Territorial Jurisdiction – Writ Petition – RTI Act – Section 8(1)(j) – Forum Conveniens – Petitioner challenged the CIC’s order refusing disclosure of attendance records under the RTI Act. The court highlighted the principle of forum conveniens, noting that the SEEPZ-SEZ and concerned authorities were located in Mumbai, thus the High Court of Bombay was the appropriate forum. Petition dismissed on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and lack of merit. [Paras 4-6]

Right to Information – Exemption from Disclosure – Personal Information – RTI request for attendance records deemed personal information. Section 8(1)(j) exempts disclosure of personal information unless justified by larger public interest. The CPIO correctly invoked Section 11 to seek consent from consultants, some of whom objected to disclosure. CIC upheld the CPIO’s decision, finding no overriding public interest. [Paras 7-11]

Personal Information – Definition and Scope – Court referred to Supreme Court rulings in Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, defining personal information broadly to include professional records and performance evaluations. Such information is protected from unwarranted invasion of privacy unless public interest demands disclosure. [Paras 8-10]

Motivation Behind RTI Request – Judicial notice taken of petitioner’s status as a disgruntled employee, suggesting RTI application aimed at settling personal scores rather than genuine public interest. [Para 12]

Decision – Petition dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction and absence of public interest in disclosure of requested information. [Paras 6, 11, 13]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 44 – Rights of Co-owners and Transferees - Property Law – Second Appeal under Section 100 r/w Order XLII Rule 1 & 2 CPC dismissed – Challenge against the concurrent findings of trial court and 1st appellate court dismissing defendants’ claim over property by adverse possession and confirming mandatory injunction for eviction – High Court held that defendants were licensees and not co-owners, thus not entitled to protection under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act – Substantial question of law answered against appellants – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Paras 1-33]

Co-ownership and Licensee Rights – High Court evaluated defendants' claim of adverse possession and exchange of properties – Found defendants to be licensees under the original co-owner without any exchange of properties as claimed – Defendants not entitled to protection as co-owners under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act or Section 4 of the Partition Act – Suit for mandatory injunction held valid for eviction after termination of license – Previous decisions supporting co-owner’s right to sue for possession without involving other co-owners upheld. [Paras 9-20, 22-24, 30-32]

Procedural Aspects – High Court analyzed appropriateness of mandatory injunction vs. suit for recovery of possession – Upheld mandatory injunction based on prompt action by plaintiffs following termination of license – Distinguished from trespasser scenario due to immediate suit filing – Relied on precedents establishing that delay and necessity for a suit for possession are context-dependent – Avoidance of multiplicity of suits emphasized. [Paras 25-29]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The second appeal is dismissed with costs due to lack of merit in the defendants' contentions, confirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the defendants are mere licensees and not co-owners, and thus liable to vacate the property as decreed. [Para 33]

Criminal Law – Exemption from Appearance – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the rejection of an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. for exemption from personal appearance – Petitioner unable to appear in court due to attending uncle's funeral – Trial court rejected exemption due to lack of immediate proof of death – High Court sets aside trial court's order, granting exemption – Recognizes procedural leniency for unforeseen personal events – Importance of balancing judicial process with personal exigencies emphasized. [Paras 1-8]

Nonappearance Justification – Evaluation – Held – The nonappearance justified by petitioner’s presence at a funeral – Submission of necropolis receipt and affidavit suffices for immediate proof – Importance of procedural justice and consideration of humanitarian grounds reaffirmed. [Paras 3-4]

Decision – Setting Aside of Impugned Order – High Court sets aside the trial court's order rejecting the exemption application – Directs petitioner to continue regular appearances henceforth – Emphasizes balance between judicial rigor and personal circumstances. [Paras 6-8]

Property Law – Joint Hindu Family Property – Succession Rights under Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 – Applicability to Agricultural Land -  High Court examined the applicability of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, to the agricultural land. Upon the death of Kanhaiya in 1941, the Court found that his wife, Kala Bai, acquired the same rights in the joint family property under the Act, despite her husband’s death prior to the extension of the Act to agricultural lands in 1942. This extension was applied retrospectively, granting Kala Bai a half share in the property which she held in her own right until her death in 1960. Consequently, the plaintiffs, being the daughters of Kanhaiya and Kala Bai, inherited the property upon the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, affirming their right to partition and possession. [Paras 2, 11-12]

Property Acquisition – The High Court held that the land area of 1.14 acres, acquired by Harlal through a registered sale deed in 1954, was his self-acquired property and not part of the joint family estate. The trial court's finding of the sale deed as bogus was reversed by the first appellate court and upheld by the High Court, determining that this land should not be included in the decree for partition. The Court modified the trial court’s decree accordingly, excluding this specific land from the plaintiffs' share. [Paras 5, 14-15]

Decision – Appeal Partially Allowed – Held – The appeal is allowed to the extent of excluding the self-acquired property of Harlal (1.14 acres) from the partition decree. The judgment and decree of the lower courts are modified to this extent, confirming the plaintiffs’ entitlement to half of the remaining joint family property. No order as to costs. [Paras 15-17]

Motor Vehicles Act – Enhancement of Compensation – Appeal – Appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal for death in a motor vehicle accident – Tribunal had awarded Rs. 9,40,000 with interest – Appellants claimed deceased’s income was Rs. 30,000 per month as a transporter and contractor, not Rs. 6,000 as assessed by Tribunal – Tribunal’s assessment based on lack of documentary evidence and unproven ownership of truck – High Court considered deceased a skilled labourer and adjusted monthly income to Rs. 10,000 – Recalculated total compensation to Rs. 17,15,500 with interest. [Paras 1-20]

