Criminal Law – Robbery – Conviction under Section 397 IPC – Reversed – Appellant convicted for robbery and stabbing under Sections 394/34 and 397 IPC – Trial court sentenced him to concurrent imprisonment of 3 years and 7 years – Complainant identified appellant at police station, but no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted – Held: Dock identification in absence of prior TIP, where accused is a stranger, is weak and unreliable – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–18].

Evidence – Identification – TIP Not Conducted – Fatal Flaw – Accused was a stranger to the complainant – Identification first made at police station – No judicial TIP held – Supreme Court precedents reaffirmed that TIP is crucial investigative tool in such cases – Dock identification alone cannot form basis of conviction without prior TIP – Held: TIP omission vitiates prosecution case [Paras 15–16].

Witness Testimony – Improvement and Contradictions – Complainant made material improvements in Court testimony including number of knives, request for matchbox, and additional items allegedly robbed (power bank, headphone) – MLC did not mention all injuries as per final testimony – CCTV footage failed to capture incident – Held: Inconsistent narrative weakens prosecution case [Paras 9, 17].

Recovery of Stolen Items – Inconsistent Prosecution Case – Power bank recovered from appellant marked as robbed item despite no mention in original complaint or initial witness accounts – Mobile phone recovered from co-accused – Questionable chain of custody and post-arrest introduction of evidence – Held: Serious doubt cast on credibility of recovery [Paras 11, 14].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Serious gaps in prosecution case including absence of independent eye-witnesses, contradictory testimonies, and flawed identification – Court held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Criminal Law – Murder – Reliability of Evidence – Conviction Based Solely on Injured Eye-Witnesses – Trial Court convicted appellants relying exclusively on P.W.4 and P.W.5, while disbelieving presence of P.W.6 – High Court held that contradictions, omissions, prior enmity, and delayed complaint raised possibility of false implication, making sole reliance on two injured witnesses unsafe for conviction – Serious doubt arising from prosecution’s own discredited eyewitness P.W.6 [Paras 56–57].

Eyewitness Testimony – Contradictions & Omissions – Eye-witness accounts of P.W.4 & P.W.5 inconsistent with each other and with medical/postmortem evidence; their version about presence of P.W.6 contradicted prosecution case itself – Trial Court’s partial reliance held erroneous – Evidence not of sterling quality to sustain conviction for murder [Paras 46–55].

Medical & Forensic Evidence – Weapons Not Proved – Prosecution failed to prove recovery of weapons (choppers, knife, pistol) – Ballistic report negative – No forensic link connecting accused to firearm injury suffered by deceased; absence of scientific corroboration weakened prosecution case [Paras 30–33].

Delay & Possibility of False Implication – FIR recorded after considerable time gap though police reached hospital immediately; presence of longstanding personal enmity acknowledged – High Court observed that delay coupled with animosity creates strong suspicion of embellishment and naming of rivals after deliberation [Paras 52–55].

Benefit of Doubt – Cross-Case Background – Existence of cross-FIR regarding father of accused having died in related incident suggested possibility of retaliatory accusations – Cumulative deficiencies warranted giving benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 51–55].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under judgment dated 10.11.2020 set aside – Appellants acquitted – All appellants in custody directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Each appellant to execute P.R. bond of ₹25,000 under Section 481 BNSS (corresponding to Section 437A CrPC) before release [Paras 58–59].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Appeal against conviction under Section 302/34 IPC – Surviving appellant Onkar Singh convicted for fatal assault with spear during alleged house invasion incident – Trial Court found motive in Gram Pradhan election enmity – High Court re-examined evidence and found prosecution version riddled with improbabilities and suppressed facts – Held: Delay in lodging FIR unexplained despite police presence at scene within hours – Eye-witnesses were close relatives who denied presence of police contrary to official records – Their testimony found unreliable and inconsistent with site evidence and sequence of events [Paras 32–38, 42–44]

Delay in FIR – Suppression of Material Facts – Police arrived at scene around 11 p.m. on same night, yet FIR was lodged at 6:30 a.m. next morning without explanation – Prosecution witnesses denied early police arrival – Constables and G.D. entries proved otherwise – Supreme Court precedents (Thulia Kali, Meharaj Singh) applied – Held: Unexplained delay casts serious doubt on spontaneity and authenticity of FIR, suggesting afterthought and embellishment [Paras 34–40]

Interested Witnesses – Independent Witnesses Not Examined – Prosecution case solely based on testimony of deceased’s uncle and wife – Other women present during incident not examined – Inconsistencies between statements and site-plan – Held: Failure to examine independent witnesses, and contradictions in testimony, render prosecution version doubtful – Witnesses found to suppress key facts, including presence of village Pradhan and possible dacoity angle [Paras 41–43]

Doubtful Motive and Unexplained Conduct – No attempt to conceal identity alleged – Assailants known to victims and villagers, yet prosecution claimed dacoity narrative from accused's relatives – Held: Story of pre-planned murder followed by misleading FIR fails to inspire confidence – Involvement of accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Final report under Arms Act reinforces doubt about recovery and use of alleged weapons [Paras 45–52]

