Civil Law - Succession – Validity of Will – Genuineness and Attestation – Plaintiff relied on Ex.A-1 Will dated 10.03.2000 executed by his mother bequeathing suit property – Trial Court decreed suit – First Appellate Court reversed decree citing suspicious circumstances and non-examination of second attesting witness – Held: Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate independent evidence of P.W.2, who proved execution and attestation of Ex.A-1 as per Section 63 of Indian Succession Act – Suspicion regarding thumb impression alongside signature without basis – One attesting witness sufficient under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act when requirements of Section 63 are met [Paras 15-20, 26, 29, 43].

Will – Later Will Prevails – Plaintiff’s mother had earlier executed Ex.B-2 Will in 1995 – Plaintiff proved Ex.A-1 dated 10.03.2000 as her final testament – Held: Ex.A-1 being the later Will overrides Ex.B-2 – Sale by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 post testatrix’s death was void as Defendant No.1 had no title – Defendant No.2’s claim based on invalid transfer rejected [Paras 35-39, 43].

Title and Possession – Defendant No.2’s Claim – Defendant No.2 relied on Ex.B-1 sale deed and possession certificate Ex.B-5 – Held: No specific evidence to establish possession of disputed Ac.1.05 cents of land – Revenue entries insufficient – Plaintiff established title through duly proved Ex.A-1 Will – Defendant No.1 had no legal right to convey [Paras 38, 40-41].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court held First Appellate Court’s interference was unwarranted – Findings contrary to established legal position and based on erroneous interpretation of law – Reappreciation of evidence showed that suspicious circumstances were neither material nor substantiated – Decree of trial court restored [Paras 14, 44].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 29.07.2013 in A.S. No.121 of 2012 set aside – Judgment and decree dated 07.08.2012 in O.S. No.205 of 2001 restored – Plaintiff declared absolute owner of the suit schedule property including Ac.1.05 cents in Item No.1 – Sale by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 declared invalid – No order as to costs in second appeal.

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Weak Evidentiary Value – Petitioner implicated only based on co-accused’s disclosure; no recovery from petitioner; Court holds disclosure statement without corroboration cannot be sole basis for implication; evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Raises serious doubts regarding fairness of investigation [Paras 3, 6].

Custody & Delay – Long Incarceration Dilutes Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Petitioner in custody since 12.06.2023; challan filed 07.12.2023; 28 witnesses cited but none examined – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Prolonged incarceration of 2 years 3 months 15 days violates Article 21; thus rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act stand diluted [Paras 6, 6.3–6.4].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Principles Summarised – Court reiterates jurisprudence:

• Twin conditions are cumulative, not alternative;

• Bail Court may look at defence material;

• “Not likely to commit offence while on bail” requires demonstrable probability, not theoretical presumption;

• Antecedents alone cannot justify rejection when case on merits is made out [Paras 6.2–6.6].**

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Reiterated – Cites line of Supreme Court precedents (Hussainara Khatoon; Antulay; Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain; Chitta Biswas; Nitish Adhikary) – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delay cannot justify prolonged incarceration; pre-trial detention cannot turn into punitive imprisonment [Paras 6.5–6.6].

Antecedents – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Petitioner involved in two other cases per custody certificate – Court holds antecedents relevant but not determinative when prosecution case in present FIR itself is weak and delay substantial [Para 6.6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to strict conditions including: no misuse of liberty, no tampering with evidence, appearance at trial dates, deposit of passport, maintaining same mobile number, monthly affidavit regarding non-involvement in offence – State given liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 7–9].

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Appointment of Additional Advocate General challenged on ground of insufficient experience and violation of State Litigation Policy, 2018 – Held: A writ of quo warranto lies only where appointment is contrary to statutory rules – Litigation Policy, 2018 does not have statutory force – It is merely a guideline and not enforceable in law – No statutory violation shown – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 1-3, 27-28]

Public Office – Nature of Post – Whether Additional Advocate General holds a 'public office' – Held: Unlike Advocate General (a constitutional post under Article 165), the position of Additional Advocate General is a professional engagement without statutory tenure or defined service rules – Appointment is at discretion of State – Thus, writ of quo warranto not maintainable against such post [Paras 4, 17]

Policy and Executive Instructions – Enforceability of State Litigation Policy – Clause 14.8 permits appointments by competent authority based on expertise – Notification of clause in Gazette does not elevate it to a statutory rule – Gazette publication under Part I Section 1 denotes non-statutory nature – Litigation Policy is not framed under proviso to Article 309 or Article 209 and hence lacks enforceable character [Paras 18, 22, 24-26]

Judicial Review – Limits in Appointment of Government Counsel – Held: Courts cannot interfere in appointment of government counsel unless the appointment violates statutory provision or is vitiated by mala fides – Choice of legal representative lies with the State, especially where post is of professional character without statutory backing [Paras 15-16, 21]

