Criminal Law - Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Reversed – Acquittal – The appellant was convicted for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence including recovery of blood-stained clothes and forensic findings – No eyewitness or motive was established – Held: The prosecution failed to prove a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances to conclusively link the accused to the crime – Conviction set aside [Paras 7-19].

Proof of Guilt – Panchsheel Principles – Circumstantial Evidence – Incomplete Chain – The Court reiterated that the five principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda must be fully met for conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Held: The prosecution failed to exclude all other hypotheses and establish a consistent and conclusive chain – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 7-8, 18-19].

Forensic Evidence – Blood Group Analysis – Lack of Correlation – Though FSL found human blood of Group “A” on seized items and accused’s clothes, the prosecution did not prove the blood group of the deceased or accused – Held: Forensic results were inconclusive and could not independently support conviction [Para 12].

Seizure Evidence – Lack of Independent Witnesses – Procedural Lapses – Recovery of blood-stained articles and accused’s clothes occurred without any neutral public witness despite being in public places – Held: Absence of independent corroboration and lapses in evidence handling undermined prosecution’s case [Paras 10-11, 13].

Motive – Absence of Proven Motive – Relevance in Circumstantial Cases – No enmity or motive was attributed to the accused – Held: While motive is not indispensable, in circumstantial cases its absence becomes a critical gap – Weakens prosecution narrative [Para 17].

Appellate Power – Section 386(b)(i) CrPC – Power to Acquit – The Court invoked its power under Section 386(b)(i) CrPC to reverse the conviction – Held: As the accused had already undergone over 13 years of actual custody and prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal was warranted [Paras 20-23].

Final Judgment – Appeal Allowed – Acquittal Ordered – Section 302 IPC – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Accused-appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case – Personal and surety bonds directed under Section 437-A CrPC [Paras 23-24].

Civil Law - Adverse Possession – Title Denial via Unregistered Sale Deed – No Adverse Possession Established – The defendant claimed ownership by an unregistered sale deed dated 15/11/1973 and sought to establish adverse possession from that date – Held: An unregistered sale deed for consideration above Rs.100 does not confer ownership, and possession under such transaction is permissive, not hostile – Defendant failed to plead or prove open and hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner – Adverse possession cannot be claimed while simultaneously denying true owner’s title – Judgment and decree of courts below set aside [Paras 3, 9, 15-17].

Suit for Possession – No Declaration of Title Required – Title Not Disputed – Plaintiff’s Title Admitted by Defendant – Defendant’s defence based on purchase from plaintiff through unregistered sale deed constitutes admission of plaintiff’s ownership – Held: In such cases, even without a declaration of title, a suit for possession is maintainable [Para 18].

Eviction and Injunction – Plaintiff Entitled to Relief – Defendant Directed to Vacate – Appeal Allowed – Defendant permanently restrained from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff – Trial Court and Appellate Court judgments reversed – Suit decreed [Paras 20-22].

Maintenance Claim – Second Marriage with Deceased Husband’s Brother – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Dismissal Set Aside – Revision Allowed – Trial court dismissed maintenance claim of widow and her two minor children on ground that her marriage with deceased husband’s brother (respondent) was not proved – Departmental inquiry in police service found respondent guilty of bigamy and recorded statements of respondent and his first wife admitting second marriage with revisionist – Village Pradhan’s certificate, Aadhaar and other records showed respondent as husband – Held: In light of SC precedents (Chanmuniya, Kamala, N. Usha Rani, Badshah), term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to be given broad interpretation to prevent destitution – Strict proof of marriage not a precondition when parties cohabited as husband and wife – Finding of trial court based on hyper-technical approach unsustainable – Matter remitted for fresh decision treating revisionist as wife – Interim maintenance of ₹8,000/month awarded to revisionist [Paras 29-34].

Criminal Law - Seizure of Vehicles – Supardari - Jurisdiction of District Collector – Validity Upheld – Petitioners challenged the orders of District Collector Banswara releasing vehicles seized under the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, contending lack of jurisdiction and necessity of approaching Magistrate – Held: District Collector is competent authority under Section 6-A of the 1995 Act and acts as quasi-judicial authority – His jurisdiction to order interim custody or release of vehicles is valid and does not require prior confiscation proceedings [Paras 1, 5, 12, 13].

