Dacoity – Appreciation of Evidence – Failure to Prove Occurrence Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Trial Court presumed factum of dacoity without proper analysis – Material lapses in investigation including non-seizure of empty cartridges despite alleged firing by both sides, non-recovery of broken lock, and failure to verify alleged possession of Rs.6,000/- – No recovery of looted articles – Held: Prosecution failed to establish foundational fact of dacoity beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 16-18, 26].

Identification – Co-villagers – Inconsistencies – Witnesses gave contradictory versions regarding number of dacoits, covering of faces, weapons carried and injuries caused – Medical evidence did not corroborate allegation of knife injury – Site plan did not support position from where accused allegedly identified – Identification in torch light doubtful – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 21-25].

Interested Witnesses – Village Enmity – Possibility of False Implication – All witnesses related or interested – Prior complaint and village rivalry including Pradhani election dispute on record – Accused residents of same village with no criminal antecedents – Improbable that villagers would commit dacoity barefaced in same village – Prosecution version not free from doubt [Paras 21, 25-26].

Appellate Interference – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and material infirmities exist in appreciation of evidence, appellate court justified in reversing conviction – Reliance placed on Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu v. State of M.P. [Para 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 29.08.1983 under Sections 395 and 397 IPC set aside – Surviving appellants acquitted – Appeal already abated qua deceased appellants.

Matrimonial Law – Return of Gold Ornaments – Entrustment and Misappropriation – Wife Established Possession of 82¾ Sovereigns at Time of Marriage – Marriage Photographs and Purchase Estimates Accepted – Locker Opened in Names of Husband and Mother-in-law Prior to Marriage – Failure to Examine Material Witnesses – Probabilised Entrustment and Misappropriation – Respondents Held Liable to Return 72¾ Sovereigns after Reasonable Deduction for Personal Retention [Paras 6–12, 15–16].

Evidence – Family Court – Section 14 Family Courts Act – Relaxation of Strict Rules of Evidence – Bank Statements Bearing Seal of Bank Accepted Despite Objection Under Section 65B Evidence Act – Technical Objections Cannot Defeat Substantive Justice in Family Proceedings [Paras 13–14].

Money Claim – Transfer of Funds from Wife’s Irish Bank Account – Documentary Evidence (Ext.A3, A5, X4) Established Transfer of Rs.10,88,529/- to Mother-in-law – Husband’s Meagre Income Disproved Defence That Funds Originated from Him – Decree for Recovery Upheld [Paras 13–14, 16].

Joint Liability – Involvement of Husband and In-laws – Pleadings and Oral Evidence Established Common Benefit and Participation – No Ground to Interfere with Finding of Liability of Appellants [Para 17].

Interest – Modification – Interest Reduced from 12% to 9% per annum till Date of Decree Considering Prevailing Rates – 6% per annum Thereafter Maintained [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Decree modified – Appellants directed to return 72¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month, failing which value at time of realization recoverable – Decree for Rs.10,88,529/- with interest at 9% p.a. from date of petition till date of decree and 6% p.a. thereafter till realization – Other findings of Family Court confirmed.

Criminal Law – Proclamation Proceedings – Non-compliance of Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner declared proclaimed person without strict adherence to mandatory statutory requirements – Record did not reflect proper public reading of proclamation nor recording of judicial satisfaction regarding absconding or concealment – Mechanical exercise of jurisdiction vitiates proclamation – Impugned order set aside [Paras 5-8].

Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Nature – Before issuance of proclamation Court must record satisfaction that accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant cannot be executed – Requirements under Section 82(2) including public reading, affixation at residence and court-house are conjunctive and mandatory – Any deviation renders proceedings nullity – Reliance placed on Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319 [Paras 6-7].

Absconding – Foundational Requirement – Mere non-appearance does not ipso facto establish absconding – Where material indicated petitioner had gone abroad for higher studies and such fact was within knowledge of Court – Satisfaction regarding willful evasion not properly recorded – Jurisdictional precondition absent [Paras 8-8.1].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Proclamation having serious civil and criminal consequences cannot be sustained when passed in violation of due process – High Court justified in exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Consequential proceedings also quashed [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 09.12.2024 declaring petitioner as proclaimed person and all consequential proceedings quashed – Pending applications disposed of.

