Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 of the IPC - Acquittal – Appeal against conviction allowed after 23 years of FIR registration – Trial court had convicted appellant Gajender @ Lambu under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment – High Court finds that the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with key prosecution witnesses turning hostile and motive alone found insufficient for conviction – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 2, 18, 19]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – P.W. 4 (Shiva) and P.W. 5 (Pawan Kumar) initially claimed to have seen accused and co-accused leaving deceased’s premises around the time of the murder – Both witnesses turned hostile during trial and denied making any such observations or knowing about any relationship between deceased and accused’s daughter – Their statements thus failed to corroborate prosecution's version [Paras 4, 18]

Circumstantial Evidence – Insufficient Chain – Recovery of letter (Ex.P-1) and diary (Ex.P-3) indicating alleged relationship between deceased and accused’s daughter – Diary recovered based on disclosure statement of accused – FSL confirmed handwriting belonged to deceased – Court held that even if motive was established, absence of complete and cogent chain of circumstances failed to conclusively prove guilt – Cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that motive alone or suspicion cannot substitute legal proof [Paras 12, 18]

Motive – Relationship of Deceased with Accused’s Daughter – Motive alleged was accused's anger upon seeing his daughter with the deceased – Court reaffirmed that motive, even if strong, cannot solely lead to conviction without a full chain of corroborative circumstances pointing exclusively to the accused’s guilt – Reference made to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and other landmark rulings [Paras 12–17]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant Gajender @ Lambu acquitted – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 19, 20]

Bail - Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand for Bribe – Prima Facie Allegations Based on Trap and DVR Evidence – Bail Granted – Petitioner alleged to have demanded and partially accepted bribe to help fabricate documents in a drug case – Trap failed as petitioner fled the spot, destroyed DVR, and allegedly threatened complainant – Court held that gravity of offence alone is not ground to deny bail when statutory conditions are met – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1–4, 17].

Triple Test for Bail – Flight Risk, Tampering, and Reoffending – Conditions Not Attracted – Though petitioner absconded for a month post-incident, he later surrendered voluntarily – No allegation of misuse during interim bail – Charge sheet filed and evidence safeguarded – Court found no ongoing threat to trial – Bail granted on satisfaction of triple test [Paras 13–15].

Past Conduct – Previous CBI Case Not a Bar – Petitioner Chargesheeted in Prior CBI Case Without Arrest – Court held mere pendency of another case does not justify denial of bail if present case circumstances support release – Separate FIR for abduction does not warrant arrest – Bail allowed subject to safeguards [Para 16].

Right to Speedy Trial – Delay in Conclusion of Trial Favours Bail – Petitioner in custody for over nine months – Trial likely to take time – Court reaffirms right to personal liberty and speedy trial as fundamental under Article 21 – Detention extended without trial held unjustified [Para 17].

Bail Conditions – Stringent Directions Imposed – Bail allowed on personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety – Travel restrictions, contact prohibition, and appearance before court mandated – Petitioner to keep mobile phone active and notify change of address [Para 17].

Civil Writ - Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Claim for Higher Rank – No Policy Exists – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought appointment as Sub-Inspector or Assistant Sub-Inspector claiming parity with other individuals whose family members served as spies and were imprisoned in Pakistan – Held: There is no express or implied policy of the Punjab Government supporting such appointment to a higher post – Petitioner was already appointed as Constable considering his background and qualifications – Court cannot direct for appointment to a higher post without legal backing – Claim rejected [Paras 6-8].

Compassionate Appointment – No Vested Right – Appointment Beyond Policy – The Court reiterated that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general recruitment rules and must strictly conform to the applicable policy – In absence of any policy providing for appointment to higher ranks based on the petitioner's circumstances, no direction can be issued to grant appointment beyond what was already given [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The writ petition challenging rejection of representations for appointment to higher post is dismissed – No direction can be issued in absence of any government policy enabling such appointment [Para 9].

Taxation Law - Customs Duty Exemption – Import of Inverter Units – Notification No. 12/2012-CE – Exemption Denied – Assessee imported standalone grid-tied solar inverters and claimed exemption from additional duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 – Department denied exemption on the ground that the imported item did not constitute a complete Solar Power Generating System – First Appellate Authority allowed the claim noting absence of proof of multiple-use and liberal interpretation in favour of assessee – CESTAT reversed the decision, holding that exemption was inapplicable to partial imports like standalone inverters unaccompanied by photovoltaic cells – Held: Since only inverters were imported without solar panels, the imported goods do not satisfy the requirement of being a complete Solar Power Generating System – Notification applies to systems, not components – No infirmity in Tribunal's reasoning – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-4].