Powers of District Collector – Quasi-Judicial Nature – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Court reaffirmed that District Collector has exclusive jurisdiction to decide matters under Section 6-A, including interim release or confiscation of vehicles used in offences under the Act – Such power is distinct from criminal jurisdiction and not amenable to interference under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 11–12].

Supurdginama – Permissibility Without Confiscation – Held Permissible – Even in absence of confiscation proceedings, interim release of vehicles on supurdginama with proper safeguards (like undertakings and non-transfer of vehicles) is valid – Prevents deterioration of vehicles and loss to both owners and State [Paras 11–14].

Confiscation Proceedings – Procedure Under Section 6-A – Elaborate Safeguards – The District Collector must provide opportunity of hearing to vehicle owners, ensure good faith, and may impose fine in lieu of confiscation – Orders of release passed with such consideration were found legal and reasoned [Paras 10–12].

Precedents – Reliance on Coordinate Bench – Cited Cases – The Court relied upon earlier ruling in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 (3) Cr.L.R. (RAJ) 1196, and also Chhatarpal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.490/2021, as well as relevant Supreme Court decisions [Paras 6, 8, 11].

Remedies – Recommendation for Appellate Provision – While no statutory appeal exists under Section 6-A, Court recommended the State Legislature to consider introducing an appellate remedy, similar to provisions under Rajasthan Excise Act and Section 7 of the Bovine Act [Para 11].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Court upheld validity of the District Collector's orders granting interim release of vehicles and dismissed the writ petitions – Directed petitioners to submit undertakings to produce vehicles during trial and not create third-party rights – Clarified that Magistrate remains empowered under 1960 Act and Rules of 2016 [Paras 14–16].

Criminal Law - Defamation – Section 199 Cr.P.C. – No Bar to Magistrate's Direction under Section 155(2) – Petition Dismissed - Petitioner challenged the registration of NCR and filing of chargesheet under Section 500 IPC based on the ground that defamation offences under Chapter XXI IPC can only be prosecuted by private complaint under Section 199 Cr.P.C. – Held: Section 199 bars registration of FIR or investigation through Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., but does not bar investigation initiated under a Magistrate’s direction under Section 155(2) for non-cognizable offences – Hence, no illegality found in process [Paras 6-7.1].

Magisterial Powers – Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. – Magistrate Can Direct Investigation in Non-Cognizable Cases – Validity Upheld - The Court affirmed the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to direct registration and investigation in non-cognizable offences – Once legal opinion confirmed prima facie defamation, the Magistrate’s direction was valid – NCR and chargesheet lawfully filed [Paras 6, 6.1, 7].

Distinction Between Section 155(2) and 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Defamation Cases – FIR vs. NCR - The petitioner wrongly relied on precedents that bar FIR in defamation cases via Section 156(3) – Held: Present case arose from NCR registered under Section 155(2) and not FIR under Section 156(3); thus, the bar under Section 199 Cr.P.C. does not apply [Paras 7-7.1].

*Decision – Petition Dismissed – Magistrate's Order and NCR Upheld – No Illegality Found - The Court held that the direction issued by the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to register NCR and conduct investigation was lawful – Filing of chargesheet under Section 500 IPC was valid – Petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 8].

Bar Association Election – Interim Stay by Bar Council of India – Writ Petition for Recount of Votes – Petition Disposed – The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana had ordered a recount of votes in the election for President, District Bar Association, Chandigarh—Bar Council of India stayed the recount pending revision—Petitioner approached High Court seeking relief—High Court declined to enter merits and directed Bar Council of India to dispose of revision petition within two weeks, ensuring prompt transmission of records by all concerned—Petitioner assured presence during hearing before BCI [Paras 1–3].

