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.

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.

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.

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 - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope – At stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11(d), Court must confine itself to averments in plaint and documents filed therewith – Defence or written statement cannot be looked into – If plaint discloses triable issues, rejection impermissible – Suit cannot be dismissed on disputed questions of fact [Paras 17-19].

Benami Act – Section 4(1) – Bar of Suit – Trial court rejected plaint holding suit barred as plaintiff alleged property in mother’s name to be benami – Held, whether property is benami and whether it falls within exceptions under Section 4(3) are questions of fact requiring evidence – Bar under Section 4(1) not attracted at threshold stage [Paras 26-29].

Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) – Purchase from Joint Family Funds – Plaintiff pleaded that property was purchased from HUF funds and income of partnership firm – If proved, transaction may fall within exception under Section 4(3) – Such plea raises triable issue and cannot be adjudicated summarily [Paras 24, 28-29].

Fiduciary Capacity – Mother Holding Property – Though mother not coparcener, fiduciary relationship between son and mother can attract exception under Section 4(3)(b) – Whether mother held property in fiduciary capacity for benefit of plaintiff is matter for evidence – Suit not ex facie barred [Paras 29].

Burden of Proof – Benami Nature – Burden lies on person asserting benami transaction – Determination depends on source of funds, relationship of parties, conduct and surrounding circumstances – Cannot be decided without trial [Paras 21, 25, 27].

Error by Trial Court – Material Illegality – Trial court erred in concluding suit barred merely on plaint averment of benami – Failed to consider exceptions under Section 4(3) – Order held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 29-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2025 set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to decide suit within six months – Parties to bear their own costs.

Local Self-Government – Removal of Elected Municipal President – Section 48(2-A), U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 – Meaning of “such inquiry as it may consider necessary” – Full-fledged inquiry mandatory – Petitioner, elected President of Nagar Palika Parishad, removed on allegations of corruption, favouritism in tenders and misuse of municipal funds – Removal order based on preliminary inquiry reports and show-cause proceedings – No formal charge-sheet framed – No Inquiry Officer appointed – No oral evidence recorded – No opportunity of cross-examination afforded – Preliminary inquiry reports relied upon without associating petitioner – Held: Once charges are denied and explanation is found unsatisfactory, State Government is mandatorily required to conduct a full-fledged inquiry before removal of an elected representative – Removal without such inquiry violates Section 48(2-A) and principles of natural justice – Impugned order quashed with liberty to conduct fresh inquiry in accordance with law [Paras 11–23].

Elected Representative – Higher Constitutional Pedestal – Comparison with Government Servant – Elected President of Municipality stands on a higher footing than a government servant – If even a temporary government employee cannot be removed without full-fledged inquiry, removal of an elected representative without such inquiry is impermissible – Removal curtails statutory right of office-bearer and democratic right of constituency – Strict adherence to statutory procedure essential [Paras 13, 20].

Inquiry – Preliminary vs. Regular Inquiry – Evidentiary Value – Preliminary inquiry meant only to form prima facie opinion – Evidence recorded therein cannot be relied upon for final punishment – Reliance on preliminary reports without examination of witnesses in presence of delinquent and without cross-examination is illegal – Documents do not prove themselves and must be proved through competent witnesses [Paras 15, 16, 21].

Natural Justice – Supply of Inquiry Material – Right to Defence – Non-supply of relied-upon material including inquiry reports and comments vitiates proceedings – Right to receive inquiry report is part of reasonable opportunity of defence – Prejudice need not be separately proved where mandatory procedural safeguards are breached [Paras 15, 21].

Administrative Law – Quasi-Judicial Power – Recording of Reasons – Order of removal must record clear reasons based on legally admissible evidence – Mere reference to allegations and replies without discussion of evidence reflects non-application of mind – Quasi-judicial orders affecting elected office must demonstrate fairness, objectivity and strict compliance with law [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 29.10.2025 removing petitioner from office quashed – Respondents directed to conduct a full-fledged inquiry strictly in accordance with Section 48(2-A) of the Act, 1916 and principles of natural justice – Consequential relief granted [Para 23–24].

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Conviction under Section 325 IPC – Reliability of Injured Witness – Sentence Modified – Appellants convicted by Trial Court for causing grievous hurt to victim by assaulting him with wooden stick and bicycle pump – Prosecution case supported by injured eyewitness (P.W.2), independent eyewitnesses and medical evidence – Defence contended inconsistencies regarding weapon used and role of accused – Held: Evidence of injured witness carries greater evidentiary value and inspires confidence – Minor discrepancies as to number of assailants or nature of weapon do not discredit core prosecution case – Conviction upheld [Paras …].

