Criminal Law – Pardon to Accomplice – Revocation under Section 308 CrPC – Whether automatic on Public Prosecutor’s certificate – Expression “may be tried” confers judicial discretion – Pardon granted by judicial order cannot be revoked solely on certificate without Court forming prima facie opinion – Court must hear approver and examine whether certificate discloses prima facie violation – Revocation not automatic – Trial Court empowered to judicially review certificate and reject prayer if no prima facie case made out [Paras 18-20, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Inquiry under Section 308 CrPC – Limited scrutiny – Court to examine whether evidence under Section 164(1), Section 306(4) or during trial prima facie lacks full and true disclosure – Detailed trial not contemplated at this stage – Separate miscellaneous proceedings not required though approver, if tried, must be tried separately – Elaborate procedure adopted by Trial Court unnecessary though omission curable [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Tender of Pardon by Special Judge under PC Act – Applicability of Sections 306 and 307 CrPC – Whether examination under Section 306(4) mandatory – Where Special Judge competent to take cognizance and try offence tenders pardon under Section 307 – Examination under Section 306(4) not mandatory though permissible as prudent practice – Expression “same conditions” in Section 307 refers to conditions in Section 306(1) and not procedural mandate of sub-sections – No illegality in not recording statement under Section 306(4) [Paras 26-28].

Evidence – Cross-Examination of Approver – Allegation of pressure by CBI while recording Section 164 statement – Mere assertion in cross-examination that earlier statement was under inducement does not ipso facto amount to violation of pardon conditions – If allegation true, approver narrating truth cannot be penalised – If false, prosecution must seek sanction/leave of High Court to prosecute for false evidence under proviso to Section 308(1) – Absence of such leave fatal to present application [Paras 47-48, 58].

Criminal Law – Approver’s Evidence – Consistency regarding material facts – PW-1 consistently maintained collection of ₹5,000 and payment to Customs officials in Section 164 statement, examination-in-chief and cross-examination – PW-2 consistently maintained he did not collect money but maintained bill records – No material suppression or deviation regarding core transaction – No wilful concealment of essential facts concerning offence or principal offenders established – Conditions of pardon not violated [Paras 35, 40-41, 49-51].

Evidence Act – Scope of Cross-Examination and Re-Examination – Section 138 Evidence Act – Cross-examination not confined to matters in examination-in-chief – New facts in cross-examination do not automatically amount to breach of pardon – Prosecution had liberty to re-examine to clarify alleged inconsistencies but failed to do so – Cannot invoke Section 308 merely because evidence not favourable [Paras 52-55].

Criminal Procedure – Statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded prior to tender of pardon – Conditions of pardon imposed subsequently – Alleged non-disclosure of inducement at time of Section 164 statement does not constitute breach of later-imposed conditions – Pardon granted by Special Judge, not Magistrate who recorded confession – Suppression, if any, anterior to tender of pardon not per se violation of its terms [Paras 43-45, 57].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Order rejecting application under Section 308 CrPC upheld – Liberty reserved to prosecution to seek leave of High Court to prosecute approvers for false evidence, if so advised – No opinion expressed on veracity of statements regarding alleged inducement.

Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Allegation of Loan Transaction – Dismissal of Second Appeal – Defendant contended that agreement of sale dated 13.08.2004 was fabricated and intended only as security for loan – No contemporaneous complaint or reply to legal notice disputing execution – Silence of defendant for years held fatal – Held: Findings of trial court and first appellate court based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity warranting interference [Paras 4–14].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – Scope – Questions raised relating to alleged loan transaction, family property and sister’s share – Concurrent findings of fact against defendant – No substantial question of law arising – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 9–14].

Specific Performance – Family Property – Agreement Executed by One Co-sharer – Defendant failed to establish that suit property could not be subject matter of agreement of sale – Mere plea of sister’s share without supporting evidence insufficient – Agreement extent consistent with pleadings and evidence [Paras 5–7, 10].

Evidence – Conduct of Party – Silence After Legal Notice – Defendant failed to reply to notice seeking execution of sale deed and did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging fabrication – Conduct weighed against defendant – Adverse inference drawn [Paras 10–13].

