Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction - Forgery and Cheating – Real Estate Investment Fraud – Conviction Sustained – Petitioner, acting as Director of AVR Green Homes Pvt. Ltd., misrepresented land ownership and induced investment of over ₹3.88 crores – Evidence included undertakings, RTGS records, and depositions – Conviction under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 120B IPC upheld – Trial and Appellate Courts found fraudulent inducement and non-return of funds [Paras 5-14, 58-61].

Enhancement of Sentence – Jurisdictional Limit Exceeded – Sentence Reduced – Appellate Court enhanced sentence under Section 467 IPC from 7 to 10 years – Held: Appellate Court exceeded jurisdiction as trial was before Magistrate whose sentencing power is limited to 7 years – Enhancement set aside for being ultra vires Section 386 read with Section 29 CrPC [Paras 54-67].

Compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC – Legally Valid – No Fine Imposed – Petition Dismissed – Informant had filed appeal for compensation which Trial Court had omitted – Appellate Court lawfully substituted fine with compensation of ₹61,47,800 – Held: Denial of compensation also constitutes “inadequate compensation” under Section 372 proviso – Power to impose compensation under Section 357(3) upheld [Paras 22-52].

Revisional Scope – No Reappreciation of Evidence – Conviction Uninterfered – High Court declined to reassess factual findings of lower courts – Emphasized limited scope of revisional jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of justice [Paras 59-60].

Decision – Partly Allowed – Conviction under IPC provisions sustained – Sentence under Section 467 IPC restored to 7 years – Order of compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC affirmed – Revisions partly allowed [Para 75].
 

Criminal Law - Possession of Muddamal – Income Tax Proceedings vs. Criminal Jurisdiction – I-T Department Authorized to Retain Seized Cash – The department sought custody of ₹35,28,000 seized in a theft case, invoking Section 132A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act – Trial court initially directed fixed deposit in complainant’s name, but later denied department’s application – Held: Income Tax Department entitled to custody and to deposit the cash in PD Account for proceedings under tax law [Paras 1-3, 10, 15].

Jurisdiction – Power of Magistrate under CrPC vs. Powers under Income Tax Act – Distinguished – The court clarified that the powers under Section 132A override general CrPC provisions on muddamal – Income Tax authority has jurisdiction to requisition unaccounted assets under statutory mandate; Magistrate cannot override this by directing deposit in complainant’s name [Paras 10-12].

Unexplained Cash – Prima Facie Grounds for Requisition – The complainant failed to explain the source of ₹35,28,000 satisfactorily during Income Tax inquiry, triggering legal requisition – Held: Department has legitimate basis to retain and investigate under the Income Tax Act [Paras 3.7, 13].

Final Decision – Magistrate's Orders Quashed – Petitioner Permitted to Act Under Income Tax Law – High Court quashed both lower court orders and allowed the department to take possession of the cash and deposit it in PD Account within four weeks, with procedural safeguards like panchnama and videography [Para 15].
 

Nominee Under Insurance Act – Beneficial Nominee vs. Heir – Nominee Not Absolute Owner – Writ Dismissed – Court held that nomination under Section 39(7) of the Insurance Act, though termed “beneficial”, does not override statutory rights of heirs under Hindu Succession Act – Held: Succession law is a specific statute on devolution of property; Insurance Act is general – Hence, nomination only ensures payment to nominee but not title to proceeds in exclusion of legal heirs [Paras 25–35].

Conflicting Judicial Opinions – Divergent Views Among High Courts – Harmonious Construction Adopted – Allahabad High Court noted conflicting rulings from Delhi, AP, Madras (favoring beneficial nominee) vs. Karnataka and MP (favoring succession) – Applied principle of generalia specialibus non derogant to hold that specific law of succession prevails – Reaffirmed that mere nomination does not exclude lawful heirs [Paras 16–20, 26–35].

Comparison with Banking Regulation Act – Section 39 Insurance Act is Pari Materia with Section 45-ZA – Only Collection Right Conferred – Court compared interpretation of similar nomination provision under Banking Regulation Act – Relied on SC ruling in Ram Chander Talwar to conclude that nominee under insurance policy holds proceeds in trust and not as absolute owner [Paras 10–13, 35(i)].

Supreme Court Precedent – Shakti Yezdani Followed – Nominee Does Not Override Succession Law – SC’s ruling in Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Salgaonkar applied – Nomination facilitates transmission but does not create a third mode of succession – Legal heirs can claim title despite nomination [Paras 21–22, 35(ii)].

Interpretation – Special Law Over General – Hindu Succession Act Prevails Over Insurance Act – Held – Succession rights being governed by specific personal law must prevail – Insurance Act is not a succession statute; its purpose is regulatory and administrative – Nomination cannot extinguish heirship rights [Paras 26–35].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Revision Court’s Order Affirmed – Insurance proceeds to be invested in fixed deposit in minor heir’s name – Certificate under Article 134-A granted for appeal to Supreme Court due to public importance and conflicting precedents [Paras 36–38].

Civil Writ - Service Law - Retiral Benefits – Withholding Due to Pending Criminal Proceedings – Criminal Case Abated – No Disciplinary Action Initiated – Held Arbitrary - The deceased teacher was accused of misappropriating ₹4,00,000 but no disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the criminal case abated due to his death – Held: Retiral benefits cannot be withheld in absence of proven misconduct – Pension is a vested right of the deceased [Paras 1, 4, 8-9].

