of “other misconduct” – Council accepted findings and recommended removal of name – Held: Due process duly followed and findings well supported by evidence [Paras 1, 4, 11, 14–17].

Professional Misconduct – Other Misconduct – Ante-dated Stock-Invests – Irregular Allotment of Shares – Respondent, Chairman and Whole Time Director of BFSL, conspired with another Chartered Accountant in arranging finance and obtaining ante-dated stock-invests after closure of public issue – Despite withdrawal of applications, shares allotted and certificates issued without receipt of funds – Acts held detrimental to general investing public – Constitutes “other misconduct” under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Act [Paras 5, 11, 18].

Professional Ethics – Role of Chartered Accountants – Integrity and Fiduciary Responsibility – Chartered Accountants expected to maintain highest standards of integrity as custodians of financial markets – Manipulation of public issues and connivance with promoters strikes at root of market probity – Conduct of respondent held unbecoming of a Chartered Accountant [Paras 18–19].

Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Effect of SEBI and SAT Findings – Findings of SEBI under Section 11B and affirmation by Securities Appellate Tribunal relied upon by Disciplinary Committee – Non-challenge to SAT order by respondent reinforces culpability – Parallel disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act sustainable [Paras 8, 11].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Non-Contest by Delinquent Member – Despite service of notice and opportunity, respondent failed to contest reference before High Court – Allegations remained unrebutted – Court entitled to proceed on basis of record and disciplinary findings [Paras 10, 14].

Penalty – Suspension from Membership – Costs – In exercise of powers under Section 21(6) of the Act, respondent directed to be suspended from membership of ICAI for one year – Restrained from rendering services as a Chartered Accountant during suspension – Costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed on respondent payable to petitioner [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Reference accepted – Respondent suspended from membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for a period of one year – Restrained from rendering services as a Chartered Accountant – Costs imposed – Reference disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Bail – Mob Lynching – Serious Offences Punishable with Life Imprisonment/Death – Applicants sought bail in a triple-murder case arising out of a mob attack during COVID-19 lockdown – Allegations included brutal assault with sticks and stones, incitement of mob, conspiracy, attack on police personnel and destruction of evidence – Held: Nature and gravity of offence, coupled with specific overt acts, militates against grant of bail [Paras 6–10, 14–18].

Criminal Law – Bail on Ground of Parity – Distinction Based on Role – Applicants claimed parity with several co-accused already enlarged on bail – Court examined earlier bail orders and held that bail was granted only to those accused against whom no overt acts were attributed – Present Applicants specifically identified as active assailants through CCTV footage, forensic evidence and eyewitness statements – Parity principle held inapplicable [Paras 8–10, 15].

Criminal Law – Bail – Principle of Parity Not a Straightjacket Formula – Reliance placed on Sagar v. State of U.P. affirming that parity cannot be sole ground for bail – Role, degree of participation and gravity of acts decisive – Applicants stood on a different footing from co-accused released on bail [Paras 11–13].

Criminal Law – Long Incarceration – Not a Sole Ground in Heinous Crimes – Applicants in custody for over five and a half years – Court held that where offences are punishable with life imprisonment or death, such period does not amount to undue or disproportionate incarceration – Right to liberty must be balanced against societal interest and seriousness of crime [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Law – Evidentiary Material at Bail Stage – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Charge-sheet contained CCTV footage, forensic reports, recovery of weapons and clothes, test identification parade and statements of multiple eyewitnesses – Sufficient prima facie material demonstrating overt acts and conspiracy by Applicants – Bail declined [Paras 6–7, 10].

Criminal Law – Investigation Transferred to CBI – Direction for Expeditious Completion – Investigation transferred to CBI in August 2025 – While rejecting bail, Court directed CBI to conclude investigation expeditiously and left liberty to Applicants to renew bail prayer after completion of investigation [Paras 16, 20].

Decision: Bail Application dismissed – CBI directed to complete investigation expeditiously – Applicants granted liberty to apply for bail afresh after conclusion of investigation – Observations held to be prima facie and not binding on trial [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appeal Against Acquittal – Deceased wife allegedly harassed for dowry and committed suicide by fire – Trial Court acquitted husband and in-laws under Section 304B IPC citing contradictions between witness statements and dying declaration – High Court held that dying declaration lacked any mention of dowry harassment – Close relatives and neighbours did not support prosecution – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s reasoning – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3, 17, 24, 27-30, 34]

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value – Deceased suffered 95% burns but gave dying declaration recorded by Magistrate – Declaration lacked material allegation of dowry demand – Witnesses gave inconsistent versions – Court held that declaration cannot be sole basis for conviction when not corroborated – Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal law – Trial Court justified in treating it as inconclusive [Paras 17-20, 25-27]

Criminal Procedure – Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements – Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation are not substantive evidence – Cannot be used as sole basis for conviction – Only usable for corroboration or contradiction – Court rightly held that reliance on such statements without oath-bound testimony in court was impermissible [Paras 21, 24]

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Principles reaffirmed that appellate court must not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – Presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal – No compelling evidence warranting reversal – Trial Court’s view found to be reasonable and based on full appreciation of record – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-14, 29-34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2006 confirmed.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance pendente lite – Section 24 HMA – Non-earning wife residing at parental home – Absence of ITRs and expense bills – Effect of Rajnesh guidelines – Prior MoU cannot override statutory right – Interim maintenance upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–25].

