NDPS Act – Freezing of Properties – Section 68F(2) – Freezing Order Confirmed – Petitioner’s challenge to freezing of assets on the ground that properties were acquired prior to registration of NDPS cases was rejected – Held: Authorities acted within legal bounds and confirmed freezing order based on investigation and financial analysis – Burden to prove legitimacy of assets under Section 68J lies on petitioner – No violation of natural justice found – Writ dismissed with liberty to approach Trial Court for conditional withdrawal of future bank credits [Paras 27-49].

Alternate Remedy – Appeal under Section 68O of NDPS Act – Writ Petition Maintainability – Not Allowed – Petitioner failed to exhaust alternative statutory remedy of appeal – Court held that availability of specialized Appellate Tribunal warranted rejection of writ – No compelling circumstances shown to bypass statutory process [Paras 38-41].

Illegally Acquired Property – Burden of Proof – Section 68J of NDPS Act – Petitioner Failed to Discharge Onus – Petitioner did not provide documents to justify source of income or prove legality of properties in name of self and family – Disproportionate assets vis-à-vis declared income supported “reasons to believe” for freezing under Section 68F [Paras 36-38, 41-42].

Violation of Article 21 – Conditional Relief Granted – Access to Frozen Accounts – Despite rejecting the writ petition, Court acknowledged hardship due to freezing of bank accounts – Allowed conditional access to frozen accounts for essential expenses subject to Trial Court’s permission – Direction issued in interest of justice [Paras 47-49].

Natural Justice – Hearing Opportunity Given – No Violation – Respondents issued hearing notices and considered petitioner’s written reply before confirming freezing – Court found adequate compliance with natural justice under Chapter VA of NDPS Act [Paras 30-33].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Criminal Conspiracy and Forgery – Role of Professional Valuer – FIR Quashed – Petitioner, an empanelled bank valuer, was accused of preparing false valuation reports without physically inspecting properties – Court held petitioner relied on representations made by bank officer and submitted a valuation opinion, not a forged document – No evidence of collusion or meeting of minds to establish conspiracy under Sections 120B or 467 IPC – FIR and proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 8-24, 29-32].

Forgery – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Mere Negligence Not Criminal – Court reiterated that for forgery under Sections 463, 464 IPC, intent to defraud or fabricate must be shown – Petitioner’s report may be based on negligent reliance, but no evidence of intentional fraud or fabrication – No entrustment or inducement proven to attract Sections 406, 409, or 420 IPC – Criminal charges ruled unsustainable [Paras 21-24].

Professional Opinion – Valuation Report as Expert Opinion – No Mens Rea – Court found valuation report to be a subjective professional opinion, disclaiming liability and ownership verification – Bank could independently verify the report before acting – Held: Valuer cannot be criminally prosecuted unless shown to have actively conspired or abetted fraud [Paras 17-18, 30-31].

Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR registered as CR No.11199010210968/2021 with Bharuch ‘A’ Division Police Station and subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioner – Court held continuance of trial against petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law [Para 32].
 

Civil Law - Joinder of Parties – Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC – Legal Heirs of Plaintiff’s Brother Held Proper Parties – Petition Dismissed – Trial court correctly permitted respondents to be added as co-plaintiffs in suit challenging unauthorized sale of ancestral property – High Court held that limitation issues must be adjudicated during trial, not at stage of joinder – Respondents were found to be necessary and proper parties for effective adjudication [Paras 13–20].

Scope of Article 227 – High Court Cannot Interfere Absent Jurisdictional Error – No Procedural Illegality Found – Reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional or procedural errors, not substituting appellate review – Citing Sameer Suresh Gupta and Garment Craft, Court emphasized that the writ remedy under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly [Paras 10–12, 21].

Limitations Argument – Deferred to Trial Stage – Court held that bar of limitation, claim to relief, and inheritance rights must be evaluated on pleadings and evidence during trial – At joinder stage, sole test is necessity or propriety of parties under Rule 10(2) CPC [Paras 14–19].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Trial to Proceed with Respondents as Co-Plaintiffs – No jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity found – Ad-interim relief vacated [Paras 22–23].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction – Civil Court vs. Revenue Court – Section 229-B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act – Civil Suit Maintainable – Held: Where plaintiff claims cancellation of a void sale deed allegedly obtained by fraud, cheating, and impersonation, and the plaintiff or her predecessor was recorded tenure-holder, civil court has jurisdiction – Section 229-B not attracted since title was not under serious cloud and declaration not sought [Paras 3, 11–17].