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Onkar Singh acquitted of charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Bail bonds cancelled – No need to surrender – Directions issued to Trial Court for compliance [Paras 56–58]

Criminal Law – Representation of Company – Section 305 CrPC – Trial court directed petitioner to represent company (Accused No. 23) despite his resignation from directorship prior to initiation of proceedings – Held: A company being a juristic person must appoint its own representative for trial under Section 305 CrPC – Neither the complainant nor the court can compel an unwilling individual, even a former director, to represent the company – Summons must be served at the company’s registered office – Petitioner cannot be forced to represent the company without valid authorization [Paras 1, 22, 26, 28–30].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Section 70 PMLA – Scope – Company and persons in charge at the time of offence may both be liable under Section 70 – However, representation under Section 305 CrPC is separate from liability under Section 70 – Subsequent resignation from company does not absolve individual from criminal liability under PMLA, but does relieve him of obligation to represent the company unless duly authorized [Paras 18–20, 28].

Special Law vs General Law – Harmonious Interpretation – Argument by ED that Section 70 of PMLA overrides Section 305 CrPC rejected – Held: PMLA does not conflict with CrPC provisions on representation of juristic persons – Prosecution under special statute does not allow bypassing procedural safeguards regarding company representation – Trial cannot proceed without proper representation of the company in accordance with Section 305 CrPC [Paras 14, 26–28].

Judicial Discretion – Improper Exercise – Trial court erred by postponing decision on company representation to later stage under Section 207 CrPC – Held: Representation issue must be settled prior to continuation of proceedings – Trial court failed to apply its mind to settled legal position – Order set aside and direction issued to summon company at its registered office and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if no representative is appointed [Paras 21, 26, 30].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order of trial court dated 03/11/2022 set aside – Magistrate directed to serve fresh summons on accused company (Accused No. 23) at its registered address and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if company fails to nominate representative – Entire process to be completed within 60 days from receipt of this order [Paras 29–30].

Criminal Law – Remand Extension – Illegality – Petitioners were remanded in NDPS case and their remand was extended to 300 days by Special Judge – Accused not produced physically or virtually before court on date of extension – Held: Mandatory procedural safeguard violated – Such failure is not a mere irregularity but a gross illegality violating Article 21 of the Constitution – Order extending remand set aside – Petitioners entitled to default bail [Paras 5–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Failure to secure accused’s presence during remand extension hearing deprives them of fair procedure – Reference made to SC judgment in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 973 – Held: Extension of time without informing or producing the accused nullifies their right to seek default bail and infringes fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 6–8].

Bail – Conditions for Release – Petitioners granted bail in view of illegal remand – Conditions imposed include regular police attendance, restriction on travel, non-tampering with evidence, cooperation with investigation, and surrender of passports – Held: Petitioners shall comply with all directions until cognizance is taken [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Cases allowed – Impugned remand extension order dated 13.11.2025 set aside – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 granted bail on specified conditions – Trial court failed to follow due process by not producing or informing accused during remand extension hearing – No costs.

Petroleum Dealership – Eligibility Criteria – Joint Land Ownership – Lease Deed Requirement – IOCL Brochure Clause 4(vi)(a) mandates that on the date of application, lease deed must be executed by all co-owners; failure renders application invalid – Petitioner submitted lease from only one co-sharer and relied on preliminary decree of partition – Held: Preliminary decree is insufficient; only final decree separating shares by metes and bounds establishes exclusive title – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 8–14, 20]

Partition of Land – Preliminary vs. Final Decree – Under Sections 116–117 of U.P. Revenue Code and Rules 108–109, preliminary decree merely declares shares; final decree alone identifies exact land allotted to each co-sharer – At stage of preliminary decree location of allotted land may change – Applicant must furnish final decree if relying on partition in joint property – Petitioner lacked final decree on date of application [Paras 12–14]

Administrative Law – Commercial Decision of IOCL – Judicial Review – Selection for retail outlet dealership is contractual and commercial – Writ Court will not interfere unless action is arbitrary or irrational – IOCL acted as per Brochure; decision neither arbitrary nor unreasonable – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 17, 20–21]

Precedents – Identical Issues – Earlier judgments in Rahul Singh (Writ C 7354/2024, decided 06.03.2024) and Amarjeet (Writ C 11586/2024, decided 06.05.2024) applied – Both held that in joint ownership cases absence of lease from all co-owners on date of application is fatal – Applied squarely to present case [Paras 15–19]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No infirmity in IOCL’s rejection order; no relief granted – No order as to costs [Paras 20–21].

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – Cancellation of Building Permission – Petitioner challenged inaction by municipal authorities in taking steps against alleged illegal construction by private parties – Court found that authorities had issued notices under Sections 452 and 461 of APMC Act – Respondents claimed deviations were minor and compoundable – Held: Petitioner had effective alternative remedy before municipal authorities – Writ jurisdiction not invoked unless fraudulent misrepresentation is shown – No relief for cancellation or demolition can be granted without authority’s determination [Paras 1-3, 20-27].

