Criminal Law - BNSS – Section 94 – Scope – Production of documents – Notice to University Registrar for scholarship records (2020–2025) challenged as unrelated to alleged exam malpractice – Petitioners argued no nexus with University; scholarships processed and disbursed by State through nodal officers – Held: Section 94 empowers Investigating Officer to call for documents necessary or desirable for investigation – Records prima facie relevant; Court cannot interfere with ongoing investigation under Article 226 – Notice upheld [Paras 18-20, 24].

Investigation – Judicial Interference – Well-demarcated functions of Police and Judiciary – Police have statutory right to investigate cognizable offences without judicial interference – Courts cannot quash investigation steps unless mala fides or abuse of power shown – Reliance placed on Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (AIR 1945 PC 18), J.A.C. Saldanha (1980), Neeharika Infrastructure (2021) – Writ jurisdiction not to be used to stall investigation [Paras 20-23].

Scholarship Records – University’s role – Petitioners argued University merely verifies forms, disbursal directly by Government – Court held: relevance of records is matter for Investigating Officer; not for writ court to assess at investigation stage – Prayer to quash notice rejected [Paras 9-10, 19, 24].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Notice under Section 94 BNSS sustained – Court declines to interfere with ongoing police investigation [Paras 24-25].

Civil Law - Stamp Duty Refund – Failure of FDI Transaction – Limitation under Section 48 – Refund Allowed – Petitioner entered into Share Purchase Agreement requiring Government approval under Press Note No.3 (2020 series) – On rejection of approval, SPA became void and refund was sought under Section 47 – Application rejected by authority as time-barred under Section 48 – Held: Delay was due to government procedure; rejection solely on limitation offends equity – Refund allowed with interest [Paras 1–23].

Statutory Right vs. Procedural Technicalities – Substance Over Form – SPA rendered void due to denial of FDI clearance – Though Application was styled under incorrect statutory provision and filed beyond limitation, Court held substance of claim matters more than its form – Mere technicalities should not defeat a legitimate right to refund where underlying transaction failed [Paras 16–17].

Equity and Natural Justice – No Unjust Enrichment by State – Application could not be filed within six-month limitation as approval process was pending – Held: State cannot retain stamp duty when transaction fails – Rejection based only on limitation is against equity and fairness – Refund directed with interest [Paras 8–10, 21–22].

Condonation of Delay – Applicability of Limitation Act – Section 5 Not Barred – Court held that Stamp Act does not expressly exclude Section 5 of Limitation Act – Hence delay can be condoned in appropriate cases where refund claim is otherwise justified – Petition allowed [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Rejection Order Quashed – Refund Directed – High Court quashed impugned order dated 09.10.2023 rejecting refund application – Directed Respondents to refund ₹1,17,08,200 with 4% simple interest within four weeks [Para 22].

Civil Revision – Partition Suit by Granddaughter – Hindu Succession Act – Suit Not Maintainable – Plaintiff sought partition and possession of maternal grandfather’s property during lifetime of her mother (coparcener) – Court held: granddaughter not coparcener; property is obstructed heritage, not ancestral in her hands – Only mother can seek partition – Plaintiff has no locus standi – Rejection of plaint proper under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Revision allowed [Paras 7-17].

Coparcenary – Rights of Daughters under Section 6, Hindu Succession Act – Daughter acquires coparcenary right by birth at par with son – But granddaughter cannot claim as coparcener in maternal grandfather’s property – Plaintiff’s claim was obstructed heritage, accruing only after mother’s death intestate – Hence, no vested right during mother’s lifetime [Paras 8-13].

Unobstructed vs. Obstructed Heritage – Explained – Property from paternal ancestors (father, grandfather, great-grandfather) is unobstructed heritage with birthright – Property from maternal grandfather is obstructed heritage, rights accrue only on death of last holder – Plaintiff’s claim fell under obstructed heritage, thus premature [Paras 12-13].

Cause of Action – Illusory – Plaintiff’s mother, alive and impleaded as defendant, did not claim partition – Plaintiff cannot substitute her mother’s claim – Cause of action pleaded was illusory – Clever drafting cannot confer jurisdiction – Plaint barred by law [Paras 17-18].

Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – Absolute Ownership of Female Coparcener – Once plaintiff’s mother receives her share, she becomes absolute owner – Plaintiff acquires rights only upon her mother’s death intestate – Hence, no present right or share to sustain suit [Para 18].

Decision – Impugned order dated 28.02.2023 rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC quashed – Plaint in RCS No. 224/2022 rejected – Civil Revision Application allowed [Para 19, Order].

Civil Writ - Public Employment – Appointment on Forged Documents – Termination – Held: Appointment obtained through forged and fabricated certificate is void ab initio – Fraud vitiates all – No equity, estoppel, or statutory right arises from such fraudulent employment – Petitioner cannot claim protection under service regulations or Article 311(2) when initial appointment itself was fraudulent [Paras 7-9.1].

Fraud in Employment – No Right to Salary or Service Benefits – Supreme Court Precedents Applied – Fraudulent entry into service confers no legal entitlement to salary, pension, or continuity of service – Principles from Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748 and R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 reaffirmed – Even long years of service cannot cure illegality of appointment [Paras 8.1-9.2].

