Service Law - Departmental Enquiry – Police Personnel – Allegation of Corruption – Reliance on Electronic Evidence – CD Not Proved – Non-Examination of Complainant – Violation of Natural Justice – Enquiry Vitiated – Departmental proceedings founded solely on alleged video CD purportedly showing acceptance of bribe – CD neither exhibited nor proved during enquiry – Complainant who allegedly recorded video not examined – Respondent not supplied CD nor given opportunity to rebut contents – Findings based on unproved and derivative material – Held: Enquiry suffers from foundational defects and violates principles of natural justice [Paras 36–40, 42].

Disciplinary Proceedings vis-à-vis Criminal Acquittal – Effect of Acquittal Based on Inadmissibility of Evidence – Criminal case and departmental enquiry founded on same CD – Criminal court held electronic record inadmissible for want of original device, Section 65-B certificate and authenticity – Acquittal affirmed by High Court – Though departmental proceedings not barred per se after acquittal, where acquittal is based on unreliability of foundational material, disciplinary authority must assess existence of independent evidence – No substantive material remaining once CD excluded – Charge unsustainable [Paras 41–42].

Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 – Rule 16(iii) – Scope and Limitations – Rule permits reliance on prior statements where witness cannot be procured without undue delay – Cannot be invoked to dispense with proof of primary incriminating material – Rule does not cure defect where very basis of charge is unproved – Reliance on Rule 16(iii) misplaced [Paras 39–40].

Standard of Proof in Departmental Enquiry – Preponderance of Probabilities – Limits – Though standard of proof is lower than criminal trial, material relied upon must still be legally admissible and put to delinquent officer – Findings cannot rest on material neither proved nor supplied – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute evidence even in departmental proceedings [Paras 37–38, 42].

Parity – Co-Delinquents – Relevance – Other officials allegedly involved in same incident either exonerated or granted relief by Tribunal – Allegations and evidence common – Selective sustainment of punishment against respondent without distinguishing material unjustified – Parity relevant though not determinative [Para 43].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Matters – Scope under Article 226 – Tribunal confined itself to examining existence of legally sustainable evidence and fairness of process – No re-appreciation of evidence as appellate authority – Interference justified where findings based on no evidence – High Court declined to interfere with Tribunal’s order [Paras 35, 45–46].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order of CAT dated 02.08.2016 upheld – Departmental proceedings and penalties quashed – No order as to costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal Set Aside – Dishonour of Cheque – Trial Court ignored documentary evidence (Cheque Return Register and Memo) establishing date of knowledge of dishonour – Complainant issued statutory notice within 15 days from said date – Held: Trial Court committed legal error by failing to consider Exhibits 3 and 6 which directly impacted limitation and compliance with Section 138(b) – Acquittal set aside – Case remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 8–19, 22]

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal – Appeal Against Acquittal – Improper Appreciation of Evidence – Trial Court failed to consider material documentary exhibits forming part of record – No findings recorded regarding Exhibits 3 and 6 – Selective appreciation of evidence vitiated judgment – Held: Judgment based on incomplete analysis is legally unsustainable – Remand warranted for fresh decision [Paras 15–19, 21–23]

Limitation – Section 138 NI Act – Date of Dishonour vs. Date of Knowledge – Distinction between date of dishonour of cheque and date of receipt of intimation by payee is material – Statutory notice issued based on date of knowledge supported by documentary evidence – Trial Court erred by failing to account for this aspect – Legal notice held to be within limitation [Paras 9–10, 16]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 30.03.2016 set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh adjudication after proper appreciation of entire documentary and oral evidence – Trial Court directed to pass a reasoned judgment uninfluenced by present observations and to dispose of the case expeditiously [Paras 20–23]

Criminal Procedure – Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Summoning Order – Petition by parents-in-law – Challenge to order issuing summons for offences under Sections 323, 341, 498A, 307, 313, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act – Held: Where complaint and statements disclose prima facie commission of offences with specific allegations, High Court should not interfere at summoning stage [Paras 2, 6].

Dowry Demand – Cruelty by In-Laws – Section 498A IPC – Specific Allegations – Complaint alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle by petitioners – Allegations of harassment, abuse, and coercion to meet unlawful dowry demand – Held: Direct and specific allegations sufficient to constitute offence at prima facie stage [Paras 3, 5, 6].

Matrimonial Cruelty – Obnoxious Harassment – Allegations of Forced Prostitution and Illegal Activities – Petitioners allegedly coerced complainant to indulge in prostitution and illegal liquor business to satisfy dowry demand – Held: Such allegations, if taken at face value, clearly attract penal provisions and require trial [Paras 3, 6].