Execution Proceedings – Challenge under Article 227 – Consequence of Dismissal of Second Appeal – Sale deed executed and possession delivered pursuant to decree – Civil Revision Petitions challenging execution and delivery warrant rendered infructuous – No ground for interference once decree upheld [Paras 15–16].

Civil Revision – Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – Executing court acted in accordance with decree – No jurisdictional error or material irregularity shown – Revisions dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed – Decree for specific performance confirmed – No costs – All pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Execution through Father – Subsequent Ratification – Plaintiff residing abroad – Agreement dated 11.03.1985 executed by father on his behalf – Power of attorney executed on 04.06.1985 prior to target date for execution of sale deed – Subsequent ratification vide power of attorney dated 08.06.1987 – Doctrine of relation back applies – Held: Ratification validates earlier act from date of original transaction and agreement not void for want of prior authority [Paras 8, 9, 12].

Stamp Act – Unstamped/Insufficiently Stamped Power of Attorney – Admissibility vs Validity – Objection regarding stamping and authentication raised – Supreme Court in Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements and Indian Stamp Act (2024) 6 SCC 1 relied upon – Non-stamping renders document inadmissible but not void – Defect curable on payment of duty and endorsement – Held: Subsequent duly embossed power of attorney cured defect in earlier instrument and document could be acted upon [Paras 11, 12].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Photocopy of Power of Attorney – Objection not raised before First Appellate Court regarding mode of proof – Held: In absence of specific objection at appellate stage, appellant barred from challenging admissibility in second appeal – Allowing additional evidence did not amount to filling lacuna but to clarify authority and ratification [Para 10].

Readiness and Willingness – Proof – Bank Draft Prepared – Notices Issued – Plaintiff issued notices dated 09.05.1985 and 21.05.1985 – Appeared before Sub-Registrar – Bank draft prepared for balance consideration as proved by Bank Officer (PW-4) – Defendant failed to turn up and did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging fraud – Held: Continuous readiness and willingness established [Paras 9, 13].

Agreement to Sell – Vagueness – Absence of Specific Khasra Numbers – Land described as approximately 28 kanals with stipulation of proportionate adjustment – Non-availability of jamabandi with defendant – Execution proved by scribe and attesting witnesses – Held: Agreement not vague or unenforceable [Para 14].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act – Framing of Substantial Question of Law – Not mandatory for Punjab and Haryana High Court – No perversity or illegality in First Appellate Court judgment – Held: No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court granting specific performance upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Appeal – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for stabbing the injured with a knife – Trial Court sentenced appellant to five years’ rigorous imprisonment – On appeal, High Court finds serious doubt regarding identity of assailant – Injured and eyewitnesses admitted no prior acquaintance with appellant and disclosed that appellant’s name and identity were revealed by police – Identification of accused at hospital by showing photographs impermissible – Arrest and site plan bearing signatures of complainant contradicted by his own testimony – Held: Prosecution failed to establish identity of appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 30–46].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Reliability – Injured witness admitted that he came to know name of appellant from police officials and was shown photograph at hospital – No Test Identification Parade conducted – Appellant not previously known to injured or eyewitness – Manner of arrest after seven days creates serious doubt – Contradictions between testimonies of PW1, PW2 and Investigating Officer – Identity not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 32–41].

Investigation – Non-Recovery of Weapon – Effect – Alleged knife used in offence not recovered – No serious effort made to recover weapon even when offence initially registered under Section 324 IPC – Disclosure statement without recovery has no evidentiary value – Non-recovery of weapon weakens prosecution case [Paras 43–44].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Appreciation – PW5 hostile and did not support prosecution – PW1 and PW2 contradicted police version regarding arrest, site plan and identification – Trial Court erred in ignoring material contradictions and admissions – Burden of proof always on prosecution and not cured by absence of suggestions in cross-examination [Paras 18, 42, 45].

