Criminal Law – UAPA – Regular Bail – Section 43-D(5) – Prolonged Custody – Appellant in custody for over 2 years and 10 months without trial due to pendency of sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA – No evidence linking weapons recovered from appellant to terrorist activity or declared terrorists – Held: Long incarceration without trial violates Article 21 – Bail granted despite UAPA charges [Paras 3, 10, 12]

UAPA – Prima Facie Case – Section 43-D(5) – Standard of Review – Prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe accusations under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA to be prima facie true – No evidence linking accused to any act of terrorism – No record of WhatsApp communication or joint jail presence with alleged terrorists – Court held mere possession of arms without terror link insufficient for continued detention under UAPA [Paras 9-10]

Criminal Law – Parity in Bail – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Appellant's role not graver than co-accused already granted bail – Persons from whom arms were recovered, and others who allegedly supplied the weapons, all released on bail by Trial Court or Coordinate Bench – Held: Parity and lack of distinguishing features support grant of bail [Paras 10, Table under Para 10]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail as Safeguard – Delay in framing charges and conclusion of trial despite completion of investigation violates fundamental right under Article 21 – Supreme Court precedents in K.A. Najeeb, Jalaluddin Khan, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen, and Javed Shaikh applied – Held: Bail cannot be denied solely on seriousness of charges where trial is indefinitely delayed [Paras 11–16]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposed stringent conditions including ₹10 lakh bond, weekly police attendance, undertaking for trial participation, and prohibition on inducement or fresh offences – Prosecution permitted to seek cancellation if conditions breached [Paras 17–19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 22.12.2023 denying regular bail set aside – Appellant granted regular bail subject to stringent conditions including high bond, weekly marking, and undertaking for trial compliance – Observations made not to affect merits of trial – Trial Court permitted to impose additional safeguards – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 17–21]

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Appeal Against Acquittal – Complainant filed appeal challenging acquittal of accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Accused issued cheque for ₹4,00,000 towards alleged discharge of liability – Trial court convicted accused – Appellate court (Sessions Court) acquitted her – High Court held: Acquittal justified – Accused rebutted presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act through probable defence – Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 5, 26]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 – Signature on cheque not disputed by accused – Held: Legal presumption arises in favour of complainant – However, presumption is rebuttable – Accused raised a probable defence supported by testimony and circumstantial evidence – Complainant failed to establish transaction details or source of funds – No documentary or corroborative evidence produced – Presumption rebutted successfully [Paras 8, 10-12, 15-21, 24]

Probable Defence – Entrustment of Cheque as Security – Accused’s husband (DW2) deposed that cheque was handed over to one Robert as security for a loan – Allegation that Robert misused cheque by filing false case through complainant – Complainant (PW1) failed to deny suggestion during cross-examination – Stated he had no knowledge of transaction between Robert and accused’s husband – Held: Defence version consistent and supported by circumstances – Burden shifted back to complainant, who failed to discharge it [Paras 9, 13-14, 23]

Acquaintance with Complainant – No Prior Relationship – Accused specifically denied having any prior transaction with complainant – Complainant admitted he saw accused only once ten years ago – No evidence of prior relationship or loan transaction – Held: Creates serious doubt about existence of legally enforceable debt – Supports defence case [Paras 13, 22]

Source of Funds – Not Proved – Complainant claimed to have given ₹4,00,000 as cash loan – Claimed funds sourced from advance sale consideration of land – No document or witness produced to support this – Produced passbook (Exhibit P6) showing withdrawal of ₹3,85,000 from Co-operative Society, but only after deposit on previous day – Inconsistency undermines version – Held: Financial capacity not proved – Contradicts core allegation [Paras 11-12, 17]

Standard of Proof – Rebuttal of Presumption – Held: Accused need not prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Only required to raise probable defence – Circumstantial inconsistencies in complainant’s version sufficient to discharge evidentiary burden – Cited: Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets [Paras 15-21, 24]

Appellate Review – Powers of Appellate Court – High Court reiterated principles from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka – Double presumption in favour of accused in case of acquittal – If two views possible, appellate court should not interfere – Held: Sessions Court’s view was plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 25-26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused under Section 138 NI Act confirmed – Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt – Accused successfully rebutted statutory presumption through probable defence – No interference called for with Sessions Court’s judgment [Para 26]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Cognizance under Section 186 IPC – Magistrate cannot take cognizance for offence under Section 186 IPC except upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their administrative superior as mandated by Section 195(1)(a) CrPC – Police report filed by Sub-Inspector in absence of such complaint cannot be treated as valid – Held: Cognizance taken without satisfying statutory preconditions is illegal and unsustainable [Paras 10–15, 22].