Criminal Writ Law - Mental Illness and Criminal Trial – Resumption of Trial under Section 331 & 332 Cr.P.C – Limited Enquiry Required – Violation of Natural Justice – Partially Allowed - After being declared unfit to stand trial under Section 329 Cr.P.C due to paranoid schizophrenia, the accused was later found fit for trial following treatment – Sessions Court proceeded with framing charges based on a medical report but without affording the accused or his representative an opportunity to cross-examine the psychiatrist or present contrary evidence – Held: Trial Court must conduct a limited enquiry, including permitting cross-examination of the psychiatrist and consideration of any additional evidence before deciding on resumption of trial – Matter remanded to Sessions Court for fresh decision [Paras 6–14, 19].

Criminal Procedure – Section 329 Cr.P.C – Requirement of Judicial Satisfaction – Not Met – Procedural Lapse Found – The Sessions Court acted solely on the medical report without conducting a proper enquiry into the accused’s capacity to make his defence – No finding recorded on capability – Failure to allow cross-examination of medical expert vitiated the process – Sessions Court directed to reconsider the matter in compliance with Sections 329, 331, and 332 Cr.P.C [Paras 7–14].

Mental Healthcare Act – Section 105 – Reference to Mental Health Review Board Not Mandatory – Cr.P.C Framework Prevails - The petitioner contended that failure to refer the issue to the Mental Health Review Board under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 vitiated proceedings – Held: Sections 328 and 329 Cr.P.C provide a more detailed and specialised framework for assessing the accused’s mental fitness to stand trial – Therefore, reference under Section 105 is not mandatory if Cr.P.C procedures are fully complied with [Paras 15–18].

Decision – Petition Partially Allowed – Sessions Court Directed to Permit Cross-examination of Psychiatrist and Allow Evidence by Petitioner – Sessions Court to Decide Afresh Whether Trial May Proceed – Procedural Safeguards Under Cr.P.C Must Be Observed [Para 19].

Civil Law - Secondary Evidence – Will – Sections 65 & 66 Evidence Act – Order Allowing Secondary Evidence Set Aside – Trial court permitted plaintiff to lead secondary evidence of registered Will without prior notice under Section 66 to Halqa Patwari alleged to have custody of document—Halqa Patwari earlier impleaded as defendant but later deleted from array of parties—Petitioner objected citing mandatory notice requirement—Respondent conceded to setting aside with liberty to move fresh application—High Court allowed revision, set aside impugned order, granted liberty to file fresh application for proving Will in accordance with law [Paras 2–4].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control Act – Executability of Eviction Decree – Multinational Company Sub-lessee – Jurisdiction Upheld – The petitioner, a multinational company, challenged the execution of eviction decrees on the ground that premises were exempt under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Held: The exemption is qua the premises let or sub-let lawfully – In the absence of lawful subletting, and where tenancy was terminated due to non-user and subletting by original tenant, the Small Causes Court retained jurisdiction – Executing Court rightly refused to declare decree null and void [Paras 6.4, 6.8, 31-35, 38-39].

Execution – Scope of Challenge – Nullity of Decree – Limited Grounds – The Court reiterated that executing courts can declare a decree null and void only when there is inherent lack of jurisdiction – Held: In this case, decree was passed by a court having jurisdiction over landlord-tenant matters – Petitioner is barred from changing stance post-decree execution proceedings – No inherent lack of jurisdiction found [Paras 16-18, 39-40].

Tenant and Sub-tenant – Contradictory Stand – Estoppel – Petitioner Denied Protection Under Rent Act, Then Claimed Exemption – Not Permissible – Before the Trial Court, the petitioner had denied being in exclusive possession and claimed protection under the Rent Act – Later, in execution proceedings, sought to argue that the Act does not apply – Held: Petitioner estopped from raising contrary plea at belated stage – Such volte-face undermines judicial process [Paras 11, 33-34].

Interpretation – Exemption Under Section 3(1)(b) – Applies to Lawfully Let or Sub-let Premises – Cannot Be Used to Circumvent Rent Act – Held: Section 3(1)(b) applies only to premises let or sub-let lawfully – Allowing unlawful subletting to invoke exemption would render protections of the Rent Act meaningless – Such interpretation rejected [Paras 36-38].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Executing Court Order Sustained – Writ Petitions dismissed – No interference warranted with orders upholding decree and possession warrants – Rule discharged with no order as to costs [Paras 41-42].