Criminal Law - Cross-examination – Discretionary Recall Power – Denied for Delay and Abuse – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners sought to recall complainant witness under Section 311 CrPC, citing medical issues of previous counsel – Court found this unsubstantiated and held repeated non-appearance and adjournments amounted to abuse of process – Held: Recall not a matter of course; discretionary power to be used judiciously [Paras 5–10]. 
 
Trial Conduct – Repeated Defaults – No Diligent Effort to CrossExamine – Petitioners At Fault – Court noted that non-bailable warrants were repeatedly issued due to non-appearance, and trial had been prolonged by petitioners’ conduct – Held: Courts should not reward tactical delay or passive conduct by litigants seeking to derail proceedings [Paras 10–11]. 
 
Precedent – Discretion Under Section 311 CrPC – Applied Cautiously 
– Relying on Vijay Kumar, Ratanlal, Zahira Sheikh, Satbir Singh, and 
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee, Court reiterated that power under Section 311 CrPC should be exercised only when essential for justice, not to remedy negligence of parties or allow obstruction of proceedings [Paras 8–10]. 
 
Name Change of Complainant – No Fresh Right to Recall – Petitioners argued that change in complainant’s name during proceedings justified cross-examination – Court rejected this, holding it had no bearing on prior opportunities granted and exhausted [Para 10]. 
 
Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Trial to Proceed Unimpeded – High Court found no infirmity in trial court’s refusal to recall witness – Petition and all pending applications dismissed [Paras 11–12]. 
 

Heatwave Crisis – State Inaction Amidst Climate Emergency – Directions Issued – Despite judicial orders in 2024, Rajasthan government failed to implement the Heat Action Plan or health preparedness schemes – Court criticized passive state response despite soaring temperatures and mass vulnerability – Suo motu action revived to enforce institutional accountability [Paras 1–3, 10–14].

Constitutional Right to Life – Extreme Heat as Public Health Emergency – Judicial Duty to Intervene – Holding that right to life under Article 21 includes protection from environmental and climate-induced harms, Court emphasized duty of the State to protect lives through preventive public health action and environmental safeguards [Paras 12–13, 20–22].

Contempt Warning – Continued Non-Compliance of 2024 Order – Show Cause Issued – Court noted shocking disregard of 2024 directions and non-submission of compliance reports by authorities – Held such conduct contemptuous and indicative of systemic apathy – Show cause notice issued to all respondents [Paras 15–17, 25–26].

Interim Relief – Cooling Shelters, Water, ORS and Awareness Campaigns Ordered – Directions issued to provide cooling shelters, drinking water, and ORS at public spaces and issue regular heatwave alerts across Rajasthan – Workers to be granted rest period from 12–3 PM – Coverage to include humans and animals [Paras 22–24].

Policy Direction – Bill on Heat/Cold Deaths to be Enacted – Compensation Framework Proposed – Directed Centre and State to revive and implement the 2015 Bill on prevention of deaths due to temperature extremes – Suggested compensation mechanism for heatwave victims – Called for statutory backing to preventive obligations [Paras 5, 14, 25©, 25€].

Environmental Governance – Tree Plantation and Climate Action Plan Implementation Mandated – Directed plantation along roads, water conservation measures, and effective implementation of Rajasthan’s Climate Change Heat Action Plan – Government not permitted to cite financial constraints when public safety is at stake [Paras 25(a), 25(b), 24].

Final Directions – Compliance by 24.04.2025 – Officials Put on Notice – All District Collectors to file reports on compliance with interim directions – Matter to be reviewed on 24/04/2025 – Central and State departments directed to take steps or face coercive orders [Paras 26, 29–30].
 

Taxation Law - Income Escaping Assessment – Validity of Reopening – Prima Facie Material Justifying Reassessment – Reopening of assessment for AY 2012-13 challenged on grounds that original assessment under Section 143(3) was already concluded and that reassessment notice was issued based solely on third-party information – Held: Department acted on tangible material received from DGIT regarding accommodation entries, and a preliminary enquiry was conducted before issuance of notice under Section 148 – Presence of prima facie belief satisfies statutory requirement for reopening [Paras 1–3, 10–11, 16].