Evidence – Injured Eyewitness – Legal Principles – Statement of injured witness corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitnesses – No material contradictions elicited in cross-examination – Reliance placed on Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Presence and testimony of injured witness cannot be doubted unless serious infirmities exist – Broad substratum of prosecution case to be accepted [Paras …].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Doctors (P.W.9 and P.W.12) proved grievous head injuries including fracture – Injury reports consistent with assault by hard and blunt objects – Seized weapons produced and proved – Medical evidence lends assurance to ocular testimony [Paras …].

Sentence – Reduction – Long Lapse of Time – Ends of Justice – Incident dated 12.06.2008 – Appellants already suffered custody for more than one month – After lapse of nearly 17½ years, sending appellants back to prison would serve no useful purpose – Sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Conditional bond under Section 106(4) Cr.P.C. directed for two years [Paras …].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 325 IPC affirmed – Sentence modified to period already undergone subject to furnishing bond – Appeal disposed of.

Employees’ Compensation – Insurer’s Liability – Interest on Compensation – Policy Exclusion Clause – Appeal by Insurance Company – Workman sustained permanent total disability due to fall from height during employment – Commissioner awarded compensation with 12% interest and imposed liability jointly on employer and insurer – Insurance policy produced at appellate stage showing specific exclusion of liability for interest and penalty – Held: Liability of insurer under Employees’ Compensation Act is purely contractual and governed by terms of insurance policy – In absence of statutory compulsion akin to Motor Vehicles Act, insurer cannot be fastened with liability beyond contract – Exclusion clause valid and enforceable – Insurer liable only to pay compensation amount – Employer liable to pay statutory interest [Paras 11–20].

Additional Evidence – Insurance Policy – Acceptance at Appellate Stage – Certified copy of full insurance policy not produced before Commissioner due to inadvertent omission – Policy certificate and premium receipts already on record – Additional document relevant for adjudication of substantial question of law – No dispute as to genuineness of document – Held: In the interest of justice, additional evidence permitted and relied upon [Paras 11–12].

Wages and Coverage – Employees’ Compensation Insurance – Insurer contended policy covered only seven welders drawing wages up to ₹4,000 per month whereas claimant alleged wages of ₹15,000 – Commissioner assessed wages at ₹4,000 per month – Held: Once Commissioner fixed wages within policy limit, insurer cannot deny coverage solely based on higher wage claim by workman [Para 10].

Substantial Question of Law – Direction to Pay Interest Contrary to Policy Terms – Whether Commissioner was justified in directing insurer to pay interest despite express exclusion in policy – Held: Issue involves interpretation of insurance contract and statutory scheme – Constitutes substantial question of law – Answered in favour of insurer [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Award modified – Insurer directed to pay only compensation amount – Employer directed to pay interest as awarded by Commissioner – No liability on insurer for interest or penalty.

Transfer of Property – Settlement Deed – Unilateral Cancellation – Invalidity – Registered settlement deed executed by the settlor in favour of grandson – Subsequent unilateral cancellation deed executed by settlor without consent of settlee – Held, once settlement deed is executed and registered, vesting rights in favour of settlee, it cannot be unilaterally cancelled unless a specific right of revocation is reserved in the deed or conditions are violated – Cancellation deed held void and inoperative [Paras 7–9].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Acceptance of Gift – Delivery of Possession – Not Sine Qua Non – Acceptance of settlement deed can be inferred from conduct of parties – Possession of original title deed with plaintiff and registration of settlement deed sufficient to establish acceptance – Settlement deed held duly acted upon during lifetime of executant [Paras 9].

Fraud, Coercion and Undue Influence – Burden of Proof – Mere allegation by settlor that deed was executed without knowledge or under pressure insufficient – No plea or proof of fraud or coercion raised contemporaneously in cancellation deed or subsequent settlement deed – Failure to establish grounds for invalidating the original settlement deed [Paras 4, 9].

Subsequent Settlement and Mortgage Deeds – Validity – Once original settlement deed stood valid and irrevocable, settlor ceased to have any right, title or interest in property – Subsequent settlement deed executed in favour of daughters and mortgage deed executed thereafter declared null and void [Paras 7–9].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court – No perversity or substantial question of law made out – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent judgments [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Unilateral cancellation of settlement deed declared void – Subsequent settlement and mortgage deeds held invalid – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.