Statement on Solemn Affirmation – Interpretation – Complainant stated husband demanded dowry – Does not absolve parents-in-law when complaint also attributes dowry demand and cruelty to them – Held: Mere reference to husband’s role does not negate allegations against other accused [Para 6].

Scope of Judicial Scrutiny at Summoning Stage – Magistrate required only to see prima facie case – Appreciation of evidence or defence of accused impermissible – Held: Petitioners’ plea of false implication and age-related sympathy cannot be examined under Section 482 CrPC at this stage [Paras 4, 6].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed – Summoning order dated 05.01.2024 passed by JMFC, Dhanbad, upheld – No ground made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Law – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC – Dismissal of Appeals – Accused persons convicted for murder of deceased by brutally assaulting him with swords and guptis resulting in multiple incised, stab and chop injuries – Prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony, extra-judicial confession, recovery of blood-stained weapons and scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object committed murder – Conviction and life sentence upheld [Paras 44–113].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Accused Devanand Chaitram Kuhikar disclosed to brother and wife of informant that they had killed the deceased – Confession made voluntarily, not under police influence – Exact words not mandatory if substance is clear and unambiguous – Corroborated by ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence – Held: Extra-judicial confession reliable and admissible [Paras 52–61].

Eyewitness Testimony – Delay in Recording Statements – Effect – Statements of eyewitness PW5 recorded after few days due to disturbed law and order situation – Investigating Officer explained delay – Witness presence natural as resident of same locality – Mere delay without prejudice not fatal – Trial court erred in discarding PW5 solely on ground of delay – Evidence found trustworthy [Paras 64–72].

Related / Interested Witness – Credibility – Eyewitness being close relative of deceased – Relationship by itself not ground to discard testimony – Evidence requires cautious scrutiny but not rejection – Witness had natural presence and no motive to falsely implicate accused – Testimony accepted [Paras 70–71].

Chance Witness – Conduct After Incident – Evidence of PW6 (sister of deceased) disbelieved due to unnatural conduct and unexplained silence despite opportunity to disclose incident – Trial court justified in discarding her testimony [Paras 73–77].

Recovery of Weapons – Section 27 Evidence Act – Blood-stained swords and gupti recovered at instance of accused Santosh Chaitram Kuhikar – Panch witness related to deceased – Mere relationship not sufficient to discard recovery when corroborated by Investigating Officer – Conditions of Section 27 satisfied – Recovery held proved [Paras 78–83].

Pancha Witness – Allegation of ‘Stock’ or Interested Pancha – Pancha witness acted in previous cases and was relative of deceased – No material to show prejudice or false implication – Evidence corroborated by police and scientific material – Held: Evidence not liable to be rejected solely on this ground [Paras 84–86].

Medical Evidence – Corroborative and Substantive Value – Post-mortem revealed 65 grievous ante-mortem injuries on vital parts – Injuries sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature – Nature of injuries consistent with swords, guptis and knives recovered – Homicidal death conclusively established [Paras 12–20, 88].

Scientific Evidence – Blood Stains – Link Evidence – Blood Group “B” of deceased matched with blood found on weapons and clothes of accused – Accused failed to explain presence of blood stains – CA Reports corroborated prosecution case [Paras 40–43, 105–110].

Defective Investigation – Effect on Prosecution Case – Delay in depositing muddemal and forwarding weapons to CA – Lapses termed as faulty investigation – Held: Defective investigation by itself not ground for acquittal when substantive evidence proves guilt [Paras 107–110].

Section 149 IPC – Vicarious Liability – Proof of common object inferred from number of accused, deadly weapons carried, manner of assault and nature of injuries – Individual overt act not necessary – All members of unlawful assembly liable for murder [Paras 89–99].

Decision: Criminal Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC confirmed – Accused directed to surrender to undergo sentence [Paras 113–114].

