Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Delay in Lodging FIR – FIR registered in 2024 for alleged fraudulent dilution and transfer of shares between 2010–2011 – Allegations surfaced during arbitration in 2024 – Held: Delay of 14 years in raising grievances without pursuing civil remedies casts doubt on urgency and requires trial to determine knowledge and intent [Paras 17–20].

Forgery and Corporate Misconduct – Role of Director – Allegations of backdated share allotments, forged AGM records, and illegal share transfers by applicant – Investigation ongoing – Evidence includes presence of deceased persons in AGM attendance and statements of shareholders denying consent – Held: Whether applicant played a culpable role is a matter of trial and not for pre-arrest stage [Paras 6–12, 21–22].

Criminal Procedure – Custodial Interrogation – Not Necessary – Applicant cooperated with investigation on multiple occasions under interim protection – Allegations based on company records, ROC filings, and share certificates – No evidence of tampering or absconding – Custodial interrogation not warranted [Paras 23–27].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions and Safeguards – Applicant granted bail with stringent conditions – Required to cooperate with investigation, not contact witnesses, and remain within jurisdiction – Held: Arrest not punitive and bail justified in absence of threat to investigation or risk of flight [Paras 31–33].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – Applicant to be released on bail in event of arrest on furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties – Directed to cooperate with investigation and adhere to conditions – Observations not to affect trial on merits.

Civil Writ – Service Law - Family Pension – Determination of Marital Status – Service Records Prevail – Respondent consistently recorded as wife/nominee in employee’s service register for entire career – No objection raised by department during lifetime of employee – Held: Service records are decisive for pension entitlement; criminal court findings in 498-A/494 IPC case not conclusive for determining marital status for pension purposes [Paras 19–23].

Bigamy Allegation – Effect of Criminal Case – Criminal Court’s observations in C.C. No.132/2006 were confined to charges under Sections 498-A & 494 IPC – Such findings do not constitute a binding civil declaration of marriage nor conclusively establish first/second wife status – Standard of proof differs – Department cannot rely solely on criminal case to deny pension [Paras 20–21].

Competing Marriage Claims – Burden on Department – Department failed to prove that respondent’s marriage was void or that she was the “second wife” during subsistence of earlier marriage – No civil court declaration produced – Long cohabitation (45 years) and three children raise presumption of valid marriage – Department’s reliance on executive circulars inapplicable absent proof of bigamy [Paras 17, 23–25].

Pension Rules – Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of 1980 Rules – Even in case of multiple widows, pension must be shared equally – After death of alleged first wife in 2014, respondent remained the only surviving widow at employee’s death in 2019 – Thus entitled to full family pension [Paras 14, 22].

Service Conduct Rules & Suppression – Allegation that employee suppressed first marriage in service records rejected – No disciplinary proceedings initiated during entire tenure – Department accepted respondent as wife for decades; cannot dispute after employee’s death [Paras 19(iii), 23].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge directing release of family pension to respondent upheld – No costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 26–27].

Civil Law – Revenue Proceedings – Timely Disposal – Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code – Petitioner sought direction for early disposal of partition suit pending since 2022 – Held: Rule 109(10) mandates an endeavour to decide such suits within six months. The Presiding Officer is directed to decide the case within six months. [Para 9]

Legal Ethics – Lawyers' Strike – Contempt of Court – Held: Continuous strikes by Bar Associations causing delay in judicial proceedings affect the public, especially poor litigants. If a case is adjourned due to a strike, the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association will be liable for contempt of Court for violating the directions in Daya Shankar v. State of U.P.. Litigants are at liberty to file contempt proceedings against such office bearers. [Para 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions. [Para 11]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Appointment of Additional Advocate General challenged on ground of insufficient experience and violation of State Litigation Policy, 2018 – Held: A writ of quo warranto lies only where appointment is contrary to statutory rules – Litigation Policy, 2018 does not have statutory force – It is merely a guideline and not enforceable in law – No statutory violation shown – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 1-3, 27-28]

Public Office – Nature of Post – Whether Additional Advocate General holds a 'public office' – Held: Unlike Advocate General (a constitutional post under Article 165), the position of Additional Advocate General is a professional engagement without statutory tenure or defined service rules – Appointment is at discretion of State – Thus, writ of quo warranto not maintainable against such post [Paras 4, 17]

Policy and Executive Instructions – Enforceability of State Litigation Policy – Clause 14.8 permits appointments by competent authority based on expertise – Notification of clause in Gazette does not elevate it to a statutory rule – Gazette publication under Part I Section 1 denotes non-statutory nature – Litigation Policy is not framed under proviso to Article 309 or Article 209 and hence lacks enforceable character [Paras 18, 22, 24-26]