Limitation – Four-Year Bar under Section 147 Proviso – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – Petitioner claimed full and true disclosure was made during original assessment and reopening beyond four years was barred – Held: Whether full and true disclosure was made is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be conclusively decided in writ jurisdiction – Detailed factual enquiry required before competent authority [Paras 3, 12, 19].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Statutory Remedy Availed – Petitioner simultaneously filed appeal before appellate authority challenging reassessment order while writ was pending – Held: Petitioner cannot pursue dual remedies and writ petition is not maintainable under such circumstances [Paras 22–24].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on SC and HC Rulings – Scope of Judicial Interference – Petitioner’s reliance on precedents like A. Raman & Co., Micro Marbles, and Kohinoor Hatcheries distinguished – Held: In present case, there existed prima facie material unlike in cited cases – Proper procedure under GKN Driveshafts followed – Writ jurisdiction limited to testing existence, not sufficiency, of material [Paras 5–9, 17–19].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – No Grounds Made Out – Court held that reassessment notice and order were not vitiated by procedural or jurisdictional errors and petitioner had alternative remedy through appeal – Petitioner granted liberty to pursue statutory remedies [Para 25].

Civil Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Effect of Family Settlement – Maintainability of Release Application – Tenant’s Claim of Co-Ownership Rejected – The petitioner contended that he was not a tenant under respondent no.3 and had become co-owner by purchasing a part of the tenanted premises from respondent no.4 – Held: Based on oral family settlement between respondents no.3 and 4, the property was partitioned; thus, respondent no.3 became sole owner of a portion and could maintain a release application – Purchase by petitioner from respondent no.4 did not make him co-owner with respect to respondent no.3’s share – Relationship of landlord-tenant with respondent no.3 upheld [Paras 13-17].

Split Tenancy – Effect of Partial Ownership on Tenancy Rights – Tenancy Not Split – The petitioner argued that tenancy cannot be split and he became owner of the entire property – Held: The petitioner became owner only of the part sold by respondent no.4; tenancy continued in respect of the portion held by respondent no.3 – No legal bar on such bifurcation due to family settlement and specific sale deeds – Tenancy held to exist with respect to the portion claimed in release [Paras 13-18].

Bonafide Need – Comparative Hardship – Evidence-Based Findings – Release Upheld – Respondent no.3 sought release for starting business for himself and his sons – Appellate Court considered bonafide need, hardship, and lack of evidence from petitioner on alternative accommodation – Closure of petitioner’s sawmill noted – No perversity found in concurrent findings – Release affirmed [Paras 13-14].

Equitable Relief – No Rent Paid – Conduct of Tenant Considered – Equitable Jurisdiction Not Invoked – Petitioner failed to pay rent to either landlord – Court noted petitioner’s conduct and refused to grant discretionary relief under Article 226 – Equitable relief denied [Paras 15, 19].

Interference Under Article 226 – No Perverse or Arbitrary Finding – Scope Limited – Held: Appellate authority’s findings based on facts, evidence and legal principles – No perversity or arbitrariness shown – No ground made for judicial review under Article 226 – Petition dismissed [Paras 28-29].
 

Muslim Law - Probate and Will – Requirement of Proving Testamentary Capacity and Absence of Suspicion – Will Rejected - Appellant claimed two Wills executed by deceased Tajuddin Shaikh in his favour – Trial Court and High Court found multiple suspicious circumstances including inconsistency regarding property ownership timelines, typewritten Wills with identical wording, and lack of clarity on religious identity and testamentary rights – Held: Appellant failed to discharge burden of proof required under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act to establish valid execution of Will [Paras 6, 9-13, 16-17].

