Criminal Law – Attachment Order - Prevention of Money Laundering – Attachment of Property – Flat purchased by respondent through unregistered agreement from a company under winding-up – Tribunal quashed ED's attachment – High Court held that no valid title passed through unregistered agreement – Held: Respondent had no ownership; property continued to vest with United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd – Flat rightly attached as proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u), PMLA – Tribunal erred in ignoring legal position on title transfer and statutory scheme under PMLA [Paras 25, 34–40, 42, 46–47]

Winding Up – Void Transactions – Agreement to Sell entered after winding-up petition filed – No leave of Company Court taken – Held: Transaction void under Section 536(2), Companies Act – Official Liquidator’s no objection was not bona fide – Registration of sale deed during pendency of restoration proceedings held invalid [Paras 36–37, 46]

Property Law – Ownership – Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Mere agreement does not confer title – Held: As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Suraj Lamp case, only registered conveyance creates ownership rights – Buyer at best had a right to seek specific performance – Respondent had no legal interest in property [Paras 38–41]

PMLA – Procedural Compliance – Freezing and Attachment – Provisional attachment by ED was in accordance with Section 5 and confirmed by Adjudicating Authority – High Court reiterated importance of procedural safeguards under PMLA – Cited Opto Circuits (2021) 6 SCC 707 to reaffirm that failure to follow mandatory procedure renders freezing invalid – In present case, ED complied fully [Paras 21–24]

Restoration of Property – Public Sector Banks – Banks holding public funds passed stringent tests under PMLA – Special Court ordered restoration of attached assets to bank consortium – Respondent suppressed facts during sale deed registration – Held: Conduct not bona fide, undermined pending PMLA and winding-up proceedings [Paras 44–45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Appellate Tribunal quashing attachment set aside – Flat No. 7A held to be validly attached as proceeds of crime – Respondent held to have no title – Sale deed executed during pendency of proceedings declared invalid.

Property Law – Communal Land – Order I Rule 8 CPC – Adverse Possession by State – Identity of Land – State estopped from claiming adverse possession – Suit partly maintainable – Declaration granted for Hal Plot No.1575; claim rejected for “Smasana” land [Paras 15–29].

Communal Land – “Smasana” – Necessity of Representative Suit – Non-Joinder – Suit Not Maintainable – Hal Plot No.1563 recorded as “Smasana” is communal land in which entire village has common interest – Plaintiffs failed to comply with mandatory requirements of Order I Rule 8 CPC before seeking declaration of title – Villagers of Mouza Attopur-Badapokharital being necessary parties, suit in respect of A.0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 rightly dismissed by courts below – Held: No error in concurrent findings dismissing claim regarding “Smasana” land [Paras 15–18].

Adverse Possession – Plea by State – Impermissible – Implied Admission of Plaintiff’s Title and Identity of Property – State pleaded long possession and prescriptive title over A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 – Such plea amounts to implicit admission of plaintiffs’ title and identity of the suit land – As per settled law, the State cannot perfect title by adverse possession against its own citizens – Trial Court’s and First Appellate Court’s findings denying identity and ownership unsustainable – Held: State precluded from claiming adverse possession; plaintiffs’ title stands established [Paras 19–25].

Title and Identity – Establishment through Defendant’s Admissions – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Once State claimed adverse possession, identity of A.0.09 decimals in Plot No.1575 stands admitted – Concurrent findings that plaintiffs failed to identify suit land contradicted legal effect of State’s plea – High Court interferes with concurrent findings under Section 100 CPC as findings were perverse and contrary to settled principles [Paras 22–26].

Relief – Partial Decree – Declaration of Title and Direction for RoR Correction – Suit dismissed for A.0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 (“Smasana”) – Suit decreed for A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 – Plaintiffs declared owners; State declared to have no right, title or interest – Possession confirmed in favour of plaintiffs – State directed to correct RoR accordingly – Appeal allowed in part [Paras 27–29].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder – Extra-judicial confessions unreliable – CDR/tower-location unproved – No last-seen – Motive absent – Investigation defective – Chain incomplete – Acquittal – Prosecution failed to establish circumstances forming a complete chain consistent only with guilt; conviction unsustainable; benefit of doubt granted [Paras 8–45].

Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Panchsheel Principles – Court reiterates the five rules in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Hanumant; prosecution failed to prove each circumstance fully and conclusively; chain not unbroken [Paras 9–13].

