Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Appeal Against Acquittal – Loan of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed by complainant held doubtful – Complainant failed to prove source of funds; cheque not filled in accused’s handwriting; improbable circumstance of pledging jewels and advancing interest-free loan to mere acquaintance – Defence of misuse of security cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- held probable – Presumption rebutted on preponderance of probability – Acquittal upheld [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption and Rebuttal – Sections 118 & 139 – Though signature on cheque admitted, complainant must prove foundational facts regarding existence of legally enforceable debt – Absence of proof of income, capacity to lend Rs.6 lakhs, and absence of documentation raises serious doubts – Presumption stands rebutted when accused establishes a probable defence not beyond reasonable doubt but on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 3, 6–7].

Loan Transaction – Probability Test – Complainant a housewife with no income tax records – Claimed to have raised Rs.6 lakhs by aggregating personal savings, wedding fund, and pledging jewels – Court held it illogical that she would pledge jewellery and advance large interest-free loan to a person who was only her brother’s acquaintance – No independent proof of advancing money – Trial Court’s view not perverse [Para 7].

Cheque Filling – Material Circumstance – Cheque contained only accused’s signature; all particulars including amount, date, name were filled in by complainant – Material factor supporting accused’s defence of security cheque for Rs.3 lakhs – Supports rebuttal of presumption [Para 7].

Defence of Accused – Probable Defence – Accused’s claim supported by Ex.D2 (photocopy of bond for Rs.3 lakhs) and explanation of repayment – Minor inconsistencies in defence do not negate overall probability – Defence need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court justified in accepting defence as probable [Paras 3–4, 7].

Appellate Interference – Appeal Against Acquittal – Unless Trial Court’s view is perverse or impossible, Appellate Court cannot substitute its own view – Here Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence was reasonable and justified – No ground to overturn acquittal [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No costs [Para 8].

Customs Law – Duty Drawback – Interest on Delayed Payment – Entitlement from Date of Original Claim – Interpretation of Section 75A of Customs Act – Petitioner sought interest on delayed drawback for exports made in 1992–94 – Original claim filed on 12.12.1994 for conversion of DEEC shipping bills into drawback shipping bills – Despite protracted delay attributable to authorities and pending litigation, eventual order in 2020 and 2022 granted 100% drawback – However, authorities paid drawback without statutory interest – Held: Under Section 75A, interest is payable if drawback is not paid within one month from date of claim – Petitioner’s entitlement relates back to date of original claim, and statutory interest accrues from one month after such date – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Denial of interest unjustified [Paras 13–22]

Statutory Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – Customs Act – Section 75A Must Be Construed Liberally – Section 75A confers a statutory right to interest on delayed drawback – Authorities’ restrictive interpretation limiting interest from date of conversion or sanction rejected – Beneficial provision must not be defeated by technicalities or administrative delay – Relied on Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd., 2024 (3) SCC 645 [Paras 20–22]

Writ Jurisdiction – Certiorarified Mandamus – Denial of Interest Set Aside – Direction to Pay Interest from 1994 Onwards – Impugned order of Appellate Commissioner denying interest set aside – Direction issued to respondents to calculate and pay statutory interest under Section 27A read with Section 75A from 12.12.1994 until date of actual payment – Compliance to be completed within 4 weeks [Para 23]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 13.06.2024 set aside – Respondents directed to pay statutory interest on delayed drawback from 12.12.1994 under Section 75A of the Customs Act within four weeks.

Income Tax – Section 263 – Jurisdictional Overreach by ITAT – Tribunal set aside the Commissioner’s finding that donations under Section 11 must be made only to FCRA-registered bodies – However, Tribunal went beyond the grounds taken by Commissioner and sustained revision order on a new ground, i.e., absence of proof that donee trusts shared identical objects – Held: Tribunal exceeded its appellate jurisdiction – It cannot substitute or supplement reasons not relied upon by Commissioner – Reliance placed on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chandrika Educational Trust, (1994) 207 ITR 108 – Revision order not sustainable [Paras 3-5].