Land Acquisition – Valuation of Compensation – Section 26 of 2013 Act – Highest Exemplar to be Adopted – Deed No.05821 registered before the notification under Section 4 LA Act adopted as basis for compensation – Deduction of structure value permitted – Compensation fixed at Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah – Average sale price and post-notification deeds excluded – Referral Court’s reliance on average valuation and pleadings held perverse [Paras 21–46]

Land Acquisition – Interest on Excess Compensation – Sections 72 and 80 of the 2013 Act – Referral Court failed to consider statutory interest on excess and principal compensation – Entitlement under Section 72 (9% or 15% interest depending on delay) and Section 80 (for delayed deposit of compensation) recognised – Matter remanded to ascertain possession date and apply interest accordingly [Paras 56–60]

Land Acquisition – Applicability of 2013 Act – Section 24(1)(a) – Compensation to be determined under 2013 Act when no award passed under 1894 Act – Referral Court erred in applying 1894 principles and in requiring Governor’s approval for award – Held: Approval not required under 2013 Act – Compensation valid from date of award, not from date of government assent [Paras 47–55]

Land Acquisition – Admissibility of Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – State’s additional documents (e-assessment slips, etc.) rejected for being unsupported by pleadings – Claimants' RTI responses not entertained as deduction of structure value already accounted for – Principles of Ratanlal (2018) and Bachhaj Nahar (2008) applied [Paras 30, 44]

Remand – Scope and Directions – Referral Court directed to: (i) Apply Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah as base compensation; (ii) Award 100% solatium under Section 30(1) of 2013 Act; (iii) Grant 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3); (iv) Re-examine evidence or call records on date of possession to determine interest under Sections 72 and 80 [Para 12]

Decision: Appeals and cross-objections allowed in part – Judgment and awards dated 20.09.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, First Court at Hooghly, set aside – Matters remanded to the Referral Court to reassess compensation and interest as per 2013 Act – Specific compensation amount of Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah fixed – Interest and solatium to be calculated accordingly – Directions issued for disbursement of previously deposited funds with Registrar General, adjusted against final award [Paras 11–15]

Tenancy – Eviction – Damage to Premises – Permanent Structure – Lease Permitting “Some Changes” – Scope of Clause – Respondent-tenant made material alterations including demolition of internal walls and creation of new entry without landlady’s permission – Held: Clause 5 of lease permitting “some changes” for hospital use cannot be interpreted as blanket permission for structural changes – Removal of internal walls and making new entry amounts to damage and erection of permanent structure within meaning of Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of Bombay Rent Act – Appeal Court’s interpretation of Clause 5 found to be perverse – Eviction decree restored on these grounds [Paras 13–24].

Eviction – Change of User – Lease Clause Allowing Conversion from Residential to Hospital Use – No Violation – Clause 5 of lease expressly permitted tenant to use residential portion as hospital – Held: Change of user not made out as per Section 13(1)(k) – Concurrent finding of both courts upheld [Paras 12, 21–22].

Eviction – Bonafide Requirement – Availability of Alternative Premises to Landlady – No Greater Hardship Shown – Landlady had already obtained possession of multiple tenanted premises – Concurrent finding that requirement not bonafide upheld – No interference under Section 115 CPC warranted [Para 11].

Eviction – Nuisance – Allegations of Medical Waste and Misconduct Not Substantiated – Landlady failed to produce independent evidence or witnesses – Allegations were uncorroborated and denied – Concurrent finding of no nuisance upheld [Para 12].

Scope of Revision under Section 115 CPC – Interference Limited to Jurisdictional Errors and Perversity – Appeal Court's findings on permanent structure and damage found perverse and based on misreading of lease clause – Justified interference under Section 115 CPC – Findings on other grounds not interfered with [Paras 10, 18–20].

Decision: Civil Revision Application partly allowed – Appellate Court judgment dated 22/09/2006 set aside to the extent of reversal on grounds under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) – Trial Court’s eviction decree restored on those grounds – Respondent directed to vacate suit premises within 6 weeks, subject to affidavit of undertaking [Paras 24–28].

Income-tax – Nil Withholding Certificate – Section 197 – Rule 28AA – Rejection of application – Mechanical approach by Assessing Officer – Assessing Officer rejected application solely on ground that determination of income at Section 197 stage is premature and tax must be deducted to protect revenue – Held: Such reasoning contrary to statutory mandate of Rule 28AA which requires consideration of estimated income, tax liability of previous four years, existing liabilities and advance tax – Non-consideration of mandatory parameters vitiates decision-making process [Paras 20–26, 30–32].

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – India–UK DTAA – Fees for Technical Services – Managerial services – “Make available” test – Petitioner providing routine managerial and administrative support services to Indian subsidiary on cost-to-cost basis – ITAT in petitioner’s own case for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 held such services not taxable as FTS under Article 13 – Held: Until set aside, Tribunal’s findings are binding on Revenue authorities [Paras 23, 26–28].

Judicial Discipline – Binding nature of appellate orders – Filing of appeal – Effect – Revenue contended that appeals against ITAT orders were pending – Held: Mere filing of appeal does not render appellate order inoperative – Authorities bound to follow decisions of higher appellate forums as per Kamlakshi Finance Corporation principle [Paras 26–28].