Employer’s Duty – Negligence in Verification – Responsibility to be Fixed – Held: While petitioner’s appointment was rightly terminated, the employer (DHBVNL) failed in its duty to properly verify certificates during probation – Laxity allowed fraudulent entry into public service for 10 years – Court directed Managing Director of DHBVNL to fix responsibility of negligent officials and take disciplinary action – Compliance report to be filed within 8 weeks [Paras 10-13].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Termination upheld as legally valid – Fraudulent appointment cannot be protected – However, disciplinary accountability fixed on negligent officers who failed to verify documents [Paras 11, 13].

Civil Writ - Foreigners Tribunal – Ex-Parte Declaration – Delay in Challenge – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the ex-parte opinion of the Foreigners' Tribunal after nearly six years – High Court held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, had appeared through counsel, and failed to adduce evidence despite multiple opportunities – Delay not justified – Petition dismissed solely on ground of laches and delay [Paras 1-4, 13, 20, 22].

Foreigners Act – Burden of Proof – Section 9 – Not Discharged – Tribunal held the petitioner failed to prove her Indian citizenship prior to 1971 as required under Section 9 – High Court observed that despite filing written statement, the petitioner failed to lead evidence, and absented herself from proceedings – Held: Petitioner failed to discharge burden imposed by law [Paras 2, 10-12, 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Condonation of Delay – High Threshold in Citizenship Matters – Petitioner claimed poverty, illiteracy, and advocate’s inaction as cause of delay – Court held these reasons insufficient, especially when petitioner’s family members were not prevented from assisting – Held: Delay of 6 years fatal – Petitioner not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction belatedly [Paras 5-9, 13, 16, 18-20].

COVID-19 Argument – Not Applicable – Pandemic Not a Valid Excuse – Petitioner argued delay due to COVID-19 disruption – Held: COVID limitation relief ended in 2022 – Petition filed in 2025 still barred by gross delay [Para 13].

Final Order – Writ Petition Dismissed – Opinion of Tribunal Sustained – High Court refused to interfere and directed that consequences of the Tribunal’s order would follow – Petition dismissed with directions to record the order in the Tribunal record [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Section 302 IPC – Upheld for Accused No. 4 – Based on testimony of four consistent eyewitnesses who specifically attributed sword blows to the accused – Minor inconsistencies held immaterial – Conviction for murder upheld despite lapses in investigation [Paras 11, 15-16].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Accused No. 2 Acquitted – No Direct Evidence – Conviction based solely on discovery panchnama which was not proved in accordance with law – Neither eyewitnesses nor circumstances linked him to the crime – Held: Conviction not sustainable – Acquittal ordered [Paras 12-14, 18].

Test Identification Parade – Procedural Lapses – TIP Not Trustworthy – Conduct of TIP not in accordance with law – Witnesses knew many dummy participants – No corroboration between parade and court testimony – However, in-court identification of Accused No. 4 by multiple witnesses deemed reliable – TIP discrepancies did not vitiate case against him [Paras 11(4), 12].

Discovery Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Knife Recovery Unreliable – Panch witnesses to discovery panchnama turned hostile – Investigating Officer failed to narrate full details of discovery – Recovery pertained to weapon allegedly used by another accused – Held: Discovery inadmissible and cannot form sole basis for conviction [Paras 13-14].

Police Notification – Section 135(1) of Gujarat Police Act – Notification Not Proved – Prosecution failed to produce certified copy or gazette publication of weapon prohibition order – Held: Conviction under Section 135(1) unsustainable due to non-compliance with Section 78 of Evidence Act [Para 17].

Faulty Investigation – Not a Ground for Acquittal – Though lapses occurred in identification and recovery processes, they do not override consistent eyewitness accounts – Court reiterated that faulty or negligent investigation alone does not justify acquittal if guilt is otherwise proven – Held: No interference with conviction of Accused No. 4 [Paras 10, 15].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction of Accused No. 4 under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 135(1) Gujarat Police Act set aside – Accused No. 2 acquitted of all charges – State not having filed appeals against acquittals or certain IPC charges – Held: Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 2017 allowed – Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2018 partly allowed [Paras 16-18].

Article 227 – Territorial jurisdiction – DRAT situs vs. DRT situs – Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction – Petitioner challenged DRAT, Kolkata’s pre-deposit order (05.07.2024) and dismissal order (04.09.2024) arising out of DRT, Guwahati’s ex parte decree – Held: For challenges under Article 227 to orders of an appellate tribunal (interim or final) exercising jurisdiction over multiple States, the proper High Court is the one within whose territory the original Tribunal (DRT) is situated – Calcutta High Court lacks jurisdiction since the source DRT is Guwahati – Petition dismissed [Paras 1–3, 15, 19–21, 29–31, 45–47, 55–56].