Maintenance – Pendente Lite – Section 24 HMA – Nature and object – Proceedings are summary in nature – Intended to provide immediate financial support to dependent spouse during pendency of matrimonial litigation – Court to take a prima facie view on available material and husband’s admitted income – Hyper-technical insistence on documents cannot defeat substantive right of maintenance [Paras 16–17, 24].

Maintenance – Guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha – Scope and applicability – Requirement of income affidavits and ITRs aimed at transparency and preventing concealment of income – Non-earning spouse or spouse with income below taxable limit not mandatorily required to file ITRs – Absence of ITRs, in such cases, corroborates claim of nil income rather than disproving it – Family Court not bound to insist on impossible compliance [Paras 16(i), 23].

Maintenance – Assessment of wife’s independent income – Bank transactions and savings – Isolated transaction and existence of mutual fund investments insufficient to infer steady or sufficient income – Financial assistance or transactions with family members natural when wife resides at parental home after separation – No proof of gainful employment or regular income placed on record – Maintenance cannot be denied on conjectures [Paras 18–20].

Maintenance – Prior settlement / MoU – Effect – Agreement entered years prior to litigation cannot override statutory right under Section 24 HMA – Maintenance pendente lite depends on present needs of wife and child and husband’s capacity to pay – Alleged MoU does not bar court from awarding interim maintenance, particularly when wife alleges coercion and circumstances have changed [Para 21].

Maintenance for child – Supervision over utilisation – Request for joint bank account – Held, issues relating to guardianship, custody or supervision fall outside scope of appeal against order granting maintenance pendente lite – Appellate court not required to introduce custodial oversight while determining quantum of interim maintenance [Para 22].

Appellate interference – Interim maintenance orders – Scope – Unless order is shown to be illegal, perverse or arbitrary, appellate court will not interfere – Family Court’s assessment based on husband’s admitted income and needs of wife and child found reasonable – No perversity or illegality established [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Interim maintenance order upheld – All interim orders vacated – Appellant directed to clear arrears within one month – Pending applications closed [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Homicidal Death – The deceased was found in a half-naked condition with multiple injuries including head and brain injuries, abrasions, and nail marks – Post-mortem report and medical officer's testimony confirmed ante-mortem injuries and cause of death due to head and brain injury – The Court found the homicidal nature of death and sexual assault to be conclusively proven by medical and ocular evidence – Findings of the trial court regarding homicidal death and rape upheld [Paras 8, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.8].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Principles of Conviction – The case was based on circumstantial evidence, requiring the prosecution to establish a complete chain of events pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused – The Court reiterated the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622) and other Supreme Court precedents – Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof – The prosecution must elevate its case from "may be true" to "must be true" – The Court meticulously analyzed each circumstance to ensure consistency with the hypothesis of guilt and exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis [Paras 9, 10].

Criminal Law – Rape – Section 376 IPC – Gang Rape – Circumstantial Evidence – The deceased left home to tie Rakhi, did not return, and her half-naked dead body was found in putus bushes near an embankment with dragging marks – P.W.9 saw appellant Kathu Karua naked in the bushes where the deceased's body was found, and heard shrieks – Extrajudicial confession of Kathu Karua to villagers, corroborated by the presence of human blood of Group 'A' (matching deceased's blood) on his seized nicker, formed a complete chain of circumstances – These circumstances cogently and firmly established the guilt of appellant Kathu Karua for gang rape and murder – Conviction of Kathu Karua under Section 376 IPC upheld [Paras 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 12].

Criminal Law – Extrajudicial Confession – Admissibility and Reliability – Extrajudicial confession, though a weak piece of evidence, can form the basis of conviction if it inspires confidence, is voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by other independent reliable evidence – The Court found P.W.5, P.W.7, and P.W.8's testimonies regarding Kathu Karua's extrajudicial confession to be credible, despite P.W.4's contradictions and P.W.5 mentioning slaps, as there was no evidence of inducement, threat, or promise – The confession was corroborated by other strong circumstantial evidence – Extrajudicial confession of Kathu Karua accepted [Paras 10.7, 10.8].