Cancellation of Sale Deed – Fraud and Impersonation Alleged – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Plaintiff, widow of recorded tenure-holder Ram Dev, challenged a sale deed allegedly executed when the deceased was 80 years old – Held: Execution of deed not proved by defendants – Witnesses including co-beneficiary Radhey Shyam denied execution and payment – Trial and Appellate Courts rightly held it as fraudulent [Paras 4–6, 18–22].

Appellate Review – Findings Not Perversely Made – No Substantial Question of Law – Held: Both courts below considered oral and documentary evidence and recorded detailed findings – Findings supported by pleadings and not shown to be perverse – Appeal raises no substantial legal question warranting interference under Section 100 CPC [Paras 25–30].

Possession – Plaintiff Found in Possession of Disputed Land – Defendant’s Claim Not Substantiated – Held: Evidence showed plaintiff remained in possession of land – Sale consideration and possession not proved by appellant – Defence witnesses contradicted each other – Version of fraud accepted [Paras 20–22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Concurrent Judgments Affirmed – High Court upheld lower courts’ findings – Suit rightly decreed for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.04.1987 – No costs awarded [Paras 29–30].
 

Criminal Law - Bail Application – NDPS Act – Section 37 Bar – Stringent Compliance Required – Petitioner accused of active involvement in organized narcotic syndicate – Court emphasized strict application of twin conditions under Section 37 for grant of bail – Reasonable belief of innocence not established [Paras 23-28].

Role of Intercepted Calls and CDRs – Voice Sample Match – Strong Prima Facie Evidence – Intercepted conversations between petitioner and co-accused, coupled with CDR analysis and voice sample match confirmed by FSL, prima facie established petitioner's active role in narcotic distribution network [Paras 17, 24-25].

Recovery at Instance of Petitioner – 1 Kg Heroin and Other Seizures – Recovery of 1 Kg heroin from petitioner’s shop and further arrests and seizures linked to disclosures made by petitioner weighed heavily against grant of bail [Paras 9-10, 23-24].

Parity with Co-Accused – Distinguished – Bail of Co-Accused Not Sufficient Ground – Court rejected plea of parity with co-accused Jaipal, noting stronger and more incriminating evidence against petitioner, including recoveries and role in network [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Petitioner’s request for regular bail rejected – Court held that involvement in organized narcotics network necessitated cautious approach, and no grounds existed for believing petitioner not guilty or unlikely to reoffend [Paras 28-29].

Land Acquisition – Compensation - Valuation of Orange Trees – Income Capitalization Method Applied – Award Modified – Court rejected the valuer’s report for lacking scientific backing and uniform data reuse across cases – Compensation revised to ₹2,700 per orange tree (including wood value) based on government circulars and adjusted yield rate – Total compensation for 375 orange trees fixed at ₹10,12,500 [Paras 23–48].

Valuation Methods – Income Capitalization v. Sale Exemplar – No Double Valuation Permitted – Where land with fruit-bearing trees is valued using income capitalization method, no separate compensation for land can be granted – This principle affirmed through precedents including Ambya Kalya Mhatre and Gurcharan Singh – Court held valuation must reflect entire orchard, not trees and land separately [Paras 50–76].

Compensation for Remaining Land – Seasonally Irrigated Land Valued at ₹1,87,500 per Hectare – Based on 7/12 extracts and connected case law, non-orchard portion of land treated as seasonally irrigated – Compensation awarded at established rate for 2.73 HR = ₹5,11,875 [Paras 77–79].

Valuer’s Credibility – Report Discarded for Lack of Transparency and Repetition – Court noted suspicious uniformity in tree age, size, and yield in multiple cases handled by same valuer – Disregarded report due to lack of field-specific analysis, absence of supporting documents, and failure to justify conclusions [Paras 28–44].