Murder – Dowry Harassment – Strangulation Followed by Burning – Young married woman found 90% burnt inside matrimonial home – Post-mortem revealed fracture of hyoid bone, laceration of carotid arteries, absence of soot particles in trachea and bronchus and smell of kerosene – Medical evidence proved death by asphyxia due to strangulation prior to burning – Burning held post-mortem to give colour of suicide – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 498-A IPC upheld [Paras 16-18, 21-23].

Circumstantial Evidence – Five Golden Principles – Presence of accused in house at relevant time admitted in initial information – Subsequent plea of alibi by husband and mother-in-law disbelieved – Defence evidence contrary to earlier admission and not worthy of credence – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused – Principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda applied and satisfied [Paras 14-15, 24-26].

Dowry Demand – Cruelty Soon Before Death – Evidence of father (P.W.1) and brother (P.W.2) established persistent demand of Rs.1000/- and harassment including denial of food – Deceased not permitted to attend brother’s marriage due to non-payment – Threat extended that life would be in danger – Cruelty proved though charge under Section 304-B IPC not sustained – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC affirmed [Paras 19-22].

Alibi – Burden of Proof – Accused claimed absence at time of incident – Plea required strict proof – Defence witnesses contradicted written information lodged by accused himself admitting presence – Plea of alibi held afterthought and rejected [Paras 11-15].

Remission – Article 161 Constitution of India – Effect on Conviction – Appellant No.2 released on remission by Governor after serving substantial sentence – Dismissal of appeal and confirmation of conviction does not affect constitutional power of remission – Conviction upheld but appellant not required to surrender to serve remaining sentence – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Sriharan and Suresh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 498-A IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed – Appeal abated qua deceased appellants – Appellant No.2 not required to surrender in view of remission granted under Article 161 of Constitution of India.

Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – Section 2(vi) – Pension under Non-Contributory Superannuation Trust – Whether “Wages” – Employees resigned after completing qualifying years of service – Filed Form-N under Rule 31 claiming pension – Authority held pension payable under trust deed amounts to wages – Single Judge affirmed – Held: Any definite sum payable on fulfilment of employment conditions constitutes wages – Exclusion under Section 2(vi)(3) applies to employer’s contribution to fund, not pension payable from accumulated fund – Pension under trust scheme falls within inclusive definition of wages – Appeals dismissed [Paras 12–18, 22–24].

Jurisdiction – Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 – Competent Authority – Challenge to assumption of jurisdiction – Special statutory forum created for recovery of wages – If subject matter falls within statutory definition of wages, authority has jurisdiction – Civil Court jurisdiction impliedly barred to that extent – No jurisdictional error or erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by Referee – Writ Court rightly declined interference [Paras 15–17, 22–23].

Pension – Effect of Resignation – Superannuation Trust Deed – Eligibility based on completion of 5/10/15/20 years of continuous service – No clause restricting benefit to only superannuated employees – No forfeiture clause upon resignation – Respondents completed qualifying service before resignation – Held: Resignation after crystallization of eligibility does not defeat vested pension rights – Pension treated as earned remuneration and legal right [Paras 11, 19–20].

Definition of Wages – Judicial Interpretation – Scope extends beyond express contractual stipulations – Includes remuneration payable under contract, law, award or instrument upon fulfilment of service obligations – Termination by resignation or superannuation immaterial once entitlement accrues – Pension under trust deed covered within broad interpretation of “wages” [Paras 12–14, 17–18].

Non-Contributory Pension Fund – Legal Character – Employer-funded trust not a discretionary bounty – Once scheme framed and eligibility satisfied, benefit becomes enforceable obligation – Non-contribution by employee affects funding mechanism only – Employer cannot deny disbursement arbitrarily – Pension protected as earned benefit under principles of fairness and administrative law [Para 21].

Maintainability – Form-N Application – Status as “Person Employed” – Eligibility accrues on completion of qualifying service – It is immaterial whether employee continues in service on date of application – Right crystallized upon fulfilment of service slabs under trust deed – Application under Rule 31 maintainable [Para 13, 22].

Decision: MAT 682 of 2025, MAT 683 of 2025, MAT 684 of 2025 and MAT 685 of 2025 dismissed – Judgment dated 11.04.2025 in WPA 1617 of 2025 affirmed – Order dated 18.11.2024 passed by competent authority under West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1963 upheld – Connected applications (CAN 1 of 2025) disposed of.