Judicial Review – Limits in Appointment of Government Counsel – Held: Courts cannot interfere in appointment of government counsel unless the appointment violates statutory provision or is vitiated by mala fides – Choice of legal representative lies with the State, especially where post is of professional character without statutory backing [Paras 15-16, 21]

Practice and Procedure – Dismissal of Writ Petition Challenging Government Appointment – State has discretion to decide qualifications and appointment criteria of legal counsel – Experience may guide selection but is not an inflexible mandate – Judicial interference unwarranted where no illegality or arbitrariness established [Paras 28-29]

Decision: Special appeal dismissed – State Litigation Policy held non-enforceable – Appointment of Additional Advocate General not contrary to law – Writ of quo warranto not maintainable – No illegality or arbitrariness in the appointment – Pending applications also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Acquittal – State challenged judgment acquitting respondents of offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 307/34 IPC – Held: Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that injuries were caused by accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 1, 17, 20].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Injured and alleged eye-witness did not know accused earlier – Accused identified for first time in Court – Occurrence took place at night and assailants were standing in darkness – Held: Dock identification without prior TIP is weak and unreliable – Identity of accused not established [Paras 12-13].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Contradictions – Injured stated in police statement that assailants were unknown and standing in dark – Subsequently identified accused in Court – Identification held improbable as injury was inflicted from behind and injured became unconscious – Testimony not trustworthy [Paras 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Presence of Eye-Witness – PW5 Kartar Singh claimed to be present – Injured did not name or refer to PW5 either in FIR or evidence – PW5 closely related to injured – Did not take injured to hospital – Held: Presence of PW5 at spot doubtful and possibility of being introduced witness cannot be ruled out [Para 14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery – Shoe allegedly recovered from spot on third day and another from accused – Place of occurrence was busy thoroughfare – Held: Recovery highly improbable and unreliable [Para 15].

Motive – Absence – Though motive not mandatory in every case – In facts of present case absence of motive weakened prosecution case – Failure to establish reason for accused to attack complainant [Para 16].

Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal – Appellate Court to interfere only in case of perversity or illegality – No infirmity or perversity found in trial Court judgment – Acquittal upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment dated 27.11.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridkot acquitting respondents upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Land Revenue – Mutation Proceedings – Natural Justice – Mutation Case Rejected Without Notice – Petitioners’ application for mutation rejected by Additional Tahasildar, Jatani on the ground of non-submission of original certified copy and non-appearance – Held: Record does not reveal issuance of notice to petitioners nor opportunity of hearing – Violation of principles of natural justice – Order quashed [Paras 3–5]

Administrative Law – Opportunity of Hearing – Mutation Case – Authorities must ensure proper notice and opportunity to parties before passing orders – Absence of notice renders the order unsustainable – Matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners [Paras 5–8]

Writ Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – High Court exercised jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to set aside impugned mutation order for failure to comply with procedural fairness – Authorities directed to conclude proceedings within two months [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 23.10.2024 in Mutation Case No.3928 of 2024 quashed – Matter remitted to Additional Tahasildar, Jatani for fresh disposal after hearing petitioners and other parties – Petitioners directed to appear on 16.12.2025 for further proceedings – Mutation case to be concluded preferably within two months from filing of certified copy of the judgment.

Taxation Law - Indirect Tax – SVLDRS – Litigation vs. Arrears Category – Petitioner filed declaration under Litigation category under Section 124(1)(a) of Finance Act, 2019 – Tribunal’s remand order dated 30.12.2010 had relegated proceedings to show cause notice stage – Final quantification of duty remained pending as on 30.06.2019 – Held: Petitioner’s case falls under Litigation category, not Arrears – Impugned Form SVLDRS-3 issued under Section 124(1)(c) quashed [Paras 34–44, 47–48].

Indirect Tax – Pre-deposit Adjustment – Petitioner paid Rs.10 lakhs as pre-deposit under Tribunal’s directions – Respondents had themselves adjusted this amount in Form SVLDRS-2 – Held: No dispute regarding pre-deposit – Adjustment mandated under Section 124(2) – Objection to pre-deposit benefit untenable [Paras 20–21, 36, 46].