Final Decision – First Appeal Partly Allowed, Cross-Objection Partly Allowed – Award modified to ₹10,12,500 for trees + ₹5,11,875 for 2.73 HR land – Compensation directed with statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act [Para 81].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal Against Acquittal - Appreciation of Evidence – Eye-Witness and Medical Testimony – Conviction Restored - The Trial Court acquitted all accused in a murder case citing contradictions and unreliable witness testimony – The High Court reversed the acquittal of Accused No.1, holding that minor contradictions did not discredit consistent and corroborated eye-witness accounts – Medical and FSL evidence supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the murder weapon was properly proved – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 6–34].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Acquittal of Co-Accused Upheld – The co-accused (Nos. 2 to 5) were present at the scene but the prosecution failed to prove they shared a common object or instigated the murder – FIR did not mention their instigation – Their presence was deemed natural and not sufficient to prove constructive liability – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 25–26].

Contradictions in Witness Testimony – Legal Position Clarified – Minor discrepancies or omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements do not vitiate credible eye-witness evidence – Reaffirmed that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India – Conviction can rest on truthful core of testimony even if peripheral inconsistencies exist [Paras 19–21].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment with Consideration for Health – Accused No.1 was bedridden and paralysed – Court granted six months' time for surrender and directed jail authorities to provide medical care – Life imprisonment imposed under Section 302 IPC [Paras 40–42].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Money Laundering – Predicate Offence Quashed – PMLA Case to Proceed – Petition to quash proceedings under PMLA rejected – Telangana High Court held that quashing of predicate offence against one accused does not terminate PMLA proceedings if the offence still exists against others – PMLA is a standalone offence focused on proceeds of crime, not merely the predicate offence [Paras 20–27].

Scope of Section 3 of PMLA – Independent Offence – Held that PMLA prosecutes conduct involving proceeds of crime even if accused was not part of the original scheduled offence – Any person knowingly assisting in layering, use or concealment of tainted funds is liable – Supreme Court’s reasoning in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Pavana Dibbur reaffirmed [Paras 21–24].

Supreme Court Judgment – Limited Quashment Does Not Exonerate Others – Petitioners relied on Supreme Court's judgment dated 03.10.2024 quashing proceedings in the predicate offence – High Court clarified that such relief was personal to one petitioner and had no bearing on ongoing PMLA trial involving other accused and companies [Paras 12–16, 22–24].

Public Interest and Economic Offences – Trial Necessary – Serious charges of economic offences involving ₹50 crore in layered transactions through corporate entities – Citing Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, Court held that such grave allegations warrant full trial, not premature quashment – Dismissed plea that trial was an abuse of process [Paras 25–29].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners to Face Trial – High Court declined to quash S.C. No. 3/2021 and directed trial to proceed – Interim orders vacated [Paras 29–30].
 

Debottar Property – Challenge to Compromise Decree – Dismissal of Declaration Suit Upheld – Appellant challenged a compromise decree involving debottar property – Held: The decree only settled seva pala rights between two shebaits; title of deity not affected – Plaintiff’s suit filed 17 years later without any direct impact or cause of action – Concurrent dismissal upheld [Paras 1–6, 25–26, 34].

Power of Attorney – Deposition Limits – Attorney Cannot Depose on Plaintiff’s Personal Knowledge – Plaintiff’s daughter, acting as POA, deposed without firsthand knowledge of key facts – Held: POA holder cannot depose about matters known only to principal – Absence of plaintiff in witness box led to adverse presumption – No error in courts' reliance on settled legal principles [Paras 19–24].

Res Judicata – Previous Litigation by Co-Shebaits – Same Issue Decided Up to Supreme Court – Earlier identical challenge to same compromise decree was litigated by co-shebaits and dismissed – Held: Current challenge by another heir barred under Section 11 CPC and Explanation VI – Issues already adjudicated upon [Paras 26–27].

Cause of Action – No Infringement of Plaintiff’s Rights – Dev Seva and Debottar Character Not Disputed – Held: No denial of deity’s title, no infringement of shebait rights, and no disturbance in seva pala – Plaintiff not adversely affected by decree – Suit rightly dismissed for lack of cause of action [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Based on Evidence – Held: No misreading or perversity in reasoning – Appeal dismissed, findings based on settled principles and facts [Paras 35–37].