Doctrine of Merger – Not determinative of Article 227 forum – Though original orders merge into appellate orders, situs of appellate forum does not confer Article 227 jurisdiction where the appellate forum spans multiple States – The doctrine cannot override the certainty-of-forum principle and the binding-precedent structure – Ambica Industries and ABC Papers applied [Paras 21–24, 29, 31, 35, 42–46].

Article 226(2) vs. Article 227 – Distinction in reach – Article 226(2) permits writ jurisdiction based on cause of action even beyond territorial seats – Article 227 superintendence is territorially tethered to courts/tribunals “throughout the territories” of the High Court – For appellate bodies covering multiple States, Article 227 control lies with the High Court where the adjudicatory source (DRT) is located [Paras 26–33, 38–40, 53–54].

Certainty of Forum – Prevention of forum shopping – When appellate tribunals cover several States, allowing dominus litis choice by relying on appellate situs would create uncertainty and inconsistent binding effect of precedents – Hence, only the High Court where the original adjudicating authority sits has supervisory jurisdiction – ABC Papers, Ambica Industries followed [Paras 29–31, 41–45].

Interlocutory Orders (Pre-deposit) – Same jurisdictional rule – Challenge to an interim pre-deposit direction and dismissal for non-compliance equally tracks the forum of the source DRT – Interference would revive the appeal and unsettle finality of the DRT’s order, rendering issues res sub judice – Therefore, Calcutta High Court cannot entertain even interlocutory challenges sourced from DRT, Guwahati [Paras 50–52].

Conflicting Coordinate Bench View – Sabbam Hari distinguished – Earlier order proceeded on “appellate order as part of cause of action” – In light of Ambica Industries, Calcutta Gujarati Education Society, Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and Navin Jain, Sabbam Hari is not a binding precedent on the jurisdictional point [Paras 48–50].

Decision – Application under Article 227 dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction – Liberty to approach the appropriate High Court within whose territory DRT, Guwahati is located – No order as to costs [Paras 55–57].

Public Interest Litigation – Government Resolution establishing Additional Tahsildar office – Sections 4, 7 & 13, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Scope of power – GR dated 18.07.2023 created office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi, allocating 63 villages under its jurisdiction – Petitioners contended that such creation amounted to constitution/reconstitution of revenue area under Section 4(4), mandating prior publication and compliance with Section 24 of Bombay General Clauses Act – State contended that action was under Sections 7 and 13, relating to appointment of Revenue Officers, not creation of new revenue area – Held: Establishing Additional Tahsildar office for administrative convenience does not amount to constituting/altering revenue area – Section 4(4) not attracted – State acted within powers under Sections 7 & 13 – Petition dismissed [Paras 18–29, 34–36].

Distinction from Earlier Precedents – Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar & Santosh Suresh Patil cases – Not applicable – Those cases concerned creation/reconstitution of revenue areas under Section 4 – Present case involves only establishment of Additional Tahsildar’s office under Section 7/13 – Petitioners’ reliance misplaced [Paras 30–31].

Allegation of Political Motivation – Consideration – Material showed enquiry and recommendation by Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector before issuance of GR – Action based on administrative convenience and increased population – No arbitrariness or mala fides demonstrated – Court will not supplant executive wisdom in administrative matters [Paras 32–36].

Decision – PIL dismissed – Rule discharged – Pending applications also disposed of – Establishment of Additional Tahsildar office at Kasar Shirsi upheld as valid exercise of power under Sections 7 & 13, MLR Code [Paras 37–40].

Criminal Law – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Standard of Proof – Mother of minor victim sought summoning of grandmother and paternal aunts on the ground of alleged suppression and non-reporting of child sexual abuse – Trial Court rejected application noting that no new or compelling evidence had emerged during trial beyond what was already part of the charge-sheet – High Court concurred, holding that child witness’s testimony was vague, inconsistent and lacked corroboration – Held: Section 319 CrPC requires strong prima facie evidence suggesting possible conviction – Mere suspicion or general allegations insufficient [Paras 8-13, 18-19].

POCSO Act – Duty to Report – Section 21 – Knowledge of Crime – Allegations against grandmother and paternal aunts for failing to report child sexual abuse – PW-1 (minor victim) made broad claims about “family knowing” and “suppression” – Court held that such statements lacked specificity and did not establish actual knowledge or intent to suppress – Held: Section 21 not attracted in absence of clear, credible, and independent proof of knowledge or concealment [Paras 15-16].

Misuse of Process – Matrimonial Acrimony – Vindictive Prosecution – High Court found application was not filed in the child’s best interest but was a misuse of criminal law motivated by the mother’s personal disputes with her estranged husband – Held: Attempt to implicate elderly grandmother and aunts using the minor victim’s testimony amounted to arm-twisting and gross abuse of process – Court cautioned against converting child protection laws into tools for vengeance [Paras 9, 14, 19-22].

Costs – Deterrence Against Frivolous Litigation – Trial Court’s imposition of ₹20,000 in costs upheld – Additional ₹10,000 cost imposed by High Court – Held: Costs justified to curb misuse of judicial time and protect individuals from baseless criminal allegations arising out of personal vendetta [Paras 21, 23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial Court order upheld – Additional cost of ₹10,000 imposed – Pending applications also disposed of.