Civil Law - Auction Sale – Stamp Duty on Sale Certificate – Auction Value Prevails – Demand on Market Value Held Illegal - Petitioners purchased immovable property in public auction conducted by SBI – Sub-Registrar refused to register Sale Certificates unless stamp duty was paid on market value instead of bid amount – Held: Registration authorities must assess duty based on auction price, not market rate [Paras 3-6, 9-10].

Precedents – Consistent Judicial View on Auction Sales – Registration to Follow Auction Price - Court reiterated settled legal position from multiple precedents including V.N. Devadoss, Marvel Financial Services Ltd., and recent Supreme Court decision in Ferrous Alloy Forgings Pvt. Ltd. – Held: No deviation permissible by registration authorities from binding precedent [Paras 7-8].

Sale Certificate – Not Compulsorily Registrable Unless Used Otherwise – Supreme Court Clarification - A sale certificate issued by an authorised officer under auction need not be compulsorily registered unless used to transfer title or for other purposes – Held: Stamp duty arises only if voluntary registration is sought and must be calculated based on auction value [Para 7].

Direction to Registering Authority – Duty to Act on Auction Price – Mandamus Issued - Sub-Registrar directed to assess and collect stamp duty based on auction bid of ₹55,10,000 and process registration accordingly within two weeks – Held: Executive action contrary to judicial precedent not sustainable [Para 10].

Service Law - Seniority – Promotees vs Direct Recruits – Rule 8(e) CRPF Rules Applied – Promotees Placed Below – Petitioners challenged revised seniority list dated 24 April 2020 that placed direct recruits en bloc below promotee Assistant Commandants (ACs) – Court held that Rule 8(e) mandates seniority to be determined by date of appointment – Promotees appointed in 2017 cannot claim seniority from vacancy years 2013–2016 – Held: Administrative instructions and DoPT OMs cannot override statutory rules – Revised seniority list quashed [Paras 1-5, 17-21, 32].

Delayed Promotions – No Benefit of Retrospective Seniority – CRPF Rules Prevail – Respondents contended that DPCs were delayed due to litigation and that promotees were placed against earlier year vacancies – Court held such retrospective assignment impermissible under Rule 8(e) – Appointees acquire seniority only from date of joining, not from date of vacancy – Held: Promotees not entitled to leapfrog seniority over earlier-appointed direct recruits [Paras 6-16, 22-24].

Precedents – Meghachandra Singh and Sunaina Sharma – Applicable – Court relied on Supreme Court rulings clarifying that inter se seniority must be based on date of appointment – Rejected reliance on Asis Kumar Samanta and U.D. Lama as distinguishable on facts – Emphasized statutory rules override executive OMs and equity-based arguments [Paras 13, 25-30].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned seniority list dated 24 April 2020 quashed to the extent it placed petitioners below promotees – Direction issued to ITBP to redraw seniority list strictly based on actual dates of appointment – Compliance to be completed within three months [Paras 32-34].

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 – 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].

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].

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 - 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].