Police Report – Not Equivalent to Valid Complaint – Section 2(d) CrPC defines complaint as distinct from a police report – Though explanation to Section 2(d) allows non-cognizable offence reports to be treated as complaints, such reports must be result of investigation under Section 155(2) CrPC – In present case, no permission sought under Section 155(2), and the report was merely an enquiry, not investigation – Held: Report cannot be deemed a complaint, and Magistrate’s reliance on it was misplaced [Paras 11–12].

Administrative Subordination – Requirement under Section 195 CrPC – Cognizance under Section 186 IPC can only be taken on complaint by public servant concerned or their administrative superior – NVF personnel under West Bengal NVF Act, 1949 are not administratively subordinate to a Sub-Inspector of Police – Held: Sub-Inspector lacked locus to lodge complaint or submit prosecution report – No valid initiation of proceedings possible [Paras 13–15].

Offence under Section 186 IPC – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Allegation merely of use of filthy language and misbehaviour by petitioner – No specific act of obstruction in discharge of duty alleged – Absence of overt act or credible show of force – Held: Allegations vague and insufficient to constitute offence under Section 186 IPC [Paras 16–19].

Malicious Prosecution – Counterblast Theory Accepted – Timeline indicates FIR lodged by petitioner against NVF personnel for assault, followed by complaint against petitioner six days later – Court found complaint likely filed out of vengeance – Held: Proceedings initiated mala fide and in abuse of judicial process – Attracted categories (6) and (7) of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 [Paras 20].

Cognizance Order – Mechanical and Non-Application of Mind – Magistrate’s order taking cognizance lacked judicial reasoning – Merely filled in pre-typed form and signed – Held: Cognizance order bad in law and contrary to Rule 183 of Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985 [Para 21].

Criminal Revision – Quashing of Proceedings – In absence of valid complaint, administrative authority, and offence ingredients, continuance of prosecution would be abuse of court process – Held: Entire proceeding quashed under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 22–24].

Decision:

CRR 1926 of 2018 allowed – Proceedings in NGR Case No. 8848 of 2018 pending before CJM, Purba Medinipur, arising out of Kolaghat P.S. NCR No. 185 of 2018 under Section 186 IPC, quashed – Magistrate’s order taking cognizance found illegal – Xerox certified copy to be issued on compliance [Paras 22–24].

Property Law – Matrimonial Property – Gift – Acceptance – Cancellation – Mandatory Injunction – Title Dispute – Husband claiming purchase in wife’s name; wife asserting exclusive title – Gift Deed executed by husband held accepted by wife; cancellation deed ineffective – Sale by wife upheld – Mandatory injunction claim dismissed [Paras 10–18].

Matrimonial Property – Purchase in Spouse’s Name – Source of Funds – Husband claimed to have paid consideration of ₹3 lakhs to his brother; later sought conveyance from wife or refund; amended claim based on wife’s 12 sovereigns of gold – Court held pleadings themselves defeat husband’s claim of title – Wife proved source of consideration; title vested with her – O.P. rightly dismissed [Paras 3–5, 10].

Gift – Acceptance – Proof – Non-onerous gift – Mere knowledge of gift by donee sufficient – Possession of original Gift Deed by wife strong indicator of acceptance – Gift executed on 26.03.1990; husband’s case that wife informed on 20.11.1998 about intention to cancel – Wife conveyed property on 30.11.1998 – Circumstances show acceptance occurred before cancellation under Ext.A5 – Cancellation void [Paras 11–16].

Gift – Delivery of Possession – Not essential – Delivery not required for a valid gift except under Muhammadan Law – Family Court erred in relying on possession and absence of mutation to hold gift ineffective [Para 17].

Civil Procedure – Family Court – Appreciation of Evidence – Family Court’s finding that gift had not taken effect reversed – Sale Deed (Ext.A8) executed by wife is valid – Husband’s O.P. seeking declaration and cancellation dismissed [Paras 15–18].

Decision – Mat. Appeal No.98/2016 allowed – Judgment in O.P.1282/2003 set aside and petition dismissed – Mat. Appeal No.305/2015 dismissed – Wife’s title over both properties confirmed [Final Para].

Taxation Law – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 78 days in filing tax revision under Section 60 TNVAT Act – State cited administrative delay due to vacancy of Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner – Delay held unjustified by one judge as cause shown lacked diligence and appeal was a “dummy” filed merely to defeat limitation – Held: Filing of incomplete or template appeals solely to save limitation is improper – Condonation denied [Per Dr. Anita Sumanth, J – Paras 1–27].

Practice and Procedure – Dummy Appeals – Court noted practice of Revenue filing incomplete appeals within limitation and rectifying them after return as “re-presentation” – Found that appeal lacked substantial grounds, was not in prescribed form (Form EE), and failed to raise questions of law – Held: Appeal filed online was invalid and delay in re-presentation (186 days) not satisfactorily explained – Dummy appeal filing practice deprecated [Per Dr. Anita Sumanth, J – Paras 11–16, 23–25].