Arbitration – Section 37 Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of Sole Arbitrator and Single Judge – Appeal confined to examining legality of order under Section 34 – No re-appreciation of evidence or re-interpretation of contract permissible – Interference only on grounds of patent illegality or conflict with public policy – Held: Section 37 jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot travel beyond restrictions of Section 34 – No ground made out for interference [Paras 21-24, 45-50].

Specific Performance – Collaboration Agreement for Development of Property – Continuous supervision required – Sole Arbitrator declined specific performance under Section 14(c) of Specific Relief Act on ground that contract involved continuous duties not amenable to supervision – Multi-storey construction project requiring ongoing quality and timeline monitoring – Held: View taken by Arbitrator was plausible and based on nature of contract – No perversity warranting interference [Paras 29-30].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Alleged admission in cross-examination that claimant was willing subject to price revision – Arbitrator evaluated pleadings, conduct of parties and settlement dated 18.09.2017 – Isolated answer in cross-examination cannot dislodge composite factual findings – Conduct of respondent including statement consenting to specific performance relevant – Held: Findings on readiness and willingness are factual and not open to re-appreciation under Section 37 [Paras 37-39].

Termination of Contract – Breach by Owner – Delay in applying for building sanction beyond stipulated 60 days – Application made after substantial delay – Failure to intimate sanction and prove bona fide steps – Termination dated 22.03.2014 held illegal and unsustainable – Agreement held concluded and enforceable – Entitlement to damages flows from breach under Sections 73 and 74 Contract Act – Held: Award of damages legally justified [Paras 31-34].

Damages – Reliance on Settlement Figure – Parties informed Arbitrator on 18.09.2017 that matter stood settled for Rs. 1.65 crores – Consent award not passed due to absence of Board resolution – Settlement amount treated as best evidence of quantification of loss – No statutory bar to awarding damages despite refusal of specific performance – Pre-award and post-award interest @12% upheld – Held: Approach of Arbitrator within domain of appreciation of evidence and not violative of Section 34(2) or 34(2A) [Paras 40-44].

Contractual Interpretation – Clause imposing penalty on builder only – Contention that no reciprocal damages payable by owner – Construction of contractual clauses primarily within Arbitrator’s domain – Alternative interpretation insufficient for interference – Held: No patent illegality in interpretation adopted by Arbitrator [Paras 35-36].

Issues – Framing of Issues in Arbitration – Absence of separately numbered issue on readiness and willingness – Arbitrator treated prayers and claims as central questions and rendered reasoned findings – Held: Mere absence of formally framed issue not ground to set aside award when controversies addressed on merits – No violation of natural justice [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No infirmity in arbitral award dated 20.11.2020 or in judgment dismissing Section 34 petition – Concurrent findings upheld – No patent illegality or conflict with public policy established.

Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Alleged breach of interim injunction restraining interference with possession – Petitioner alleged that respondents entered suit land on 28.05.2021, abused and assaulted him and attempted dispossession despite injunction dated 14.10.2008 – Affidavits of witnesses and FIR No. 232 of 2021 did not disclose actual dispossession or change in possession – Mere entry into land and assault, without proof of willful and intentional disobedience of injunction order, insufficient to constitute civil contempt – Held: Essential ingredient of willfulness not established – Petition dismissed [Paras 22-25].

Injunction Order – Scope and Compliance – Interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (C) in Second Appeal restraining interference with possession – Record shows petitioner continues in possession – No material demonstrating that respondents have taken over possession or committed overt act in violation of specific terms of injunction – Allegations of obstruction and threats, even if true, do not ipso facto amount to contempt unless clear breach of court’s mandate is proved [Paras 15-17, 21-23].

Limitation – Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Bar of one year for initiation of contempt proceedings from date of alleged act – Alleged incident dated 28.05.2021 – Contempt petition filed on 25.02.2025 after more than four years – No satisfactory explanation for delay – Held: Petition hopelessly barred by limitation and not maintainable [Para 27].

Civil Contempt – Requirement of Willful Disobedience – Mere disobedience not sufficient – Element of willingness indispensable – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh – In absence of clear, deliberate and intentional violation, contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Contempt Petition dismissed – No willful disobedience proved – Petition also barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Municipal Law – Section 351 MMC Act – Demolition Notice – Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs challenged notice alleging structure to be legal and authorized – Trial Court dismissed suit holding failure to prove legality – Held: Burden lies on plaintiffs to establish by cogent documentary evidence that structure was erected with requisite permissions – In absence of proof of authorization, notice cannot be faulted [Paras 2–5, 13, 17].