Mohammedan Law – Limits on Bequest – Bequest Beyond One-Third Invalid Without Consent – Will Partially Invalid - As per Mohammedan Law, bequest beyond one-third of estate to non-heir is invalid without consent of legal heirs – Court held Will to be invalid beyond said limit in absence of such consent – Validity of Will limited to extent permissible under law [Para 14].

Suspicious Circumstances – Inclusion of Properties Not Owned at Time of Will – Will Held Invalid - Land purchased after the alleged execution date of first Will was included in it – Appellant failed to explain or produce evidence showing pre-existing agreement – Held: Inclusion of such land created suspicion regarding authenticity of Will [Para 16].

Succession Certificate – Grant to Legal Heirs – Certificate Upheld - Respondents were legal heirs of deceased and proved relationship – In absence of valid Will, Court rightly granted heirship and succession certificate to respondents – No interference warranted [Para 18].

Appeal – Dismissal of Appeal – Findings of Trial Court Upheld - Trial Court's conclusions based on factual and legal analysis upheld – No merit found in appeals filed by Sunil Shinde – Appeals dismissed [Para 19].
 

Pension – Delayed Absorption – Entitlement Recognized – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Petitioner served as Medical Officer at a government-acquired institution and was directed to be absorbed in 2005 – Absorption delayed till 2010 despite court orders – Court held delay attributable solely to State – Held: 
Petitioner entitled to count service period from 22.02.2005 to 20.04.2010 toward qualifying service for pension [Paras 13–20]. 
 
Equitable Doctrine – No Advantage from Own Wrong – Delay by State Cannot Prejudice Employee – Following Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, Court held that respondents cannot deny pension on ground of shortfall in qualifying service when delay in formal absorption was their own doing – Period must be counted for pension entitlement to avoid civil consequences [Paras 18–19]. 
 
Service Law – Rights Crystallized by Judicial Direction – Binding on State – Court emphasized that petitioner’s right to absorption under the 1983 Act crystallized on 22.02.2005 as per previous writ order – State bound to honour such finding; inaction thereafter cannot be used against petitioner [Paras 14–16]. 
 
Retrospectivity – No Wages for No Work – But Period Counts for Pension – While denying claim for salary during 2005–2010, Court held petitioner entitled to count that period for pension qualifying service – “No work no pay” does not apply to pension rights if employee ready to serve and State delays appointment [Para 18]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Allowed – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Pension Directed – Tribunal’s rejection order dated 02.09.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to treat petitioner’s qualifying service as commencing from 22.02.2005 – Pension and arrears to be paid within 8 weeks with transparent calculation details [Paras 20–21]. 
 

Murder of Family Members – Conviction Upheld – Death Sentence Commuted – Appellant convicted for murder of his wife, parents, and minor son – Trial court awarded death penalty – High Court confirmed guilt based on eyewitnesses (PW-1 & PW-2), medical, ballistic and FSL evidence – However, death penalty commuted to life imprisonment for 20 years actual incarceration considering mitigating factors [Paras 1–20, 41–50, 74–75]. 
 
Eyewitnesses and Medical Evidence – Convincing – Injuries Ante-Mortem and Homicidal – Evidence from Ranjana Bai and her son corroborated by postmortem reports – Axe and gun injuries matched – FSL confirmed blood on appellant’s clothes and weapon – Firearm used in murder of minor son Shivyansh confirmed by presence of lead [Paras 12–31, 39–44]. 
 
Mitigating Circumstances – Intoxication, Mental State, and Reformation Potential – Death Commuted – Court found appellant was in an intoxicated state, habitual cannabis consumer – No prior criminal record – Surviving minor son and possibility of reformation considered – Held: Case does not fall under “rarest of rare” doctrine requiring capital punishment [Paras 55–75]. 
 
Sentencing Doctrine – Extensive Review of Rarest of Rare Jurisprudence – 
Balance Sheet Test Applied – Court elaborated on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, Swamy Shraddananda, and Manoj v. MP principles – Applied balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors – Determined that alternative punishment of life imprisonment for 20 years was appropriate [Paras 52–73]. 
 
