NDPS Act – Bail under Section 483 BNSS – Disclosure Statement – Bail Denied – Petitioner not named in FIR, implication based on disclosure statement of co-accused – No recovery effected from petitioner – Petitioner allegedly managed drug money laundering firm – Allegations of concealment of heroin in tomato ketchup and juice bottles – Evidence includes call records, financial transactions and involvement in trade-based money laundering – Held: Despite lack of recovery, material prima facie indicates managerial role in a transnational drug syndicate – Gravity of offence and risk of absconding outweigh plea for bail – Bail denied [Paras 2-23].

NDPS Act – Speedy Trial – Direction for Expedited Proceedings – Twice Weekly Hearing Ordered – Considering voluminous evidence (8596 pages, 142 witnesses), trial to proceed twice a week – Both prosecution and defence directed to cooperate – Aim is to balance right to speedy trial with national security concerns [Paras 24-25].

Labour Law - Employment Termination – Abandonment of Job – Long Unauthorized Absence – Reinstatement Set Aside – The workman went on ex-India leave and remained absent beyond sanctioned period, followed by repeated spells of unauthorized absence despite notice by the employer – Labour Court treated it as wrongful termination due to lack of enquiry – Held: Facts disclose clear abandonment of service – No disciplinary enquiry was required in such a case – Reinstatement order was contrary to settled law and therefore quashed [Paras 4–21].

Back Wages – No Right on Reinstatement Being Illegal – Labour Court denied back wages while ordering reinstatement – Held: Since reinstatement is found invalid and contrary to law, the claim for back wages also fails – Petition by workman for back wages dismissed [Paras 22].

Labour Law – Abandonment of Service – No Enquiry Required – Reliance on Supreme Court precedents (Vijay S. Sathaye, Prem Nath, and B.S. Bhadoriya) – It was held that in case of long unauthorized absence, the relationship of employment ceases automatically without need for formal enquiry or termination order – Reinforced as a settled legal principle [Paras 15–20].

Decision: The award dated 03.02.1999 passed by the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the workman was quashed—Petition filed by the Bank (CWP-8387-1999) allowed—Petition by the workman seeking back wages (CWP-11349-1999) dismissed—No costs.

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 vs. Culpable Homicide – Reclassification to Section 304 Part II IPC – Intent to Kill Not Established – The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 for stabbing a police constable during a raid – However, the injury was on the wrist, not a vital part, and occurred during a scuffle when the appellant was trying to escape arrest – Held: No clear intention to kill was established – Conviction under Section 302 altered to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 18-19].

Police Testimony – Sole Reliance – Credibility Upheld – All eyewitnesses to the incident were police officers – Court relied on consistent and corroborated testimonies from multiple officers, citing legal precedent that police evidence can be the basis of conviction if found credible – No independent civilian witnesses were available due to the nature of the raid [Paras 11-12].

Medical Evidence – Non-Vital Injury Led to Death – Injury on the deceased’s left arm ruptured brachial vessels and caused death due to shock – PM doctor confirmed the wound could cause death, but not necessarily inflicted with intent to kill – Held: Injury sufficient in ordinary course to cause death, but intent not proven [Para 10].

Final Decision – Conviction Modified – Life Imprisonment Set Aside – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellant sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine – Ordered release if not required in any other offence [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Conviction - Eyewitness Credibility – Testimony of Relatives – Caution Required - Conviction Based Solely on Eyewitnesses Set Aside - The prosecution relied mainly on two eyewitnesses (PW11 and PW12), both children of the deceased – PW11 admitted to being tutored by police, while PW12’s presence at the scene and injury claims lacked corroborative evidence – Held: Evidence inconsistent, uncorroborated and mutually destructive, not reliable for conviction [Paras 26-38].

Investigation Lapses – Failure to Recover Weapons or Looted Articles – Serious Deficiency – The IO did not attempt recovery of the alleged murder weapons or looted items despite early arrest of accused – Such perfunctory investigation undermined the prosecution case – Held: Failure to collect best evidence significantly weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 33-34].

Framing of Charges – Improper Clubbing of Two Incidents – Procedural Error – FIR disclosed two separate incidents (murders of Ashok Das and Arati Das) involving different sets of accused – Trial court framed joint charges without segregating events or accused – Held: Such charge framing was erroneous and prejudicial to the accused [Para 35].

Identification of Accused – Absence of Proper Court Identification – Identification of accused in court not established against many appellants – Named accused in FIR were not consistently identified during trial – Held: Identification evidence unreliable, entitling appellants to benefit of doubt [Paras 14, 28-30].

Child Witness – Requirement for Corroboration – Lack of Supporting Evidence – PW11 was aged 13 during deposition, claimed to have witnessed mother’s murder – Her testimony lacked corroboration and contradicted her brother’s – Held: Sole testimony of child witness insufficient in absence of supporting material [Paras 15, 30-32].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Convictions Set Aside – Acquittal Ordered - The Court found serious lapses in investigation, contradictions in witness testimonies, and procedural irregularities – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Convictions under Sections 302/149 IPC set aside – All appellants acquitted [Paras 39, 42].
 

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 - 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].
 

Civil Writ – Service Law - Departmental Enquiry – Disproportionate Punishment – No Parity Violation – Dismissal Upheld – Respondent-doctor dismissed for drug misappropriation during a common enquiry – Tribunal had set aside dismissal citing discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis co-delinquents – High Court held doctors held higher responsibility than compounder/nurse and both doctors were similarly dismissed – Hence, parity was maintained and Tribunal’s review order exceeded its scope [Paras 3–11].

Review Jurisdiction – Tribunal's Scope – Improper Exercise – Review Order Quashed – Tribunal allowed review without adequately analyzing comparative roles and punishments of co-delinquents – High Court held review based on oversimplified reasoning and lacking material justification – Tribunal exceeded permissible scope of review under law [Paras 10–12].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Matters – Interference Limited – Held – Punishment not found “shockingly disproportionate” – Reliance placed on Supreme Court's ruling in P.C. Kakkar – No error in dismissal of doctor for serious misconduct – Writ petition allowed [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Tribunal's Order Set Aside – Writ Petition Allowed – Tribunal's review order dated 29.04.2011 quashed – Original dismissal of respondent reinstated – Rule made absolute with no costs [Paras 14–15].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Serious Sexual Offences – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 354, 354-A, 451, 506, 376, and 511 IPC alleging false implication – FIR based on prosecutrix's complaint and corroborated by her Section 164 CrPC statement alleging attempted rape and physical assault – Court held that material on record disclosed prima facie case – FIR and chargesheet not liable to be quashed at pre-trial stage [Paras 1-4, 11-13, 22].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Caution in Exercise – Principles Reiterated – Citing Supreme Court precedents, Court emphasized that Section 482 powers are exceptional and should not be used to assess sufficiency of evidence or short-circuit criminal trials – Allegations were not so absurd or improbable to justify quashing – No procedural abuse shown [Paras 5-10, 13-21].

Victim Statement – Section 164 CrPC – Considered Credible at Prima Facie Stage – Prosecutrix’s detailed allegations of assault, attempted rape, and threats held sufficient to sustain continuation of prosecution – Court declined to assess credibility or merits at this stage [Paras 3, 22].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – High Court declined to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Held that trial must proceed in view of nature of allegations and supporting statements – No abuse of process demonstrated [Paras 22-23].