Section 307 IPC – Intention or Knowledge – Requirement – To sustain conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution must prove intention or knowledge to cause death along with overt act – In present case, doubtful identity of assailant and infirm investigation render prosecution version unreliable – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 20, 46].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Where two views possible and prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 41–46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2024 and order on sentence dated 07.01.2025 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 307 IPC – Pending applications disposed of.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Prosecution Sanction – Refusal by Competent Authority – Subsequent Grant by Another Authority – Validity – Petitioner, Assistant Grade-II in Municipal Council, faced prosecution under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) PC Act – President-in-Council, being competent authority under Section 19(1) PC Act, refused sanction – State Department suo motu set aside refusal and Commissioner granted sanction relying on amended Rule 51 – Held: Once competent authority refuses sanction, same cannot be reviewed or overridden in absence of express statutory power – Subsequent sanction held without jurisdiction [Paras 11–15].

Municipal Law – Section 323, M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 – Scope and Limitations – Power under Section 323 confined to suspension or prohibition of unlawful municipal resolutions – Does not confer power of review or reversal of an order refusing prosecution sanction under a Central enactment – State cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders passed under Section 19 PC Act – Impugned order passed in excess of statutory authority [Paras 12–14].

Special Act vs. State Legislation – Prevailing Effect of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – PC Act being a special Central legislation prevails over State Municipal law – Orders under Section 19(3) PC Act cannot be nullified by invoking Section 323 of the Act of 1961 – Sanction regime under PC Act held exclusive and exhaustive [Paras 12–14].

Service Rules – Amendment with Prospective Operation – No Retrospective Sanction Power – Amendment to Rule 51 dated 15.12.2022 enlarging sanctioning authority – Cannot be applied retrospectively to overturn refusal already made by competent authority – Commissioner lacked competence to grant sanction de hors earlier refusal [Paras 14–15].

Administrative Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Non-delegable Function – Grant or refusal of sanction is an administrative act requiring independent application of mind – Sanction cannot be granted on directions of another authority nor on the basis of a report – Concurrent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to nullify an earlier valid decision [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Both writ petitions allowed – Orders dated 30.05.2023, 17.07.2023 and 24.04.2024 set aside – Prosecution sanction quashed – All consequential proceedings annulled – No order as to costs.

Taxation Law – Andhra Pradesh VAT Act – Appeal – Rejection at Admission Stage – Delay in Filing Appeal – Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected appeal filed with delay of 2 years 4 months and 20 days against consequential assessment order – Petitioner pleaded non-service of show cause notice and assessment order – Held: Explanation not satisfactory – Rejection of appeal justified [Paras 5, 9–13].

Service of Notice – Presumption of Knowledge – VAT Proceedings – Show cause notice and assessment order sent by registered post and through departmental staff – Returned with endorsement “no such assessee” and premises found locked – Petitioner failed to intimate closure or change of address – Held: Service procedure under Rule 64 AP VAT Rules duly followed – Plea of lack of knowledge rejected [Paras 6, 10–12].

Delay and Laches – Writ Jurisdiction – Assessee sleeping over statutory remedy – Petitioner had earlier pursued appellate remedy diligently but failed to explain prolonged inaction after remand – Receipt of demand notice dated 14.09.2017 unexplained – Delay held fatal – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 10–12].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Alleged Violation – No Merit – Assessment passed after following statutory procedure – Non-participation by assessee attributable to its own conduct – No violation of principles of natural justice established [Paras 10–12].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Limited Interference in Fiscal Matters – Order rejecting appeal on limitation neither arbitrary nor illegal – No perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Order dated 12.12.2017 upheld – No costs – All pending interlocutory applications closed.

Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Election Dispute – Recounting of Votes – Issuance of Election Certificate – Legal Status – Election of President of registered Society initially declared in favour of appellant – On reference under Section 25(1), Prescribed Authority directed recounting of votes – After recount, Assistant Registrar issued certificate declaring respondent elected and cancelled earlier certificate – Held: Election certificate issued by Assistant Registrar has no independent statutory or legal status under the Act – Authority to function as office bearer flows from registration of list under Section 4(1), not from issuance of certificate [Paras 14–16, 25].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Challenge to Consequential Order – Statutory Appeal Pending – Appellant challenged only election certificate dated 28.03.2025 without assailing foundational order of Prescribed Authority dated 22.03.2025 – Statutory appeal against Prescribed Authority’s order pending before Commissioner under Section 25(1)(d) – Held: Indirect challenge to main order through writ petition not maintainable – High Court cannot record findings which may affect pending statutory appeal [Paras 21–24, 32].