Assessment of Income – Evidence – Tribunal’s income assessment – Held – Tribunal erred in assessing monthly income as Rs. 6,000 based on insufficient evidence – High Court adjusted income to Rs. 10,000, recognizing deceased as a skilled labourer based on driving license for heavy transport vehicle. [Paras 11-12]

Dependency and Multipliers – Personal Expenses – Held – Tribunal incorrectly deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses – High Court corrected deduction to 1/4th considering number of dependents – Multiplier of 13 applied correctly. [Paras 13-14]

Conventional Heads – Consortium and Funeral Expenses – Held – Tribunal awarded consortium and funeral expenses lower than statutory guidelines – High Court enhanced awards under these heads per Supreme Court guidelines. [Paras 16-18]

Decision – Enhancement of Compensation – High Court enhanced total compensation from Rs. 9,40,000 to Rs. 17,15,500 – Directed equitable distribution among dependents and specified terms for fixed deposits for minor dependents – Interest on enhanced amount at 6% per annum from claim petition filing date to actual payment. [Paras 19-22]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Conviction and Sentence – Appeal – Non-compliance with Section 52A – Conviction and sentence of the appellant set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which requires the preparation of an inventory, and drawing of samples in the presence of a Magistrate – Held that the failure to comply with this mandatory provision vitiates the prosecution’s case – Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted. [Paras 1-15]

Compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act – Requirement – Analysis – Held – Section 52A of the NDPS Act mandates that an inventory of the seized narcotic substance must be prepared and certified by a Magistrate, and samples must be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate – Non-compliance results in the samples not being treated as primary evidence – Reference made to Union of India v. Mohanlal and Mohammed Khalid v. State of Telangana. [Paras 8-13]

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Court found significant procedural lapses in the investigation, particularly the non-compliance with Section 52A, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Trial Court set aside. [Para 15]

Passport Law – Renewal of Passport – Special Criminal Application seeking renewal of passport – Applicant’s passport renewal denied by passport authority due to pending criminal case and untraceable court records – Court held that the pendency of a criminal complaint which culminated into a criminal case does not justify refusal of passport renewal under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 – Direction issued to passport authority to process renewal application within a month. [Paras 1-9]

Untraceable Court Records – Impact on Administrative Decisions – Analysis – Held – Applicant’s criminal case records untraceable despite multiple efforts – Court found that such administrative lapses should not impede the renewal process – Authorities directed to base their decision on available documents rather than pending criminal case. [Para 5-9]

Decision – Renewal of Passport Directed – Court directed the passport authority to renew the petitioner’s passport within one month – Emphasized that mere registration of an FIR, which culminated into a criminal case, cannot be grounds for denial of passport renewal – Authorities instructed to consider documents provided by the petitioner. [Para 9]

Criminal Law – Conviction and Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by the Sessions Court – Appeal in High Court – Examination of circumstantial evidence and recovery of weapons – High Court found no substantive link between appellants and crime – No credible last seen evidence – Absence of disclosure statements for recovery of weapons – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted [Paras 1-5, 33-40].

Circumstantial Evidence – Requirements for Conviction – High Court emphasized strict adherence to guidelines for circumstantial evidence cases – Cited Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra for criteria – Evidence must conclusively indicate guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – Prosecution's evidence failed to meet these standards – No coherent chain of evidence established [Paras 26-27, 33-34].

Evidence Law – Recovery of Weapons – Application of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – High Court scrutinized applicability of Section 27 for recovery of weapons – Prosecution did not produce any disclosure statements – Recovery evidence treated under Section 8 as conduct evidence, insufficient for conviction – References to Supreme Court precedents Bodhraj alias Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 28-32, 35-39].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Appeals are allowed, and appellants acquitted – Sessions Court’s judgment set aside – Prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants to be released unless wanted in any other case – Instructions for transmission of judgment to lower court [Paras 40-45].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Eyewitness Testimony – Appellant convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC – Informant, Sonmuni Baskey, provided direct eyewitness testimony – Conviction upheld despite the lack of motive and the non-submission of the weapon to forensic analysis – Court found no discrepancy in the identification of the accused despite poor lighting conditions – Importance of direct evidence highlighted [Paras 2-25].

Eyewitness Identification in Low Light – Reliability – Eyewitness testimony of Sonmuni Baskey considered reliable even in low-light conditions due to prior acquaintance with the accused – Court refers to precedent affirming the reliability of identification by familiar individuals in poor visibility [Para 17.2].

Hearsay Evidence – Corroboration – Testimonies of P.W.2 (Deblal Kisku) and P.W.3 (Churki Hembrom) accepted as corroborative evidence – Court emphasized the admissibility of hearsay evidence that corroborates direct eyewitness accounts [Paras 21.1-21.2].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Medical evidence provided by P.W.12 (Dr. Shailendra Kumar) confirmed cause of death consistent with the injuries described by the eyewitness, further corroborating the prosecution’s case [Para 22].

Defect in Investigation – Non-fatal – Failure to send the recovered dagger for forensic examination considered a minor lapse – Court ruled that the defect did not undermine the direct evidence provided by the eyewitness [Para 20.1].

Motive – Relevance in Direct Evidence Cases – Court reiterated that motive is not crucial in cases supported by direct evidence – Conviction based on the unequivocal testimony of the eyewitness [Para 18.1].

Defense’s Alternate Theory – Rejected – Defense’s suggestion that the informant conspired to kill the deceased or committed the murder herself was rejected due to lack of supporting evidence – Appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not support the alternate theory [Paras 23.2-23.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant to serve the remainder of the sentence as ordered by the trial court. Lower court records to be sent back along with a copy of this judgment. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of [Paras 24-27].