Practice and Procedure – Dismissal of Writ Petition Challenging Government Appointment – State has discretion to decide qualifications and appointment criteria of legal counsel – Experience may guide selection but is not an inflexible mandate – Judicial interference unwarranted where no illegality or arbitrariness established [Paras 28-29]

Decision: Special appeal dismissed – State Litigation Policy held non-enforceable – Appointment of Additional Advocate General not contrary to law – Writ of quo warranto not maintainable – No illegality or arbitrariness in the appointment – Pending applications also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Hate Speech and Communal Provocation – Petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging hate-motivated and inflammatory statements against the Purvanchal community through viral online interview – Petitioner alleged to have made caste-targeted, communal and defamatory remarks against migrants from UP/Bihar and their women – FIR supported by digital evidence (pen drive), complainant's affidavit, memorandum of community members and witness statements – Held: Allegations raise serious concerns of inciting communal disharmony; custodial interrogation necessary for effective investigation – Bail rejected [Paras 1–6, 10]

Speech Act Theory – Judicial Application – Court invoked Speech Act Theory (Austin & Searle) to interpret hate speech not only by literal meaning but by intention (illocutionary force) and effect (perlocutionary impact) – Remarks attributed to petitioner prima facie constituted communicative acts capable of provoking public disorder and societal insecurity – Plea that petitioner was named only in supplementary statement not sufficient to discard material on record [Para 6]

Bail Jurisprudence – Individual Rights vs. Societal Interest – High Court held that anticipatory bail in such cases undermines public confidence and can embolden others – Right to pre-arrest bail cannot be invoked when there is prima facie material supporting grave charges and ongoing investigation requires custodial interrogation – Reference made to State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 [Para 9]

**Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Electronic evidence, viral circulation, potential accomplices and community outrage justify rejection of bail plea – Investigating agency must be given full opportunity to trace origin, intent and effect of speech and associated criminal acts without hindrance from bail order [Paras 8–10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No merit in anticipatory bail plea – Custodial interrogation held necessary – Observations not to affect merits of investigation.

Civil Writ – Service Law - Family Pension – Determination of Marital Status – Service Records Prevail – Respondent consistently recorded as wife/nominee in employee’s service register for entire career – No objection raised by department during lifetime of employee – Held: Service records are decisive for pension entitlement; criminal court findings in 498-A/494 IPC case not conclusive for determining marital status for pension purposes [Paras 19–23].

Bigamy Allegation – Effect of Criminal Case – Criminal Court’s observations in C.C. No.132/2006 were confined to charges under Sections 498-A & 494 IPC – Such findings do not constitute a binding civil declaration of marriage nor conclusively establish first/second wife status – Standard of proof differs – Department cannot rely solely on criminal case to deny pension [Paras 20–21].

Competing Marriage Claims – Burden on Department – Department failed to prove that respondent’s marriage was void or that she was the “second wife” during subsistence of earlier marriage – No civil court declaration produced – Long cohabitation (45 years) and three children raise presumption of valid marriage – Department’s reliance on executive circulars inapplicable absent proof of bigamy [Paras 17, 23–25].

Pension Rules – Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of 1980 Rules – Even in case of multiple widows, pension must be shared equally – After death of alleged first wife in 2014, respondent remained the only surviving widow at employee’s death in 2019 – Thus entitled to full family pension [Paras 14, 22].

Service Conduct Rules & Suppression – Allegation that employee suppressed first marriage in service records rejected – No disciplinary proceedings initiated during entire tenure – Department accepted respondent as wife for decades; cannot dispute after employee’s death [Paras 19(iii), 23].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge directing release of family pension to respondent upheld – No costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 26–27].

Civil Law – Revenue Proceedings – Timely Disposal – Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code – Petitioner sought direction for early disposal of partition suit pending since 2022 – Held: Rule 109(10) mandates an endeavour to decide such suits within six months. The Presiding Officer is directed to decide the case within six months. [Para 9]

Legal Ethics – Lawyers' Strike – Contempt of Court – Held: Continuous strikes by Bar Associations causing delay in judicial proceedings affect the public, especially poor litigants. If a case is adjourned due to a strike, the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association will be liable for contempt of Court for violating the directions in Daya Shankar v. State of U.P.. Litigants are at liberty to file contempt proceedings against such office bearers. [Para 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions. [Para 11]

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Acquittal – State challenged judgment acquitting respondents of offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 307/34 IPC – Held: Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that injuries were caused by accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 1, 17, 20].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Injured and alleged eye-witness did not know accused earlier – Accused identified for first time in Court – Occurrence took place at night and assailants were standing in darkness – Held: Dock identification without prior TIP is weak and unreliable – Identity of accused not established [Paras 12-13].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Contradictions – Injured stated in police statement that assailants were unknown and standing in dark – Subsequently identified accused in Court – Identification held improbable as injury was inflicted from behind and injured became unconscious – Testimony not trustworthy [Paras 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Presence of Eye-Witness – PW5 Kartar Singh claimed to be present – Injured did not name or refer to PW5 either in FIR or evidence – PW5 closely related to injured – Did not take injured to hospital – Held: Presence of PW5 at spot doubtful and possibility of being introduced witness cannot be ruled out [Para 14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery – Shoe allegedly recovered from spot on third day and another from accused – Place of occurrence was busy thoroughfare – Held: Recovery highly improbable and unreliable [Para 15].