Limitation – Government Litigant – State relied on State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani to justify delay – Held: Judgments in Living Media India Ltd. and Sarita Mishra indicate paradigm shift in approach – Routine administrative lapses not sufficient cause – Government departments required to maintain diligence in legal filings [Per Dr. Anita Sumanth, J – Paras 18–23].

Tax Law – Penalty under Section 27(3) TNVAT – Revenue contended that Tribunal erred in deleting penalty – Argued penalty is mandatory upon wilful non-disclosure of turnover – Grounds for revision raised suppression of turnover, supported by case law – Merits of case held substantial by second judge justifying condonation of delay [Per N. Senthilkumar, J – Paras 6–13].

Limitation – Condonation Allowed on Merits – Second judge took liberal view of delay caused by procedural bottlenecks in government departments – Held: Petitioner had shown sufficient cause, delay not wilful or wanton – Condonation of 78 days granted based on substantial questions of law involved and precedent in Chandra Mani [Per N. Senthilkumar, J – Paras 6–13].

Judicial Disagreement – Divergent Views – One judge dismissed condonation petition for lack of sufficient cause and abuse of process through dummy filing – Another judge condoned delay citing administrative justifications and substantial questions of law – Matter directed to be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice for resolution [Final Para].

Decision: Delay condonation applications (CMP.Nos.13059, 13056 & 13049 of 2025) – Dismissed by Dr. Anita Sumanth, J. – Allowed by N. Senthilkumar, J. – Cleavage of opinion – Matter to be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Interim order recalling condonation of delay in T.C.No.63 of 2025 maintained [Final Para].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Vicarious Liability – Directors – Petitioners sought quashing of complaint filed in 1994 under IPC and Excise Act citing lack of specific allegations – Court held that in absence of averments indicating personal role or statutory vicarious liability, criminal prosecution against directors (Petitioners 3 to 9) is not sustainable – Complaint and proceedings quashed qua them [Paras 7.1, 8–10, 17(i)].

Taxation – Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 – Scope of Immunity – Petitioners argued that tax arrears settled under scheme granted full immunity from prosecution – Court held: Scheme does not apply retrospectively and cannot nullify criminal proceedings already instituted before 01.09.1998 – Petitioners not entitled to immunity for criminal complaint filed in 1994 [Paras 11–15].

Forgery – Prima Facie Case – False Declaration – Petitioners challenged maintainability of complaint under Section 468 IPC claiming discrepancy in glass thickness logs doesn't amount to forgery – Court rejected submission – Held: Misdeclaration before government authority to evade tax amounts to forged document under Section 464 IPC – Prima facie case made out against company and MD [Paras 4.9, 16, 17(ii)].

Criminal Law – Doctrine of Separate Legal Personality – Court reiterated that mere designation as director does not attract criminal liability – Active role or statutory provision required – Reaffirmed principle that vicarious liability in criminal law requires specific statutory mandate or evidence of involvement [Paras 7.1, 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Complaint quashed and proceedings dropped against Petitioners 3 to 9 (Directors) – Petition dismissed against Petitioner No.1 (Company) and Petitioner No.2 (Managing Director).

Execution – Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Objector (mother of JD) asserting 1/3rd independent share in auctioned property – Plausible claim based on joint family nucleus – Executing court bound to adjudicate by framing issues and allowing evidence – Summary rejection improper – Matter remanded for full adjudication [Paras 27–36].

Execution of Decree – Obstruction Petition – Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Scope – Executing court must adjudicate all questions including right, title, interest of obstructionist; separate suit barred – Findings operate as res judicata – Summary dismissal without framing issues impermissible where objector shows prima facie independent right – Matter must be tried as if a suit [Paras 18–25, 33].

Stranger to Decree – Independent Right – Mother of JD – Joint Family Property – Burden of Proof – Though no presumption that property is joint family property, presumption of joint family exists – Objector asserted purchase of property from joint family nucleus; averred father’s thriving business, inheritance of business and assets, JD being 27-year-old businessman at time of purchase – These circumstances sufficient to shift initial onus; objector must be allowed to adduce evidence – Summary rejection unjustified [Paras 28–33].

Order XXI Rule 97/101 CPC – Need for Evidence – Adjudication may be summary only when facts are admitted or obstruction frivolous – Where objection discloses a semblance of right, executing court must frame issues and conduct evidentiary trial – Failure amounts to jurisdictional error – High Court corrects error in second appeal [Paras 12–14, 21, 33].