Interpretation of Exemption Notification – Component vs. System – Liberal Construction – Limited Scope – Assessee claimed liberal construction of exemption notification to include inverter as part of system – Held: Exemption applies to full systems, not to partial components when imported alone – Liberal interpretation does not extend exemption beyond the express language of the notification – Component imported must form an integrated unit with others to qualify – Tribunal’s view affirmed [Paras 3-4].

Customs Appeals – Findings of Tribunal – No Interference Warranted – Concurrent Finding on Facts – Held: Tribunal rightly found that the essential photovoltaic component required to form a solar power generating system was absent – As imports did not meet the criteria of the notification, the Tribunal’s decision is well-reasoned – High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings based on admitted facts – Appeals merit no consideration [Para 4].

Decision – Assessee Not Entitled to Exemption – Appeals Dismissed – Held: Import of only inverters does not qualify as import of Solar Power Generating System – Benefit under Notification No. 12/2012-CE rightly denied – CESTAT’s orders upheld – All three appeals dismissed [Para 4].

Criminal Law – Quashing  – Sanction for Prosecution – Non-Application of Mind – Sanction Order Quashed – Applicants, Axis Bank officials, were prosecuted based on a sanction order issued by a corporate executive without proper application of mind – Sanction extended to IPC offences not sought or within authority’s purview – Held: Sanction vitiated by total non-application of mind and ultra vires [Paras 8-10, 41-44].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Distinction Between PC Act and IPC Sanctions – Prosecution Only Valid Under PC Act – Trial court failed to note that prosecution sanction was restricted to Section 19 of PC Act and not for IPC offences – Bank official lacked authority to sanction prosecution under IPC – Held: Discharge rejection erroneous, sanction invalid for IPC charges [Paras 21-23, 41-43].

Judicial Review – Standards for Valid Sanction – Speaking Order and Independent Mind – Court reiterated that sanction must reflect independent examination of facts, not mere reproduction of investigative materials – In present case, language of sanction reflected mechanical approval and omnibus scope – Held: Order invalid under settled legal principles [Paras 29-30, 43-44].

Evidence Law – Defective Counter Affidavit – Procedural Irregularity – Court noted CBI’s counter affidavit violated Rule 8 and 12 of Allahabad High Court Rules by mixing opinion with facts and failing to state sources – Held: Procedural defects overlooked in interest of justice, but contentions not persuasive [Paras 16-21].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed – Sanction order dated 02.02.2023 and discharge rejection order dated 28.07.2023 quashed – Discharge application of applicants allowed due to incurable defect in sanction for prosecution [Para 45].

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act – Section 27 – Independent Application for Return of Stree Dhan – Not Maintainable – Impugned Judgment Set Aside – Family Court passed order under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act independently, without pendency of any matrimonial proceeding under Sections 9 to 13B – Held: Section 27 does not create an independent cause of action – Application not maintainable – Judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a nullity and liable to be set aside [Paras 3–4, 8–9].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Secondary Evidence – Photocopy of Jewellery Receipts – Improper Reliance – Respondent relied solely on photocopies of jewellery bills as proof of stree dhan – No explanation offered for admitting secondary evidence – Appellant's failure to object not equivalent to admission – Held: Family Court erred in treating unproved photocopies as conclusive proof – Possession and ownership of stree dhan remained unestablished [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Allegations – Cross-Examination Admission Ignored – Perverse Finding – Respondent alleged that appellant forcibly snatched jewellery and threw her out on 24.11.2014 – Admitted in cross-examination that appellant was in Bombay on the date of incident – Family Court ignored this crucial admission – Held: Finding of possession of stree dhan by appellant is perverse and unsupported [Paras 6–7].

Appeal vs. Review – Maintainability – No Estoppel – Respondent contended that appellant's failure in review and non-challenge to execution barred appeal – Rejected – Held: Right to appeal is statutory under Section 96 CPC – Review failure does not bar appeal – Execution must fail where judgment is without jurisdiction [Para 11].

Maintenance Adjustment – Partial Execution Adjusted – Appellant paid ₹7,00,000 voluntarily and ₹2,10,000 recovered by execution – Held: Amounts to be adjusted towards prior maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC – No further liability remains for the same period [Para 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed without jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act is quashed – Execution proceedings dropped – Payments adjusted against earlier maintenance liability – Respondent’s claim under Section 27 held not independently enforceable [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Charges - Criminal Conspiracy – Framing of Charges – Lack of Evidence – Charges Quashed – Petitioners challenged framing of charges under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC for alleged forgery of donation receipts – High Court found no prima facie evidence showing any dishonest intention or specific role attributed to petitioners – Held: Participation in a resolution at AGM does not establish conspiracy; charge order set aside [Paras 16–18, 55].