Final Decision – Death Sentence Set Aside – Life Imprisonment for 20 Years Imposed – Appellant’s conviction under IPC and Arms Act upheld – Sentence modified: death penalty commuted to life imprisonment (actual incarceration of 20 years), with concurrent sentences – Fine and other punishments unchanged [Para 75]. 
 

Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Final Judgment – Plea of Private Forest Land Rejected – Contempt Established - The Court held that the respondents wilfully disobeyed the final judgment in W.P.(C) No. 593 of 2017 and LPA No. 786 of 2018 (affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 8108 of 2021) by issuing letters branding petitioner’s land as ‘private forest land’ – Such a plea was never raised in the earlier proceedings and cannot be permitted under the principle of constructive res judicata – Held: Conduct of respondents amounts to deliberate disobedience and obstruction of justice [Paras 1-3, 8, 21-23, 32-33, 41, 44-48, 55-56, 86-88].

Constructive Res Judicata – New Pleas Barred in Contempt – Doctrine Applied - The Court reiterated that new pleas such as classification as ‘private forest land’ not raised in earlier writ or LPA proceedings are barred – Raising such new grounds in contempt proceedings amounts to collateral attack on final judgments – Held: Attempt by respondent officials to overreach court orders is impermissible under law [Paras 44-48, 86].

Burden of Proof – Claim of Private Forest Land Unsupported by Evidence – Burden Not Discharged - Respondents relied on unauthenticated documents and failed to produce certified revenue records to substantiate claim of ‘private forest land’ – Certified copy of Khatian unavailable per RTI response – Held: No credible evidence to support forest land classification – Attempt amounts to misleading the court [Paras 63-70].

Contempt by Government Officials – Non-Parties Liable – Principles Explained – Agents Bound by Orders Against Government - Even though the forest officials were not parties to the original writ proceedings, as agents of the State, they are bound by its outcomes – Their actions in issuing advisory letters amounted to aiding and abetting contempt – Held: Officials can be held in contempt for obstructing justice [Paras 71-75].

Effect of Supreme Court Directions – Compliance Deferred – No Sentence Imposed for Eight Weeks – The Court, while holding the respondents guilty of contempt, deferred pronouncement of sentence for eight weeks in compliance with clause (iv) of the Supreme Court's order in SLP(C) No. 31127 of 2024 to enable respondents to approach the Apex Court [Paras 92-93].

Relief – Advisory Letters Declared Invalid – Letters Set Aside - In view of the established contempt, the letters issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 branding the land as forest land and restricting activities thereon were set aside – Court emphasized that contemnors cannot enjoy the fruits of contempt [Paras 91].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Section 138 and 141, Negotiable Instruments Act - Vicarious Liability – Director Not in Management – Complaint Quashed - Petitioner challenged proceedings under Section 138 NI Act, asserting he was neither a Director nor signatory to the cheques of the accused company – Produced Ministry of Corporate Affairs record confirming he was never part of the accused company – Gujarat High Court held that mere association with a company without being in charge of day-to-day affairs or signing authority cannot attract vicarious liability – Proceedings quashed as no specific averments were made in the complaint to support culpability under Section 141 NI Act [Paras 2–7].

Section 141 NI Act – Specific Averments Mandatory – General Allegations Insufficient - Court reiterated that vicarious liability under Section 141 requires specific pleadings as to how and in what manner the accused was in charge of the company – Cited Supreme Court precedents including National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and SMS Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla – Held: Complaint must clearly indicate role played by accused in the conduct of company’s business; bald allegations not sustainable [Paras 6–7].

Quashing of Proceedings – Power under Section 482 CrPC – Properly Invoked - Held that continuation of criminal proceedings against a person without foundational averments or evidence results in abuse of process of law – High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent miscarriage of justice – Criminal cases quashed [Paras 1.2, 6–7].