No-Liability Certificate – Refusal by School on Grounds of Unproven Allegation – Unwarranted - The school declined to issue the certificate citing lack of evidence on fund usage – Held: In absence of disciplinary proceedings or conviction, denial of certificate unjustified – Court directed school to issue certificate within three weeks [Paras 3, 5, 9].

DCRB Scheme – Applicability of Para 19(5) – Not Attracted – No Pending Proceedings - Paragraph 19(5) bars disbursal of final pension if judicial/departmental proceedings are pending – Since no such proceedings were in place, the provision inapplicable – Retiral dues must be released [Para 8-9].

Direction to State – Duty to Disburse Pension Benefits – Petition Allowed - Court ordered issuance of 'No-Liability Certificate' and directed State to disburse arrear retiral benefits and initiate family pension – Held: State may initiate recovery as per law, but cannot deny pension without proof of liability [Final Para].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Conviction  – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory and Recovery of Bloodstained Articles – Conviction Set Aside - Appellant was convicted for murder of his foster daughter based solely on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution relied on last seen theory, recovery of bloodstained pant, and alleged improper motive – Court held last seen theory not proved due to lack of corroborative witnesses and uncertain timeline – Ownership of pant not established – No conclusive proof of motive or sexual assault – Chain of circumstances incomplete and failing the test in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, conviction unsustainable, appellant acquitted [Paras 14-24].

Bail – Jurisdiction of Magistrate – Offences under SC/ST Act and IPC Section 409 – Bail Order Set Aside - The learned Magistrate rejected remand of accused but also granted bail in offences triable by Sessions/Special Court including under SC/ST Act and Section 409 IPC – Held: Though rejection of remand was within discretion of Magistrate, granting bail was beyond jurisdiction – Victim not heard as required under Section 15A(3) SC/ST Act – High Court held Magistrate’s order granting bail without jurisdiction was legally unsustainable – Appeal partly allowed; remand rejection upheld, bail order set aside [Paras 6-13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Sexual Harassment and Intimidation – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Sections 354, 354A, 506 IPC, alleging false implication by his niece-in-law – The Court noted that FIR disclosed specific acts of molestation and intimidation occurring over a sustained period – Held: Allegations, if taken at face value, prima facie disclosed commission of cognizable offences – Mere absence of such claims in parallel proceedings or assertions of malafide cannot justify quashing at preliminary stage – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–13].

Quashing Proclamation Proceedings – Non-Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Declaration of Proclaimed Person Quashed – The petitioner was declared proclaimed person in proceedings under Section 138 NI Act and consequent FIR under Section 174-A IPC was registered – Held: Trial Court erred in straightaway issuing proclamation without prior steps of summons or bailable warrants, and without recording satisfaction regarding absconding – Proclamation proceedings vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Impugned order and FIR quashed [Paras 1-3, 12].

Cognizance under Section 174-A IPC – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Prosecution Unsustainable – The Court held that offences under Section 174-A IPC are governed by the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. – Cognizance requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant and cannot be initiated by police report – Registration of FIR without a complaint violates mandatory procedural law – Proceedings under Section 174-A IPC quashed [Paras 7-10].

Mandatory Procedure under Law – Adherence to Article 21 – Due Process Violated – The Court emphasized adherence to fair procedure as integral to personal liberty under Article 21 – When law prescribes a manner for action, deviation renders subsequent proceedings void – Directing initiation of criminal action without following the statutorily prescribed complaint procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is illegal [Paras 11].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order declaring petitioner proclaimed person, consequential FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed – Trial Court directed to proceed in accordance with law, ensuring procedural compliance under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and Section 195 Cr.P.C. [Paras 14].

Bail - NDPS Offense – Commercial Quantity – Application of Section 37 – Bail Granted – Petitioner accused of possessing 71 Buprenorphine injections, constituting commercial quantity under FSL report – Despite applicability of statutory bar under Section 37, prolonged incarceration of 1 year and 5 months invoked constitutional protection under Article 21 – Held: Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Paras 6-11].

Clean Antecedents – No Prior Criminal Record – Considered Favorably – Petitioner had no criminal history and undertook not to indulge in any future NDPS Act offense – Assurance accepted as mitigating factor justifying conditional release [Paras 2, 4].

Prolonged Pre-trial Custody – Grounds for Bail – Article 21 Consideration – Noted by Court that trial had not commenced and petitioner was in custody for over 1.5 years – Delay in trial held to be unjustified restraint on liberty – Conditional liberty granted to ensure fairness and avoid irreversible injustice [Paras 10-13].

Comparative Precedents – Supreme Court Bail Orders Followed – Cited series of SC judgments including Chitta Biswas, Rajib Dey, and Tajmul SK cases granting bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases with long incarceration – Held: Constitutional guarantee of liberty prevails over statutory embargo when trial delay is substantial [Paras 9, 11, 12].

Firearm Restrictions – Bail Condition – Court imposed prohibition on possession of arms post-release, citing need to protect society and deter intimidation of witnesses – This measure based on preponderance of probability rather than certainty [Para 20].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Bail Granted – Regular bail granted to petitioner under strict compliance terms including personal bond, prohibition on weapon possession, and cooperation with trial – State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail upon any future NDPS offense by petitioner [Paras 15-26].