Joint Family Nucleus – Hindu Law – No presumption that property is joint family merely because family is joint – But where circumstances show existence of a nucleus from which property could be acquired, onus shifts to person asserting self-acquisition – Principles reiterated from Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar (SC 2025), R. Deivanai Ammal, Annamalai Chetti (PC) – Objector’s pleadings justified a full inquiry [Paras 28–32].

Execution Sale – Challenge – Right of Third Party – Objector not challenging auction on grounds under Order XXI Rule 90; seeking only protection of her undivided 1/3rd share – Objection maintainable upon threat of dispossession – Delay in filing objection not fatal; cause arises when warrant of possession issued – Objector is not JD; cannot be penalized for not participating earlier [Paras 34–35].

Substantial Question of Law – Executing Court’s Duty – Whether executing court erred in law by not framing issues and not permitting evidence regarding joint family character of property – Held: Yes; error goes to root of adjudicatory obligation under Rules 97–101 – Substantial question answered in favour of appellant [Paras 7, 36].

Remand – Executing court directed to frame issues, permit evidence, and decide objection under Order XXI Rule 97 within six months – Rights of auction purchaser preserved pending adjudication [Para 37].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Commercial Suit – Plaint wholly lacking jurisdictional facts – Replication cannot cure foundational defect – Amendment of plaint impermissible where Court inherently lacks jurisdiction – Trial Court correctly returned plaint – Appeal dismissed [Paras 31–51].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Pleadings – Requirement of Jurisdictional Facts – Under Sections 15–20 CPC, plaintiff must plead material facts showing that defendant resides/carries on business in the forum or that part of cause of action arose there – Para 23 of plaint merely stating plaintiff “works for profit in Delhi” held insufficient – No averment showing any part of cause of action arising in Delhi – Plaint bereft of jurisdictional facts; Trial Court right in returning plaint [Paras 33–36].

Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Demurrer – Court must confine to plaint – Revisional Court reiterates that when jurisdiction is challenged by demurrer, Court must assume plaint facts as correct and cannot look at written statement or replication – Replication cannot be considered to create jurisdiction where plaint itself is silent – Application correctly decided solely on plaint [Paras 31–34].

Replication / Subsequent Pleadings – Cannot Cure Initial Absence of Jurisdiction – Plaintiff’s reliance on replication asserting cause of action arising from Delhi held misplaced – Replication cannot introduce jurisdictional facts absent in original plaint – Distinction drawn between preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 (as in Kuldeep Singh Pathania) and demurrer under Order VII Rule 10 – Subsequent submissions irrelevant where plaint contains no jurisdictional facts [Paras 37–38, 48–50].

Amendment of Plaint – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Impermissible where Court Lacks Jurisdiction – Trial Court rightly rejected amendment application relying on HSIL Ltd. v. Imperial Ceramic and Archie Comic Publications – A plaint completely bereft of jurisdictional averments cannot be amended to cure inherent lack of jurisdiction – Court must first possess jurisdiction to entertain amendment; otherwise amendment itself is incompetent [Paras 38–46].

Distinction Between Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11 – Court reiterates that Rule 10 (territorial jurisdiction) differs from Rule 11 (cause of action/technical defects) – In cases of territorial jurisdiction, if plaint on its face discloses no jurisdiction, Court cannot consider amendment and must return plaint – Fundamental principle: lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be cured by subsequent pleadings [Paras 42–46].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1A) – Appellate Scope – No infirmity or perversity in Trial Court’s reasoning – Proper appreciation of pleadings and precedents – Appeal dismissed [Para 51].

Income Tax – Reassessment – Bar of Limitation – Notice under Section 148 issued on 22.04.2024 to reopen A.Y. 2017–18 – Court held that under first proviso to amended Section 149, such notice is time-barred as six-year limitation expired on 31.03.2024 – Fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149 not applicable to extend limitation under first proviso – Held: Notice and reassessment proceedings are barred by law [Paras 9-16, 21]

Tax Procedure – Parallel Proceedings – Pending Rectification – Grounds of reopening (employee PF contribution, depreciation disallowance, unexplained credits) were already pending under Section 154 – Held: Initiating reassessment under Section 148 during subsistence of Section 154 rectification proceedings amounts to impermissible change of opinion – Reliance placed on S.M. Overseas (P) Ltd. [Paras 17-20]

Statutory Interpretation – Effect of Amendments – Court clarified that first proviso to amended Section 149 overrides the saving clauses in fifth and sixth provisos – Cited Delhi, Rajasthan, and Bombay High Court precedents rejecting retrospective application of extended limitation – Reiterated: Notices for pre-2021 assessment years cannot be saved by amended ten-year window unless old limitation was alive on 01.04.2021 [Paras 10-15]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 quashed – Reassessment for A.Y. 2017–18 held barred by limitation – No costs [Para 21]