Forgery – False Document – No Mens Rea – No Offence Made Out – Allegation that society office bearers forged receipts to mislead State Commission rejected – CFSL report failed to identify any of the petitioners as forgers – Held: No criminal intention proven; no offence under Sections 468 or 471 IPC made out [Paras 47–52].

Consumer Dispute – Donation Dispute – AGM Resolution Valid – Complaint regarding Rs. 21,000 donation payment contradicted by minutes of meeting showing donation was proposed and accepted at AGM by complainant’s father – Court held the decision to collect donation was society’s internal resolution, not coercion [Paras 42–44].

Criminal Law – Statement of Co-accused – Not Admissible – Supplementary statement of co-accused P.N. Singh implicating petitioners held inadmissible – Petitioners could not be held guilty based solely on uncorroborated statement of an accused – Held: Charges cannot stand without independent evidence [Paras 48–49].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Charges Framed Quashed – High Court allowed the revision petition, quashed order on charge dated 08.11.2011 and charges framed on 06.02.2012 – No evidence to show forgery, cheating or conspiracy by petitioners – Criminal proceedings terminated [Paras 55–56].

Service Law – Discharge from Service – Suppression of Criminal Cases – No Prior Notice – Violation of Natural Justice – Discharge Quashed – Petitioner appointed as Jail Warder pursuant to valid selection process – Discharged by order dated 02.02.2024 for alleged suppression of two criminal cases in attestation form – No prior show-cause notice issued – Held: Discharge order passed without inquiry or opportunity of hearing violates Article 311(2) and principles of natural justice – Such discharge is void ab initio [Paras 6–7, 15–17, 24].

Suppression of Facts – Attestation Form – No Knowledge of Pending Cases – Innocence Established – No Willful Suppression – Petitioner obtained character certificate from DSP showing no adverse report – Criminal cases cited by State found to have concluded in his favour – One withdrawn, in other name dropped from chargesheet – Held: No evidence to prove petitioner had knowledge of cases – Suppression not established – Allegation baseless [Paras 8–10, 18–21].

Judicial Review – Employment Termination – Scope and Grounds – Arbitrary and Illegal Action Interdicted – High Court reiterates that suppression of criminal involvement must be intentional and based on knowledge – State failed to prove petitioner was aware of pendency or required to disclose – Discharge held unreasonable and disproportionate [Paras 19–20].

Precedents – Avtar Singh v. Union of India – Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. – Applied – Court applies principles laid down in Avtar Singh (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Ravindra Kumar (2024) 5 SCC 264 – Absence of knowledge of pending criminal case cannot be construed as suppression – Decision to discharge unsustainable [Paras 22–23].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Discharge Order Dated 02.02.2024 and Rejection Order Dated 18.07.2024 Quashed – Petitioner to Be Reinstated With Full Benefits – Court directs reinstatement with all service and financial benefits – Period of discharge to be treated as “On Duty” – Entire exercise to be completed within two months [Para 24].

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheques – Failure to Prove Debt – Acquittal Upheld - The complainant alleged a friendly loan of ₹8.5 lakhs was given and cheques were dishonoured – Respondent admitted signature on cheques but claimed they were issued in a different context – Court held that complainant failed to establish existence of legally recoverable debt – No documentary proof of loan or financial capacity – Presumption under Section 139 rebutted – Leave to appeal dismissed [Paras 6–25].

Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 N.I. Act – Nature and Rebuttal – Court clarified that presumption of consideration is rebuttable – Referred decisions emphasized that accused need not conclusively prove innocence but can rebut presumption by material creating reasonable doubt – Held: Onus was not discharged by complainant to prove foundational facts for invoking presumption [Paras 17–22].

Proof of Financial Capacity – Lack of Evidence – Burden Not Discharged - Complainant failed to provide any transaction date or reliable financial documents to show her ability to lend ₹8.5 lakhs – Bank statements failed to reflect such capacity – Court noted improbability of such a large loan without documentation – Complaint rightly dismissed [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Acquittal Affirmed - Leave to appeal was declined on the ground that the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt – Respondent's acquittal under Section 138 N.I. Act upheld [Para 26].