Last Seen Theory – Not Established – No witness saw accused and deceased together close to the time of death; they left separately on morning of incident; time gap wide; possibility of third-party involvement not ruled out [Paras 14–17].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Unreliable – CDR Contradictions – Delay – Improper Conduct of Witnesses – PW1’s claim disproved by call logs; PW1 withheld information despite continuous phone contact with accused; PW4’s confession disclosure after 10 days held unnatural; tower data falsifies his version; confessions rejected [Paras 18–22, 36–38].

Electronic Evidence – CDR and Tower Data – Not Scientifically Proved – IO sought no tower coordinates, distances, or technical certification; interpretations based on assumptions; CDRs do not establish movement or presence of accused near scene; unreliable [Paras 22, 31–34].

Recovery of Dead Body – Not Valid Section 27 Discovery – Alleged information by accused to PW1 not proved; even if assumed, recovery alone not incriminating without corroborating links such as last-seen or forensic support [Paras 23, 38].

Motive – Not Proved – Alleged suspicion of wife’s fidelity unsupported by proximate conduct; no quarrel or abnormal behaviour on previous night; absence of motive weighs in favour of accused in a circumstantial case [Paras 25–26].

Abscondence – Weak Circumstance – Supreme Court holds abscondence alone cannot justify adverse inference; relevant only when supported by strong incriminating circumstances, which are absent here [Paras 27–29].

Forensic Evidence – No Biological Link to Accused – No DNA, fingerprints, footprints or biological material of accused found on ligature, body or scene; medical evidence establishes homicide but not identity of assailant [Paras 31–32].

Investigation – Slipshod – Major Omissions – Phones registered in names of third parties; their statements not recorded; no subscriber forms verified; tower-distance information not collected; CDR evidence rendered ineffective; investigation lacked scientific method [Paras 34–35].

Conduct of PW1 – Suppression of Material Facts – PW1 remained in phone contact with absconding accused but concealed this; his account of call at 6:30 p.m. contradicted by CDR; credibility doubtful [Para 36].

Other Witnesses – Contradictions – Falsified by Tower Data – PW2 contradicted himself; PW7 and PW8’s motorcycle-dropping stories inconsistent with tower-location pattern; PW4’s delayed disclosure held suspect; testimonies insufficient to establish involvement [Paras 22, 37].

Chain of Circumstances – Missing Links – Alternative Hypotheses Possible – Absence of last-seen, motive, forensic connection, reliable electronic evidence, and trustworthy confessions results in incomplete chain; suspicion cannot replace proof; benefit of doubt must follow [Paras 39–44].

Decision – Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC quashed; accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled; sureties discharged; fine refunded within eight weeks [Para 45].

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – No Building Permission – Applicant alleged that Respondents No. 1 and 2 raised illegal commercial construction without sanction on House No. 233/42, Nai Sadak, Gwalior – Municipal Corporation confirmed construction was carried out between 2016–2017 without prior approval – Notices issued by Corporation in 2016 and 2017 to stop construction went unheeded – Trial Court rejected application under Section 307(5) of MP Municipal Corporation Act – Held: Order of Trial Court set aside as new construction without permission was established [Paras 1–4, 14, 19–22].

Building Inspection – Report by Municipal Commissioner – Commissioner personally inspected property on Court's direction – Found a three-storey structure used for commercial purposes – Assessed age of building as 7–8 years, constructed without prior municipal approval – Respondents objected but refused scientific testing to determine building age – Held: Refusal to allow testing supports inference of unauthorized construction – Inspection report accepted [Paras 9–12, 14–15].

Evidentiary Value – Photographic Evidence – Photographs filed by applicant of under-construction building matched existing structure – Supported Municipal Commissioner’s findings – Held: Photos establish prima facie case of new unauthorized construction [Para 14].

Binding Nature of Civil Judgments – Earlier Civil Suit Filed by Respondents – Judgment in Civil Suit No. 244A/2017 and R.C.A. No. 205/2019 held that no new construction was raised – Held: Applicant was not a party to those suits – Findings not binding as they were not judgments in rem – Respondents failed to involve applicant despite being aware of his complaints – Findings in those civil proceedings not applicable to applicant [Paras 15–18].

Administrative Law – Duty of Municipal Corporation – Corporation admitted multiple notices issued to stop construction – Failed to enforce stoppage or demolish building despite illegality – Court directed sealing and demolition of entire structure – Compliance mandated within fixed timeline [Paras 19–23].