Administrative Law – Speaking order – Section 197 proceedings – Scope – Assessing Officer must record application of mind to statutory factors under Rule 28AA – Order stating that assessment is not possible and deduction is required to safeguard revenue does not meet statutory requirements – Non-application of mind renders order arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 21–22, 30–32].

Remand – Section 197 application – Although impugned order and certificate quashed for failure to follow Rule 28AA – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law – Direction to decide afresh within four weeks and without being influenced by pendency of appeals unless ITAT orders are set aside or varied [Paras 33–35].

Decision: Impugned order dated 09.06.2025 and certificate dated 30.07.2025 quashed – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication under Rule 28AA – Writ petition disposed of.

Service Law – Family Pension – Claim by Second Wife – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Monogamy as Mandatory Norm – Marriage contracted during subsistence of first marriage void ab initio – Second wife not entitled to family pension [Paras 1, 3.1].

Hindu Law – Bigamy – Void Marriage – Sections 11 and 17, Hindu Marriage Act – Second marriage during lifetime of first spouse illegal and punishable – Such void marriage does not create marital status for pensionary or service benefits [Paras 3.1, 3.5].

Pension Rules – Interpretation – Expression “wife / wives” – Cannot be construed to permit polygamy – Pension rules cannot override or defeat statutory mandate of Hindu Marriage Act and IPC – Widow status presupposes valid marriage [Para 3.3].

Family Pension – Sine Qua Non – Valid Marriage – To qualify as ‘widow’ under pension rules, existence of legally valid marriage essential – Void marriage confers no enforceable rights – Grant of pension to second wife would amount to placing premium on illegality [Paras 3.3, 3.4].

Void Marriage – Effect of Subsequent Events – Death of First Wife – Void marriage does not become valid by subsequent demise of first spouse – Maxim “ex nihilo nihil fit” applies – What is void ab initio remains void [Para 3.5].

Precedents – Applicability – Smt. Sriramabai v. Record Officer – Distinguished – Case relating to presumption of marriage after prolonged cohabitation post death of first wife – Not applicable where marriage itself was contracted during subsistence of first marriage [Para 3.4].

Judicial Discipline – Case Law – Precedent applies only to facts decided – Reliance placed on Quinn v. Letham – Case is authority only for what it decides and not for logical extensions [Para 3.4].

Family Pension – Second Wife – Settled Position of Law – Issue no longer res integra – Supreme Court in Raj Kumari v. Krishna held second wife not entitled to family pension – Karnataka High Court reiterated that recognising such claims encourages illegality [Para 3.5].

Decision – Writ Appeal Dismissed – Order of Single Judge Affirmed – Rejection of claim for family pension upheld – Appeal found devoid of merits [Final Para].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Offences under Sections 504, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PoA) Act – Appellants convicted by Special Court for assault and grievous hurt allegedly caused to complainant belonging to Scheduled Caste – On appeal, High Court finds material inconsistencies in testimonies of PW1 to PW3 who are interested witnesses – Independent witnesses turned hostile and did not support prosecution case – Medical evidence did not corroborate ocular version – X-ray reports not produced and no radiologist or specialist examined to prove grievous injury – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted [Paras 12–31].

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Section 3(2)(v) – Applicability – Requirement that offence must be committed solely on the ground that victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – Evidence on record showing pre-existing dispute relating to aquaculture between parties – Held: Mere proof that victim belongs to Scheduled Caste is insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish that offence was committed on account of caste identity – Charge under Section 3(2)(v) not made out [Paras 26–27].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Reliability – Evidence of complainant and her parents suffering from inconsistencies regarding role of accused and manner of assault – Independent eyewitnesses not supporting prosecution – Absence of corroboration – Held: Unsafe to base conviction solely on such evidence [Paras 20, 27].

Medical Evidence – Grievous Hurt – Proof – Doctor deposed fracture based on X-ray but X-ray plates and reports not produced – Neither radiologist nor orthopedic/ENT specialist examined – No external injuries noted by doctors – Held: Prosecution failed to prove grievous hurt within meaning of Section 320 IPC – Offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC not attracted [Paras 29–30].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Incident alleged at 8.30 p.m. – Complaint lodged at about 12.30 a.m. – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Adds to doubt regarding prosecution version when evidence otherwise weak [Paras 8–9, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17.10.2014 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled – Fine, if any, to be refunded [Order clauses i–vi].