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].

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 – 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].

Gratuity – Applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act to Zilla Parishad Employees – PG Act Held Applicable - Petitioners (Zilla Parishad, Washim) challenged orders of Controlling Authority directing payment of gratuity under the PG Act to retired health workers – Petitioners contended employees were covered under Maharashtra Civil Services Rules and hence excluded under Section 2(e) of PG Act – Court held Zilla Parishad is a local self-government body and not part of Central or State Government – In absence of exemption under Section 5 and in light of overriding Section 14, PG Act applies – Dismissal of petitions upheld validity of Controlling Authority’s orders including interest component – Held: Zilla Parishad liable to pay gratuity under the PG Act, with 10% interest from date of application till deposit [Paras 8-19].

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].
 

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].

Insurance Claim – Non-Disclosure of Previous Policy – Proposal Form Left Blank – Claim Allowed - Petitioner’s wife died of heart attack; LIC repudiated death claim citing non-disclosure of earlier policy taken three months prior – Proposal form had column for previous policies left blank, allegedly under LIC agent’s advice – Court held: Mere omission in column 9 not deliberate suppression; LIC already held policy data, and failure to verify or seek clarification before issuing policy bond constituted waiver – Held: No fraudulent intent proved; rejection arbitrary and contrary to Section 45 and SC rulings – Impugned orders set aside; LIC directed to release insured amount within six weeks [Paras 10–28].

Criminal Law - Motor Vehicle Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC – Conviction Set Aside – The accused was convicted by the Trial Court and the same was upheld by the First Appellate Court for allegedly causing death by rash and negligent driving – Held: Prosecution failed to establish rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt – Sole eyewitness PW-1 found to be unreliable, with contradictory testimony and no corroboration from other witnesses – Postmortem report indicated presence of alcohol in deceased’s body – Benefit of doubt extended to accused – Conviction and sentence quashed [Paras 12–20].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PW-1's Presence at Scene Disbelieved – PW-1 claimed to be eyewitness but admitted visiting hospital on call from accused and signing documents at police station – Held: Testimony found doubtful and inconsistent – No other eyewitness supported the prosecution version – Spot mahazar not supported by credible firsthand account – Conviction cannot rest solely on untrustworthy evidence [Paras 13–14].

Speed and Rashness – Mere High Speed Not Equivalent to Rash Driving – Reference to Supreme Court Judgment in State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493 – Held: No material on record showing actual speed or driving behaviour of accused to infer rashness – High speed, without context, not enough to establish offence under Section 279 IPC [Paras 15–17].

Foreseeability and Contributory Negligence – Influence of Alcohol on Deceased – Postmortem showed strong traces of alcohol in deceased – Held: Prosecution failed to show foreseeability or breach of duty by accused – In absence of clear proximate cause linking accused’s conduct to the fatal accident, conviction unsustainable [Paras 18–19].

Final Decision – Acquittal Ordered – Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence by Trial and Appellate Courts set aside – Fine, if paid, to be refunded [Para 20].