Charitable Trusts – Application of Income – Section 11 of Income Tax Act – Donations made to other Section 12A-registered institutions from current year’s income constitutes application of income for charitable purposes – No requirement that donee institutions have identical categorization under FCRA – Tribunal correctly held Commissioner’s ground unsustainable but erred in sustaining revision on a different basis [Paras 3-4].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Income Tax Act – ITAT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by Commissioner while exercising revisional power under Section 263 – If the ground taken by Commissioner is held invalid, Tribunal must allow the appeal and cannot introduce fresh grounds to sustain the order [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – ITAT order dated 19.05.2025 partly sustaining revision under Section 263 set aside – Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by affirming revisional order on grounds not mentioned by Commissioner – Questions of law answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue [Final Para].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Accused found inside hotel holding knife and immediately fleeing; deceased found nude with multiple injuries – Recovery of knife with deceased’s blood group – Accused offered no explanation under Section 313 CrPC for incriminating circumstances – Conduct of fleeing relevant under Section 8 Evidence Act – Chain of circumstances complete – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–17].

Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Chain of Events – The Court reiterates principles in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer (2024) 10 SCC 813: circumstances must form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis except guilt; even strong suspicion is no substitute for proof; benefit of doubt must go to accused where chain is incomplete – Applied to present case [Paras 8–9].

Last Seen Together – Accused Seen with Weapon – PW1 and PW7 deposed that when they forcibly opened the hotel shutter on morning of 25.11.2014, they saw the accused inside holding knife (M.O.1) and he immediately fled through back door – Deceased found nude with multiple cut injuries inside the same premises – Presence of accused in exclusive company of deceased proved – No motive to falsely implicate – Evidence consistent and corroborated [Paras 10–12].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Facts within Special Knowledge – Accused, being last seen with deceased and residing in hotel overnight, failed to explain how deceased entered hotel or how she sustained fatal injuries – Silence of accused under Section 313 CrPC is an additional link completing the chain of circumstances – Reliance placed on Ram Gopal v. State of M.P. (2023) 5 SCC 543 and Prahlad v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2548 [Paras 12–13].

Recovery – Knife and Bloodstained Clothes – Accused arrested next morning (26.11.2014) – On his confession, recovery of knife and clothes (M.Os 1–3) effected – Serology report (Ex.P27) confirms O+ blood group matching stains on M.O.1 (knife), M.O.2 (shirt) and deceased’s clothing – Forensic evidence consistent with prosecution version – Recovery held credible despite minor contradictions between PW6 and PW22 [Paras 14–15].

Medical Evidence – Homicidal Death – Post-mortem (Ex.P10) shows 22 injuries including abrasions, contusions, genital injuries and fractures of tracheal rings – Cause of death: effects of multiple injuries with evidence of sexual assault – Homicidal nature conclusively established – No semen detected, but injuries and circumstances support prosecution case [Para 16].

Conduct of Accused – Running Away – Accused’s immediate flight on being discovered is relevant under Section 8 Evidence Act – Conduct strengthens prosecution case and forms a significant link in chain of circumstances [Para 15].

Identity of Deceased – Established – Photographs, superimposition test (Ex.P25) and DNA report (Ex.P28–P29) confirm deceased was Sarasu, mother of PW8 – Chain of identity unbroken [Para 11].

Appeal Against Conviction – When Appellate Court Will Not Interfere – Trial Court’s findings were based on proper appreciation of consistent eyewitness, forensic, medical and circumstantial evidence – No perversity or illegality – Conviction and sentence need no interference [Paras 16–17].

Decision – Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Suspension of sentence earlier granted stands vacated – Trial Court directed to secure accused to serve remainder of sentence [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Abetment – Section 12 P.C. Act – Allegation that 4th accused paid bribes on multiple occasions to 1st accused supported by bank records, remittance slips, FSL report and witness testimony – Held: Prima facie case made out – Discharge rightly rejected by Special Court – High Court affirmed refusal to discharge [Paras 22, 28].

Criminal Law – Habitual Offender – Section 14 P.C. Act – Mere repetition of bribe payments without prior conviction insufficient to invoke Section 14 – P.C. Act, 1988 does not define “habitual offender” – Court holds that prior conviction necessary post 2018 amendment – Discharge under Section 14 upheld [Paras 20-21, 29-30].

Criminal Law – Discharge of 2nd Accused – Section 12 P.C. Act – Evidence of six bribe payments through bank transfers with documentary and forensic support – High Court found Special Judge erred in holding no grave suspicion – Discharge set aside and 2nd accused directed to face trial – Discharge under Section 14 however upheld [Paras 24-27, 30].