Criminal Law – Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value – The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto but can be accepted to the extent it is dependable on careful scrutiny and consistent with the prosecution or defence case – P.W.9, though declared hostile, provided crucial evidence against appellant Kathu Karua regarding his presence at the scene in a naked condition near the deceased's body – His testimony, not completely shaken in cross-examination, was relied upon against Kathu Karua – The Court found P.W.9's evidence against appellant Ramesh Apat insufficient to implicate him [Para 10.6].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Acquittal of Co-accused – The trial court acquitted co-accused Dadu @ Anil Patra due to lack of corroborative evidence beyond his police confession and the appellants' confessions – The High Court found no evidence of common intention for appellant Ramesh Apat, as his presence at the embankment was explained as chasing goats, and no extrajudicial confession was made by him – The conviction of Ramesh Apat based solely on Kathu Karua's extrajudicial confession was deemed unsustainable – Conviction of Ramesh Apat set aside [Paras 6, 10.6, 10.7, 11].

Criminal Law – Disappearance of Evidence – Section 201 IPC – The appellant Kathu Karua, after committing rape, killed the deceased to wipe out evidence and screen himself from legal punishment – This act falls squarely under Section 201 IPC – Conviction of Kathu Karua under Section 201 IPC upheld [Para 12].

Sentence – Confirmation – The sentence of R.I. for ten years for Section 376(2)(g) IPC, R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for Section 302/34 IPC, and R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for Section 201/34 IPC, with all sentences running concurrently, imposed on Kathu Karua by the trial court, was confirmed by the High Court – The appellant Kathu Karua was directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence [Para 12].

Decision: JCRLA No.58 of 2006 (Kathu Karua) dismissed – CRLA No.450 of 2005 (Ramesh Apat) allowed – Conviction of Kathu Karua upheld under Sections 376, 302 & 201 IPC – Conviction of Ramesh Apat set aside and he is acquitted of all charges – Kathu Karua to surrender within two weeks to serve sentence, failing which coercive steps to be taken – Ramesh Apat discharged from bail bonds [Para 12].

Criminal Law - NIA Act – Section 21 – Appeal against order framing charge – Maintainability – Held: order framing charge is interlocutory for purposes of appeal under NIA Act – appeals dismissed as not maintainable – remedy lies under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS [Paras 1–20].

Criminal Procedure – National Investigation Agency Act – Section 21 – Appeal – Scope – Expression “judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order” – Interpreted in light of scheme and object of NIA Act – Held: “order” refers to final orders capable of appellate scrutiny on facts and law – Not intermediate orders such as framing of charge [Paras 15–18].

Charge – Framing of – Nature of order – Though treated as “intermediate order” for purposes of revision under Section 397 CrPC, such classification not applicable while interpreting appellate provision under Section 21 NIA Act – Order framing charge does not finally determine rights and proceedings continue till conviction or acquittal – Hence interlocutory for appeal under NIA Act [Paras 11–12, 16–18].

Statutory Interpretation – Purposeful interpretation – NIA Act enacted to ensure expeditious investigation and trial of scheduled offences affecting national security – Bar on revisions and limited appellate remedy intended to avoid delay – Permitting appeals against charge-framing orders would defeat legislative intent [Paras 13–16].

Appeal vs. Revision – Distinction – Jurisprudence on “intermediate orders” developed in context of revisional jurisdiction under CrPC (Amar Nath; Madhu Limaye) – Same concept cannot be bodily imported into appellate jurisdiction providing appeal “on facts and law” – At stage of charge, factual adjudication impermissible [Paras 8–12, 16].

Remedy of Accused – Availability – Though appeal under Section 21 NIA Act not maintainable, accused not remediless – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS remains available to challenge framing of charge on limited grounds of abuse of process, lack of jurisdiction or manifest injustice [Paras 16–18].

Precedent – V.C. Shukla v. State – Constitution Bench – Order framing charge held interlocutory under Special Courts Act – Principles applied while interpreting Section 21 NIA Act – Appeal against charge-framing order not envisaged [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed on ground of maintainability – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 19–20].

Criminal Law – Section 323 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Conviction Unsustainable in Absence of Medical Evidence – Appellants convicted under Section 323 IPC – No medical evidence or doctor's testimony produced – No proof of bodily pain, disease, or infirmity as defined under Section 319 IPC – Held: Failure to prove nature and extent of injuries renders prosecution case incomplete – Benefit of doubt must be extended to accused [Paras 6–10]

Witness Testimony – Uncorroborated and Uncross-Examined Injured Witnesses – P.W.1 and P.W.4 claimed to be injured but not cross-examined – Absence of corroboration through medical report and lack of specific attribution of role to each accused – Held: Mere oral allegations without supporting evidence insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 323 IPC [Paras 7–10]

Non-Examination of Investigating Officer – Effect on Prosecution – Investigating Officer not examined – No contradictions elicited from witnesses – Held: While not fatal per se, non-examination of IO when combined with other lapses (absence of medical proof, general allegations) cumulatively weakens prosecution case [Paras 4, 6, 8–10]

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution failed to prove individual culpability of each accused – No clear evidence linking specific acts of assault to particular accused – Held: Prosecution evidence vague and non-specific – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted giving benefit of doubt [Paras 10–11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.07.2007 passed by Special Judge, Keonjhar in Special Case No. 19 of 1999 set aside – Accused-appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Criminal appeal disposed of.