Zoning & Building Use – Mixed Use Permission – Objection to construction of hospital on small plot – Respondents claimed building was for clinic, not hospital – Court observed that “mixed use” is defined in AP Building Rules, 2017 – Held: Permission for mixed use valid – Court cannot decide intended use based on mere apprehension – No direction can be issued based on speculative use of premises [Paras 5, 8, 18, 22].

Municipal Law – Compounding and Regularization – Minor deviations from sanctioned plan – Respondents relied on G.O.Ms.No.119 and G.O.Ms.No.225 for compounding and regularization – Court held that such remedy is available to respondents and must be considered by authorities – No writ relief for demolition without prior rejection of regularization plea – Held: Respondents entitled to pursue regularization before authorities [Paras 17, 23-25, 28].

Civil Procedure – Advocate Commissioner’s Report – Petitioner sought Commissioner’s appointment alleging ongoing illegal construction – Report stated no recent construction activity observed – Petitioner’s objections to report found unsubstantial – Held: Court cannot act on unverified suspicions – Commissioner’s report neutralized petitioner’s allegations [Paras 8, 13-14].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Petitioner failed to show any fraudulent or mala fide exercise by municipal authority – Complaints adequately addressed – Effective remedies available before competent authorities – Held: Writ Petitions not maintainable under Article 226 in absence of exceptional circumstances [Paras 26-27].

Decision: WP Nos. 12184 of 2024 and 14603 of 2025 dismissed – WP No. 15771 of 2024 closed with liberty to apply for compounding or regularization – Direction to respondent authorities not to interfere with construction pending disposal of such applications – No order as to costs [Paras 28-29].

Family Law – Custody and Visitation – Maintainability of Injunction Suit by One Parent Against the Other – Family Court Suit – Respondent-mother filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-father from contacting the child or school staff – Petitioner-father filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint – Family Court dismissed the application – High Court held that such a suit, though labeled as permanent injunction, essentially seeks custody-related reliefs which fall within Family Court jurisdiction under Section 7 of Family Courts Act – Mere use of “injunction” terminology does not oust Family Court’s jurisdiction [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Scope – Plaintiff’s pleadings alone to be considered – Defence or merits not to be weighed – High Court reiterated that so long as the plaint discloses a cause of action and falls within court jurisdiction, rejection under Order VII Rule 11 not warranted – Held: Family Court rightly refused to reject plaint [Paras 12–14].

Jurisdiction – Family Court – Custody and Visitation Rights – Even if framed as civil suit for injunction, underlying dispute concerns parental rights and child welfare – Such matters fall squarely within jurisdiction of Family Court under Section 7 of Family Courts Act – Held: Proper remedy is for father to seek visitation under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act or Guardians and Wards Act, not by resisting injunction suit as non-maintainable [Paras 11, 15–18].

Pleadings – Cause of Action – Sufficiency – Court reiterated that only averments in the plaint are relevant for examining maintainability under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff alleged threats, school disruption, and psychological impact on minor – These constitute cause of action for seeking relief – Held: Contentions of petitioner on truth or sufficiency of those facts not relevant at this stage [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – No interference with Family Court’s order – Petitioner permitted to pursue appropriate remedies under law for visitation or custody.

Electricity Law – Theft of Electricity – Section 135 of the Electricity Act – Accused allegedly hooked electricity directly from low-tension overhead lines – Appellant seized materials and lodged FIR – Respondent paid part of provisional assessment amount – Trial court found that prosecution failed to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt – No independent witnesses examined – No conclusive identification of accused – Held: Evidence insufficient – Acquittal upheld [Paras 2–12].

Criminal Procedure – Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court held that appellate courts must be cautious in interfering with orders of acquittal – Unless judgment is perverse or legally flawed, presumption of innocence prevails – Trial court’s view not found to be implausible – Appeal dismissed [Para 11].

Electricity Law – Refund of Amount Paid Towards Provisional Assessment – Trial court directed refund of Rs. 1,32,556 paid by accused during pendency of criminal case – Appellant argued special court lacks power to issue refund – Held: Under Section 154(6) of Electricity Act, special court may direct refund if amount deposited exceeds liability or if no liability arises due to acquittal – Refund order legally sustainable – Appeal on this ground also dismissed [Paras 13–18].

Assessment Proceedings – Civil Liability vs. Criminal Liability – Court clarified that Section 135 deals with criminal offence of theft, while Section 126 pertains to unauthorised use – Since acquittal was recorded, no civil liability remains – Special court rightly directed refund – Refuted argument that refund mechanism is unavailable to electricity authority [Paras 15–19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Special Court affirmed – Direction to refund Rs. 1,32,556 upheld as lawful under Section 154(6) of Electricity Act – No grounds for interference found.