Evidence – Property Tax Receipt – Proof of Legality – Property tax receipt showing name of lessor and lessee without CTS number or specific identification of suit structure – No lease document produced – Held: Mere tax receipt does not establish legality or authorization of structure [Paras 7–8].

Slum Notification – Relevance – Notification declaring CTS No.156 of Village Saki as slum area relied upon – Impugned notice pertains to Mohili Village – Held: Notification not shown to relate to suit property – Cannot aid plaintiffs in proving legality [Para 9].

Documentary Evidence – Rent Receipts, Ration Card, Electricity Bill – Rent receipts pertained only to 1994-95 and did not bear room number – No document showing existence of structure prior to 1969 – Ration card and electricity bills not linked to suit premises – Held: Documents insufficient to establish existence or authorization of structure [Paras 11–12].

Admissions in Cross-Examination – Adverse Inference – Plaintiffs’ witness admitted lack of knowledge regarding year of construction, tenancy agreement and permissions – No evidence of sanctioned plans or approval – Plaintiff failed to enter witness box – Held: Trial Court justified in drawing adverse inference and dismissing suit [Paras 11, 13].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Findings of Fact – Trial Court’s findings based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or error demonstrated – Held: No infirmity warranting interference in appeal [Paras 15–17].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Order of City Civil Court upheld – Plaintiffs failed to prove suit structure was legal or authorized – Operation of judgment stayed for eight weeks to enable appellants to take appropriate steps in accordance with law [Paras 18–19].

Bail – Regular Bail – Corruption by Senior Public Servant – Petitioner (DIG rank officer) alleged to have demanded ₹8,00,000/- through intermediary for extending official favour and preventing coercive action – Co-accused apprehended in trap accepting ₹5,00,000/- – Recorded conversations and controlled call relied upon – Held: Prima facie material cannot be brushed aside at bail stage – Bail declined [Paras 9, 11-12].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 7 and 7A – Acceptance through Intermediary – Argument that no recovery from petitioner – Court held that recovery from intermediary does not dilute prima facie case where acceptance alleged through conduit – Section 7A covers obtaining undue advantage to influence public servant – Recovery and recorded communication sufficient at bail stage to indicate prima facie demand and acceptance [Para 9].

Electronic Evidence – Recorded Conversations and Digital Communication – Controlled call and WhatsApp data relied upon during verification – At bail stage detailed scrutiny not warranted – Veracity to be tested during trial – Presence of such material sufficient to prima facie support prosecution case [Para 9].

Bail Jurisprudence – Principles Governing Grant of Bail – Court reiterated factors such as prima facie case, gravity of offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses – Corruption at high public office corrodes rule of law and requires cautious approach – Discretion to be exercised judiciously [Paras 7-8].

Stage of Trial – Material Witnesses Yet to be Examined – Charges not framed – Complainant and shadow witness yet to depose – Sanction order stated to be granted but not formally placed on record – Proceedings at nascent stage – Release at this stage may prejudice prosecution [Para 10].

Apprehension of Influencing Witnesses – Senior Police Officer – Several witnesses subordinate police officials – Suspension not sufficient safeguard – Court found reasonable apprehension that release may affect course of trial – Bail refused [Para 10].

Jurisdiction of CBI – Objection under Section 6 DSPE Act – Alleged lack of consent – Court held substantial part of cause of action including trap occurred at Chandigarh – Issue not sufficient at bail stage to outweigh gravity and prima facie material [Para 4, 11].

Parity with Bail in Another Case – Disproportionate Assets Case – Grant of bail in separate case does not automatically entitle accused to bail in present case – Each case to be assessed on its own factual matrix [Para 10].

Gravity of Offence – Abuse of High Public Office – Allegations against DIG rank officer have serious ramifications for integrity of criminal justice system – Public confidence in administration of law relevant consideration while adjudicating bail [Para 9].

Decision: Petition for regular bail dismissed – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply afresh before Special Court after examination of material witnesses (complainant and shadow witness) – Observations not to affect merits of trial – Pending applications disposed of [Para 12].