Procedural Law – Civil Revision – Trial Court failed to consider evidence of unauthorized construction and Commissioner’s findings – Refusal to allow scientific testing weighed against respondents – Held: Trial Court committed material illegality – Civil revision allowed with costs [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Order of Trial Court dated 22/07/2024 rejecting application under Section 307(5) of MP Municipal Corporation Act set aside – Application allowed – Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, directed to seal building immediately and demolish it within one month – Costs of ₹25,000 imposed on Respondents No. 1 and 2 to be deposited within one month – Failure to comply will invite contempt proceedings [Paras 22–24].

Specific Performance – Time as Essence – Waiver – Immovable Property – Agreement to sell dated 25.08.1990 required payment of ₹25,000 by October 1990 – Defendants issued successive notices (23.02.1991 and 26.03.1991) granting further time – Held: Conduct amounts to waiver; time not essence under Section 55 of Contract Act – Defendants themselves kept contract alive; cannot later plead breach [Paras 8–15].

Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff produced affidavit, bank statement and cheque of ₹25,000 sent on 09.04.1991 – Defendants refused due to escalated market price – Admission of DW-1 that sale deed would be executed only at current market rate – Held: Plaintiff continuously ready and willing; defendants in breach under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act [Para 16].

Discretionary Relief – Specific Relief Act – Equity – Plaintiff acted diligently; defendants extended time and later refused due to rise in prices – Conduct shows attempt to resile from concluded bargain – First Appellate Court rightly granted decree of specific performance – No perversity or misapplication of law [Para 17].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court affirming specific performance upheld – Agreement dated 25.08.1990 enforceable [Paras 18–19

Criminal Law – Forgery – Recruitment Fraud – Dual Identity – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner filled two online applications under different names (Balwinder Singh and Baljinder Singh) to appear twice in physical recruitment test for post of constable – First attempt on 27.07.2016 resulted in failure – Second attempt under false identity detected on 17.08.2016 – Trial Court convicted petitioner under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC – Held: Identity proved by same photographs, signatures and certificates on both forms – Explanation that error was clerical or caused by cyber café assistant rejected – Forgery and use of forged documents clearly established – No case made out to interfere with concurrent findings of conviction [Paras 1–13, 18–21].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – New Defence Not Permissible – Petitioner attempted to raise new line of defence at revisional stage by claiming he did not appear in second test – Court held such defence never taken at trial or in statement under Section 313 CrPC – Belated claim rejected – Revisional jurisdiction not meant for re-appreciation of facts or introduction of fresh defences [Paras 12–14].

Sentencing – Principles – Leniency on Ground of Reformation and Social Hardship – Sentence Reduced – Though conviction upheld, Court reduced sentence to period already undergone (approx. 3 months) – Petitioner had no prior record, faced prosecution for 9 years, was married with two dependent children, and showed no tendency to reoffend – Court observed offence arose from misplaced desperation for public employment, not inherent criminal intent – Held: Reformative purpose of punishment satisfied, custodial sentence no longer necessary [Paras 17–25].

Judicial Precedents – Sentencing Jurisprudence – Court relied on State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008) 7 SCC 550 and Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat (2006) 2 SCC 359 to balance deterrent and reformative aims of sentencing – Emphasized need for judicial discretion based on offender’s socio-economic context, conduct, and likelihood of rehabilitation [Para 21–22].

Decision: Criminal revision petition partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Petitioner released forthwith if not required in any other case – Pending applications disposed [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law – Murder of Mother by Husband and Son – Conviction Based on Dying Declaration – Deceased, suffering 100% burn injuries, made two consistent dying declarations before doctor and investigating officer accusing her husband and son – Declarations found voluntary, cogent, and free from inducement – Court held: No motive for deceased to falsely implicate close family – Conviction upheld on strength of declarations and corroborating circumstances [Paras 5–7, 22, 34–39]

Evidence Law – Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Sufficiency – Declaration recorded by treating doctor and police officer in hospital – Court reiterated legal position that dying declaration can form sole basis for conviction if found reliable – Certification of fitness by doctor present – No need for Magistrate's recording in urgent medical context – No evidence of tutoring or pressure – Held: Statements inspire confidence and withstand scrutiny under settled jurisprudence [Paras 9–15, 29–31, 35–37]