Section 25, Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Powers of Prescribed Authority and Assistant Registrar – Prescribed Authority directed recount and declaration of result – Assistant Registrar bound to comply with directions – Challenge to legality or consequences of such direction lies only in appeal against Prescribed Authority’s order – Writ petition confined to certificate alone held misconceived [Paras 20–21].

Section 25(2), Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Fresh Election – When Attracted – Contention that Assistant Registrar ought to have convened fresh general body meeting after alleged setting aside of election rejected – Held: Occasion to invoke Section 25(2) does not arise when Prescribed Authority’s order directing recount is under challenge in appeal and list of office bearers already registered under Section 4(1) [Paras 30].

Section 4(1), Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Registration of List of Office Bearers – Effect – List of office bearers after recount registered on 02.04.2025 and signatures of respondent attested – No challenge laid to registration or attestation under Section 4(1) or appeal under Section 4(1-A) – Held: Relief restraining respondent from functioning as President cannot be granted [Paras 24–25].

Election Law Analogy – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Inapplicability – Comparison drawn with powers of High Court under R.P. Act to declare candidate elected rejected – Held: Scheme of Societies Registration Act distinct – Once challenge confined to certificate lacking legal sanctity, analogy with R.P. Act provisions misplaced [Paras 31].

Decision: Special Appeal dismissed – Order of learned Single Judge upholding dismissal of writ petition affirmed – No interference warranted – No opinion expressed on merits of Prescribed Authority’s order dated 22.03.2025 pending before Commissioner [Paras 34–35].

Criminal Law – Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning of Additional Accused – Abetment of Suicide – Dowry Harassment – Revision Allowed – Revisionists (father-in-law and step-mother-in-law of deceased) summoned under Section 306 IPC by the trial court invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., despite being exonerated during investigation and a closure report being filed against them – Charge sheet filed only against husband for offences under Sections 306, 498-A, 323 IPC – Allegations against revisionists found to be general and vague, unsupported by specific evidence of cruelty or additional dowry demand – Held: Impugned order summoning revisionists is not sustainable and is set aside – Trial court directed to decide the pending session trial expeditiously [Paras 2, 31-35].

Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Extraordinary Power – Standard of Proof – Higher than Prima Facie – Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary in nature, to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection – Mere prima facie case is insufficient; strong and cogent evidence against the person sought to be summoned is required – The word "appears" in Section 319(1) imports a lesser degree of probability than proof but the court must be satisfied that the evidence, if unrebutted, may lead to conviction – Summoning order not to be passed in a casual and cavalier manner – Relied upon: Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2014 SC 1400; Sarabjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 2792 [Paras 16-19, 29-30].

Evidence – "Evidence" under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Confined to Trial Evidence – The word "evidence" in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. is limited to evidence recorded during trial and does not include materials in the charge sheet or case diary – Trial court can add a person as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it – Relied upon: Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92; Omi @ Omkar Rathore vs. State of M.P., 2025 INSC 27; Shiv Baran vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 3008 of 2025; Brijendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 [Paras 24-25].

Vague and General Allegations – Matrimonial Disputes – In-Laws – Caution Against Mechanical Summoning – Allegations against revisionists (father-in-law and step-mother-in-law) were general and vague with no specific demand of dowry or specific act of cruelty attributed to them during the entire subsistence of the marriage – PW-1 (father of deceased) himself admitted no complaint was made regarding cruelty or additional dowry demand – Minor daughter of deceased did not allege cruelty by revisionists – FIR not lodged under Dowry Prohibition Act nor was any charge sheet filed under the same – Held: Vague and cryptic allegations insufficient to summon accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Relied upon: Chhaya vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 17 SCC 8; Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 [Paras 25-28, 31-34].