Statutory Interpretation – Meaning of “Habitual Offender” – Referred judgments establish that repetitive conduct alone insufficient – Prior conviction or reasonable classification under statute essential to attract provisions under Section 14 – High Court clarified distinction between habitual acts and habitual offender in law [Paras 16-19].

Decision:

Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 324/2022 dismissed – Order refusing discharge of 4th accused under Section 12 confirmed

Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 5/2024 dismissed – Order discharging 4th accused under Section 14 confirmed

Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 2/2024 allowed in part – Discharge of 2nd accused under Section 14 confirmed – Discharge under Section 12 set aside – 2nd accused directed to face trial

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Section 43D(5) – Bail – Prima Facie True Test - Appellant, alleged active member of terror syndicate led by Sujit Sinha and Aman Sahu, charged under UAPA, IPC, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act for orchestrating the 18.12.2020 Tetariyakhad Colliery attack involving indiscriminate firing, arson of four trucks, and injuries to civilians – Recovery of country-made pistol from appellant – FSL report confirmed shells from the crime scene were fired from the appellant’s weapon – Protected witnesses identified the appellant as one of the armed attackers – Court reiterated that under Section 43D(5) UAPA, bail must be denied where accusations are prima facie true – National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 applied [Paras 33–37, 45–57, 69–73].

Bail – UAPA Offences – Delay in Trial – Applicability of Article 21 – Appellant in custody since 07.02.2021 – Trial commenced and witnesses under examination – Court held mere delay not ground for bail in serious terrorist offences; distinguished Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, as trial had progressed and constitutional violation not established – Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 SCC OnLine SC 109) followed [Paras 64–65, 68].

Bail – Principle of Parity – Distinction Between Co-accused – Co-accused Prabhat Kumar Yadav @ Dimple Yadav granted bail based on long custody and minimal role – Present appellant identified as principal conspirator who directed co-accused Ajay Turi to write threatening pamphlets and participated in arson and firing – Court held parity cannot be mechanically applied; role-specific analysis required – Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230 and Tarun Kumar v. Asst. Director, ED (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486) relied upon – Held: parity not available [Paras 66–73].

Bail – Restrictive Scope under UAPA – “Bail the Exception, Jail the Rule” – Court reaffirmed that conventional bail principle “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” does not apply under UAPA – Once prima facie satisfaction of involvement exists, bail must be rejected as a rule – Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and Watali (supra) reaffirmed [Paras 38–44, 53–57].

Result – Appellant failed to show change in circumstances or new grounds – Material on record shows active participation in terrorist act and recovery of incriminating weapons – Trial ongoing – Bail rejected – Appeal dismissed [Paras 63–75].

Execution – Garnishee Proceedings – Warrant of Attachment – Continuing Liability – Appellant obtained ex parte money decree against Respondents – Warrant of attachment issued against Respondent No.3 (garnishee) prohibiting payments to judgment-debtor (Respondent No.1) – Garnishee allowed subsequent credits to be withdrawn despite subsisting attachment – Trial court held only balance on date of receipt of warrant (Rs.362) could be attached – Held: Garnishee bound by terms of attachment for entire validity period – Subsequent credits during currency of warrant liable to be attached – Order of trial court rejecting garnishee notice set aside [Paras 3, 10–15]

Civil Procedure – Attachment of Debtor’s Earnings – Post-attachment Credits – Interpretation of Order 21 Rule 46 CPC – Warrant of attachment remains effective until returned with execution details – Period granted in warrant (1 year) implies any funds credited within that time are liable for execution – Garnishee’s conduct in permitting withdrawals despite attachment is contrary to law – Inconsistent conduct of garnishee in depositing partial amounts further undermines defence – Attachment continues until modified or lifted by court order [Paras 10–14]

Execution – Conduct of Garnishee – Contradictory Stand – Garnishee deposited amounts post-attachment and later denied liability – Garnishee also filed affidavit agreeing to deposit more funds – Held: Such inconsistent conduct contradicts defence and affirms continuing obligation under attachment – Impugned order contrary to garnishee’s own actions [Paras 13–14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of trial court rejecting garnishee notice quashed – Trial court directed to give effect to attachment as per law – Civil application disposed [Paras 15–18]

Bail – Enticement Allegation – Contradictory Statement of Victim – Applicant accused under Sections 137(2) and 87 BNS for allegedly enticing informant’s daughter – Victim in statement under Section 183 BNSS stated she left home voluntarily – Charge-sheet filed, no need for further custodial interrogation – Applicant in custody since 25.09.2025 – Bail granted subject to usual conditions [Paras 2–6].