Criminal Procedure – Recording of Dying Declaration – Executive Magistrate Not Present – No adverse inference drawn due to urgency and critical condition of victim – Victim survived only 15 hours post incident – Police’s failure to call Magistrate held not fatal – Court held that procedural flexibility permissible if substance of law upheld [Paras 16, 30, 37]

Circumstantial Evidence – Scene Tampering and Absence of Suicide Indicators – No kerosene container, matchbox, or burn marks found at scene – Site cleaned before police arrived – Husband did not accompany victim to hospital – No suicide note or motive – All factors point towards deliberate cover-up – Held: Circumstantial evidence consistent with prosecution case and supports dying declarations [Paras 32–34, 38]

Defence Plea – Suicide Theory Rejected – Appellants failed to show any motive for deceased to implicate them – Alleged language barrier and physical incapacity not proved – No expert or witness to support defence – Court found no reason to discard consistent dying declarations or disbelieve doctor’s testimony – Held: Suicide theory speculative and unsupported [Paras 18–21, 23–28]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of Didar Singh and Maan Singh under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Dying declarations held admissible and trustworthy – Circumstantial evidence supports homicidal nature of death – Defence plea of suicide rejected – Appellate Court finds no ground to interfere with trial court judgment.

Workmen’s Compensation – Liability of Insurance Company – Compensation and Interest – Deceased driver died during employment-related accident – Commissioner held both employer and insurer jointly liable for ₹8,52,160/- with 9% simple interest till award and 7% compound interest thereafter – Held: Insurer liable to pay entire compensation along with 12% interest under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act – Joint liability modified accordingly [Paras 1–4, 6–8].

Insurance Law – Scope of Liability – Penalty Exclusion – Reiterated that interest on delayed compensation forms part of insurer’s liability but penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) is not – Penalty arises from employer’s personal fault and cannot be foisted on insurer – Commissioner’s award modified to clarify insurer’s exclusive liability for compensation and interest only [Paras 7, 7.1, 8].

Precedents – Apex Court Binding – Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi (1997) 8 SCC 1, Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Co. (2009) 1 SCC 487, and New India Assurance Co. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya (2006) 5 SCC 192 – Held: Legal position settled that insurer covers compensation and statutory interest but not penalty – Binding precedents followed to allow appeal in part [Paras 4, 7–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order modified – Insurance company held liable to pay ₹8,47,160/- compensation with 12% interest – Remaining portion of Commissioner’s order unaltered.

Telecom Law – Jurisdiction of TDSAT – Dispute Between Service Providers – Plaintiff (a Class 'A' ISP) and Defendant No.1 (a Category 'A' ITSP) entered into an Operational Merger Agreement (OMA) for resource and infrastructure integration – Allegations of breach of contract, disruption of services, and withholding of infrastructure affecting thousands of end consumers – Held: Dispute is between service providers and directly impacts users—Squarely falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Section 14(a)(ii) of TRAI Act—Civil suit not maintainable [Paras 3, 22–26, 38–39]

Civil Procedure – Bar of Jurisdiction – Section 15 of TRAI Act – Civil courts barred from entertaining disputes that TDSAT is competent to adjudicate – Inclusion of individual directors and foreign parent company (non-service providers) does not alter the core nature of the dispute – Allegations against Defendants 2–5 arise from their roles within service provider operations – No distinct cause of action independent of the primary dispute – Civil court lacks jurisdiction [Paras 30–35]

Consumer Impact – Scope of TRAI Act – Plaintiff admitted disruption of service to approx. 19,000 residential and commercial users including hospitals, schools, and government bodies – Held: Where dispute affects a large body of consumers, TDSAT as the expert tribunal must adjudicate – Object of TRAI Act is to ensure consumer protection and orderly growth of telecom sector [Paras 24–26]

Contractual Disputes – Private Agreement Between Telecom Operators – Plaintiff argued dispute arose from a private contractual arrangement unrelated to regulatory functions – Court rejected argument citing binding precedent that even private agreements between service providers fall within TDSAT’s domain if consumer interests are affected or sectoral regulation is implicated [Paras 27–29]

Distinction from Precedents – Cases relied upon by plaintiff (e.g., Amrit Aneja, Hathway Digital) held inapplicable – Those disputes involved non-service providers or employer-employee issues – In contrast, current dispute involves operational failures and service disruptions between two licensed service providers [Paras 36–37]

Decision:Suit held not maintainable – Dispute falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Sections 14 and 15 of the TRAI Act – Civil court barred from entertaining the matter – Plaint rejected – Pending applications disposed of accordingly.