Motive – Absence – Though motive not mandatory in every case – In facts of present case absence of motive weakened prosecution case – Failure to establish reason for accused to attack complainant [Para 16].

Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal – Appellate Court to interfere only in case of perversity or illegality – No infirmity or perversity found in trial Court judgment – Acquittal upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment dated 27.11.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridkot acquitting respondents upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Taxation Law - Indirect Tax – SVLDRS – Litigation vs. Arrears Category – Petitioner filed declaration under Litigation category under Section 124(1)(a) of Finance Act, 2019 – Tribunal’s remand order dated 30.12.2010 had relegated proceedings to show cause notice stage – Final quantification of duty remained pending as on 30.06.2019 – Held: Petitioner’s case falls under Litigation category, not Arrears – Impugned Form SVLDRS-3 issued under Section 124(1)(c) quashed [Paras 34–44, 47–48].

Indirect Tax – Pre-deposit Adjustment – Petitioner paid Rs.10 lakhs as pre-deposit under Tribunal’s directions – Respondents had themselves adjusted this amount in Form SVLDRS-2 – Held: No dispute regarding pre-deposit – Adjustment mandated under Section 124(2) – Objection to pre-deposit benefit untenable [Paras 20–21, 36, 46].

Statutory Interpretation – SVLDRS Scheme – Litigation category requires pendency of appeal or SCN as on 30.06.2019 – Requantification pending under remand means tax dues not finalized – Reference made to coordinate bench decisions in UCN Cable Network and Morde Foods – Held: Scheme must be interpreted to preserve benefits conferred and avoid rendering it unworkable [Paras 37–39, 45].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petitioner rightly invoked Article 226 to challenge arbitrary classification of case under incorrect SVLDRS category – Court finds application of mind lacking in issuance of Form SVLDRS-3 – Exercise of writ jurisdiction justified [Paras 21–22, 48–49].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Form SVLDRS-3 dated 12.03.2020 quashed – Respondents directed to recompute dues under Litigation category with 70% relief – Exercise to be completed within two months – No costs awarded.

Electricity Law – Pilferage of Energy – Civil Liability – Criminal Acquittal – Clause 39.15 – Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not extinguish civil liability for pilferage – Recovery under APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act and Section 52-A Revenue Recovery Act upheld – Limitation counts from final appellate criminal judgment – Writ petition dismissed with costs.

Electricity – Pilferage of Energy – Departmental Assessment – Criminal vs. Civil Consequence – Held: Theft of energy embodies two distinct components—(i) criminal liability punishable under law, and (ii) civil liability to pay for unrecorded consumption – Even if prosecution fails to secure conviction, civil liability survives unless charge is proven false – Acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not bar recovery proceedings.

Terms & Conditions of Supply – Clause 39.15 – Effect – Acquittal on any ground other than “charge is false” does not bar recovery – Sessions Court and High Court acquitted petitioner only on benefit of doubt; hence civil liability intact – Recovery proceedings maintainable.

Evidence – Criminal Case Findings – Session Court found prosecution failed to prove existence or use of remote controller; seals intact; possibility of tampering not established – Held: Such findings only raise doubt, not a declaration of false charge – Therefore, civil liability unaffected.

APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 – Applicability – Assessment order of Superintending Engineer (31.07.1992) confirmed by Chief Engineer (23.10.2001) attained finality – Dues fall within definition under Sections 2 & 3 – Recovery as arrears of land revenue under Section 6 valid – Form-A (06.12.2001) and Form-B notices (18.04.2002) validly issued  .

Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 – Section 52-A – Validity – Authorises recovery of public dues by treating them as arrears of land revenue – No inconsistency with Electricity Act, 2003 – Recovery for electricity dues permissible – Supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence affirming competence of States to confer such powers on revenue authorities.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Primacy Clauses (Sections 173, 174, 185) – No inconsistency between the 2003 Act and APSEB Recovery Act – Hence, old dues recoverable without recourse to Special Court under Section 153 – Civil recovery mechanism preserved.

Limitation – Article 113, Limitation Act – Cause of action accrues only after final appellate criminal judgment – Here, High Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 721/2008 dated 14.11.2011 marked such accrual – Recovery notice dated 18.09.2014 within 3-year limitation – Recovery not time-barred.

Decision:  Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- – All connected applications closed [Final Para] .