Constitutional Mandate – Right to Personal Liberty – Liberty under Article 21 demands prompt communication and execution of bail orders – Once bail is granted, undertrial must be immediately informed to avoid continued incarceration due to administrative delay [Paras 16–17].

Implementation of Supreme Court Guidelines – FASTER & e-Prison Integration – Following Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail [(2024) 10 SCC 685], High Court reiterates that bail orders must be emailed to jail authorities on same/next day; Jail Superintendents must record date of bail in e-Prisons software – Delays or corruption in verification of sureties noted as systemic issue requiring reform [Paras 11–17].

Administrative Directions – Mandatory Jail Details & Electronic Surety Verification – Court issues binding directions:

(i) Advocates to mention jail details in bail applications;

(ii) Reporting Section not to process applications lacking such details after 01.12.2025;

(iii) CPC to obtain NIC access to e-Prison portal for direct electronic transmission of bail orders;

(iv) State to establish in-court electronic surety verification to prevent delay or corruption;

(v) Jail authorities to release prisoners immediately on receipt of electronic BOMS order without evening delay [Paras 19–20].

Judicial Reform – Enforcement Mechanism – Registrar (Compliance) directed to circulate order to Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Director General (Prison), NIC, and Court administration for strict adherence – Reinforces judicial accountability in ensuring that bail orders translate into immediate liberty [Para 20].

Decision: Bail granted to applicant Sohrab @ Sorab Ali on personal bond with two sureties – Detailed procedural and systemic directions issued to ensure compliance with Supreme Court’s bail policy and safeguard fundamental right to liberty – No costs.

Right to Privacy – Posthumous Personality Rights – Not Heritable – Petitioner, daughter of Late Shah Bano Begum, sought injunction against the film ‘Haq’ claiming it dramatizes and distorts the private life of her late mother without consent – Alleged violation of right to privacy and dignity – Held: As per K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) and Deepa Jayakumar (2021), right to privacy extinguishes upon death – Personality and privacy rights are not inheritable – No cause of action survives for legal heirs to claim violation of deceased’s privacy – Petition dismissed [Paras 8–10]

Freedom of Expression – Fictional and Dramatized Works – Use of Public Record – Film inspired by Supreme Court’s judgment in Shah Bano case and adaptation of published book – Contains disclaimer clarifying fictional nature and non-association with real individuals – Held: Once information enters public domain and court records, right to privacy ceases – Creative and artistic liberty protected under Article 19(1)(a) – Film does not claim to be a biopic – Use of dramatization permissible – No legal basis to restrain its release [Paras 11–13]

Certification of Film – Judicial Review – CBFC Certificate Grants Prima Facie Validity – Alternative Remedy Not Exhausted – Petitioner did not challenge certification through available remedy under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act – Held: High Court not to interfere unless certification is challenged for procedural irregularity, which was not done – Absence of challenge to certificate fatal to relief sought – Writ petition dismissed for not availing alternate statutory remedy [Paras 14–15]

Delay and Laches – Knowledge of Film Production Since February 2024 – Petition Filed Just Before Release – Film teaser released in September 2025 – Certification granted in October 2025 – Petition filed on 01.11.2025 despite wide publicity – Held: Petitioner not vigilant – Delay defeats equitable relief – Writ petition suffers from laches [Para 16]

New Grounds Raised in Oral Argument – Not Pleaded – Not Permissible – Petitioner sought to raise community-based objections during hearing which were not part of pleadings – Held: Factual contentions not pleaded cannot be raised during argument – Court declined to consider unpleaded grounds [Para 7]

Precedents – Petitioner’s Reliance Misplaced – Cases cited concerned living persons or different contexts (e.g. defamation, copyright, decency) – Held: Inapplicable to case involving dramatized depiction of deceased person and lack of legal injury to petitioner herself – Respondents’ reliance on Babuji Rawji Shah (2023), Viacom 18 Media (2018), and R. Rajagopal (1994) upheld [Para 17]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No violation of legal or constitutional rights shown – Film’s release upheld – No interference with CBFC certification justified. [Para 18]