Hearsay Evidence – Dowry Harassment Cases – Section 306 IPC – While the trial court itself acknowledged that the testimony of PW-8 (bhabhi of deceased) regarding the deceased's oral complaints of harassment constituted hearsay evidence, it proceeded to summon the revisionists on that basis – Trial court erred in relying on such hearsay evidence as strong and cogent ground for summoning revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – The revisionist (father-in-law) himself had promptly informed the complainant of the deceased's death, indicating absence of concealment [Paras 8, 22, 31].

Criminal Revision – Maintainability – Post-Framing of Charge – Scope of Revision vs. Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Contention of opposite party that revision is not maintainable as charges have already been framed against the revisionists – Held: Scope and ambit of criminal revision under Cr.P.C. and inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are entirely different – Reliance on the Division Bench judgment in Shueb Mahmood Kidwai vs. State of U.P. (Application No. 3044 of 2017) to bar revision found inapplicable in the present context [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Impugned order dated 31.10.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Agra in Session Trial No. 2243 of 2023 set aside – All further orders passed on the basis of said order also set aside – Trial court directed to decide the pending session trial against other accused expeditiously in accordance with law [Paras 35-36].

Public Works Contract – PMGSY – Price Variation/Escalation – Closure of Designated Quarry – Judicial Review under Article 226 – Petitioner awarded PMGSY road work on the basis of NIT and estimates showing Kupari Quarry as lead source for minor minerals – Kupari Quarry stood closed by NGT order prior to tender but fact not disclosed in NIT – Contractor compelled to procure minerals from alternative quarry about 80 km away – Representation seeking price variation rejected relying on Clause 13.4 of Standard Bidding Document – Held: Clause 13.4 in the governing NIT restricts only “rate of sand prices” and not other minor minerals – Reliance on generic Standard Bidding Document impermissible when specific NIT formed part of agreement – Rejection order based on misreading of contract terms and non-application of variation clause – Decision and order dated 09.06.2022 set aside – Matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 6–9].

Tender Conditions – Interpretation – Specific NIT vs. Standard Bidding Document – Opposite parties contended Clause 13.4 bars any price adjustment – Court held that governing document is the NIT forming part of executed agreement – Expression “rate sand prices” consciously used in Clauses 13.2 and 13.4 of NIT – No pleading or corrigendum to show typographical error – Standard Bidding Document only “similar to” NIT and cannot override specific contractual terms – Contra proferentem rule applied against employer as author of tender – Restriction confined to sand alone [Paras 7.2–7.15].

Price Variation – Clause 35 & 36 of General Conditions of Contract – Applicability – Variation clause empowers Engineer to order and compensate variations within scope of work – Closure of designated quarry constituted supervening circumstance beyond contractor’s control – Additional transportation distance directly attributable to employer’s failure to disclose non-operational quarry – Absolute prohibition on variation not contemplated under contract – Committee failed to consider Clause 35 while rejecting claim – Non-consideration vitiates decision [Paras 8–8.4].

Estimation and Quarry Lead – OPWD Code – Employer’s Obligation – OPWD Code mandates approved quarry lead to be provided in estimates – Detailed estimate and lead statement showed Kupari Quarry as source with carriage and royalty factored in – Employer aware of NGT restraint yet retained Kupari Quarry in estimates – Misrepresentation established – Employer cannot shift burden to contractor under site visit clause [Paras 8.5–8.7].

Doctrine of Impossibility – Lex non cogit ad impossibilia – Contractor could not be compelled to perform work on quoted rates when procurement from designated quarry became impossible due to legal restraint – Escalation caused by circumstances beyond contractor’s control – Law does not compel performance of impossibility – Equitable adjustment warranted [Paras 8.8–8.10].

Administrative Decision-Making – Arbitrariness – Non-Application of Mind – Committee and Superintending Engineer relied mechanically on Clause 13.4 without examining governing NIT, variation clause, OPWD Code, or factual matrix – Decision held irrational and legally unsustainable – Judicial interference justified [Paras 9–9.3].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Decision of Committee dated 09.06.2022 and Order of Superintending Engineer dated 09.06.2022 set aside – Superintending Engineer directed to reconsider petitioner’s representation dated 11.01.2022 afresh in light of Court’s observations and variation clause – Fresh decision to be communicated within six weeks – No order as to costs.