Statutory Interpretation – SVLDRS Scheme – Litigation category requires pendency of appeal or SCN as on 30.06.2019 – Requantification pending under remand means tax dues not finalized – Reference made to coordinate bench decisions in UCN Cable Network and Morde Foods – Held: Scheme must be interpreted to preserve benefits conferred and avoid rendering it unworkable [Paras 37–39, 45].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petitioner rightly invoked Article 226 to challenge arbitrary classification of case under incorrect SVLDRS category – Court finds application of mind lacking in issuance of Form SVLDRS-3 – Exercise of writ jurisdiction justified [Paras 21–22, 48–49].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Form SVLDRS-3 dated 12.03.2020 quashed – Respondents directed to recompute dues under Litigation category with 70% relief – Exercise to be completed within two months – No costs awarded.

Electricity Law – Pilferage of Energy – Civil Liability – Criminal Acquittal – Clause 39.15 – Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not extinguish civil liability for pilferage – Recovery under APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act and Section 52-A Revenue Recovery Act upheld – Limitation counts from final appellate criminal judgment – Writ petition dismissed with costs.

Electricity – Pilferage of Energy – Departmental Assessment – Criminal vs. Civil Consequence – Held: Theft of energy embodies two distinct components—(i) criminal liability punishable under law, and (ii) civil liability to pay for unrecorded consumption – Even if prosecution fails to secure conviction, civil liability survives unless charge is proven false – Acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not bar recovery proceedings.

Terms & Conditions of Supply – Clause 39.15 – Effect – Acquittal on any ground other than “charge is false” does not bar recovery – Sessions Court and High Court acquitted petitioner only on benefit of doubt; hence civil liability intact – Recovery proceedings maintainable.

Evidence – Criminal Case Findings – Session Court found prosecution failed to prove existence or use of remote controller; seals intact; possibility of tampering not established – Held: Such findings only raise doubt, not a declaration of false charge – Therefore, civil liability unaffected.

APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 – Applicability – Assessment order of Superintending Engineer (31.07.1992) confirmed by Chief Engineer (23.10.2001) attained finality – Dues fall within definition under Sections 2 & 3 – Recovery as arrears of land revenue under Section 6 valid – Form-A (06.12.2001) and Form-B notices (18.04.2002) validly issued  .

Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 – Section 52-A – Validity – Authorises recovery of public dues by treating them as arrears of land revenue – No inconsistency with Electricity Act, 2003 – Recovery for electricity dues permissible – Supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence affirming competence of States to confer such powers on revenue authorities.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Primacy Clauses (Sections 173, 174, 185) – No inconsistency between the 2003 Act and APSEB Recovery Act – Hence, old dues recoverable without recourse to Special Court under Section 153 – Civil recovery mechanism preserved.

Limitation – Article 113, Limitation Act – Cause of action accrues only after final appellate criminal judgment – Here, High Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 721/2008 dated 14.11.2011 marked such accrual – Recovery notice dated 18.09.2014 within 3-year limitation – Recovery not time-barred.

Decision:  Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- – All connected applications closed [Final Para] .

Administrative Law – Licensing – Revocation of Licence – Fair Price Shop Dealership – Respondent, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, was granted FPS licence despite being ineligible under the Vacancy Notification which permitted only individuals, co-operative societies, and certain other entities – Held: Licence was void ab initio and liable to be revoked – Licensing authority has inherent power to revoke a licence granted under mistake or misrepresentation, even in absence of express statutory provision – Power to revoke is distinct from post-licence cancellation under Clause 24 of the 2013 Control Order [Paras 31–45, 56–58]

Natural Justice – Show Cause Requirement – Respondent contended no proper notice or hearing was given before revocation – Held: Where licence is void from inception due to ineligibility, requirement of show cause does not override authority's inherent power to correct illegality – Revocation order sustained [Paras 15–18, 56–58]

Interpretation of Statutes – Eligibility Criteria – Registered Societies vs. Co-operative Societies – Eligibility clause in Vacancy Notification expressly included co-operative societies and excluded general registered societies – Held: Expression “individual” did not include juristic entities like registered societies – Mandatory eligibility criteria cannot be diluted by invoking absence of specific bar – Negative equality plea rejected [Paras 47–55]

Statutory Construction – No Retrospective Application – Subsequent 2025 amendment introducing revocation clause not applicable to 2013 Control Order – Cannot be used to interpret earlier vacancy notification retrospectively – Licensing authority's power stems from its original authority to issue licences, not the amended Control Order [Paras 42–45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 02/04/2025 in WPA No. 7296 of 2025 set aside – Revocation order dated 24/03/2025 by Sub-Divisional Controller (Licensing Authority) restored – Respondent's FPS licence held void ab initio – IA No. CAN 2 of 2025 disposed – No order as to costs.