Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Conviction Converted to Section 304 Part-II IPC - The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to establish that the appellant murdered the deceased due to an alleged illicit relationship with the acquitted co-accused – The appellant suffered injuries during the incident, and the evidence suggested a sudden quarrel – The prosecution failed to prove premeditation, and the attack was not indiscriminate or cruel – Held: The case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight in heat of passion), warranting conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC [Paras 32-33].

Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Chain of Events Must Be Complete - The conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence – The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, requiring a complete chain of circumstances ruling out any other hypothesis – The prosecution failed to conclusively establish motive, and the discovery of the weapon was delayed – Held: Prosecution failed to meet the standard of proof for a murder conviction [Paras 5-6].

Injuries on the Accused – Scuffle Before the Incident – Benefit of Doubt Given - The medical evidence established that the appellant suffered injuries, including an incised wound possibly caused by a knife – The appellant reported a scuffle when seeking medical treatment – This suggested a mutual fight rather than a premeditated attack – Held: The presence of injuries on the accused supports the defense claim of a sudden fight, justifying conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC [Paras 17-19].

Discovery of Weapon – Delay in Recovery – Doubt on Prosecution Case - The alleged discovery of the murder weapon (knife) occurred nine days after the appellant's arrest – The Court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of investigating officers regarding the weapon's location – The prosecution failed to explain how the weapon was concealed in another person’s land – Held: Delay in recovery raises reasonable doubt, weakening the prosecution’s case [Para 21].

Decision – Conviction Modified – Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone - The Court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC – Considering that the appellant had already undergone six years and 17 days of imprisonment, the sentence was limited to time served – Held: Appeal partly allowed, conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside, appellant convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and released [Paras 32-33].

Service Law – Appointment as Aanganwadi Worker – Eligibility for BPL Bonus Marks – Petitioner’s appointment was annulled by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, on the ground that she erroneously received 10 bonus marks for BPL Category – The petitioner relied on a BPL card issued in the name of her co-sister (Jethani), which was later found to contain overwriting – Held: BPL status must be proved by documents prior to the advertisement date, and the petitioner failed to establish eligibility at the relevant time – No interference warranted [Paras 10-16].

Service Law – BPL Category Proof – Acceptable Documents – As per guidelines dated 10.07.2007, an applicant must establish BPL status through (i) BPL Survey List, (ii) BPL Ration Card issued in the name of husband, father, or father-in-law, or (iii) certificate issued by SDM/Tahsildar – The petitioner’s reliance on a co-sister’s BPL card was not acceptable evidence under the guidelines – Held: Petitioner not entitled to bonus marks based on such a document [Paras 11-12].

Administrative Law – Overwriting in BPL Card – Credibility of Documents – The Scrutiny Committee initially denied BPL status to the petitioner due to overwriting in the BPL card – The Commissioner found that the modifications were suspicious and lacked official authentication – Held: Documentary manipulation cannot be the basis for claiming bonus marks [Paras 4-5].

Administrative Law – Validity of Documents Issued After Advertisement – As per Sunita Yadav (supra), documents generated after the advertisement date (06.10.2016) cannot be considered – The petitioner’s Samagra ID was updated post-advertisement (on 17.10.2016), making it ineligible for proving BPL status – Held: Selection committee correctly disqualified petitioner [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The order of the Commissioner, Rewa Division, is upheld – Petitioner not eligible for BPL bonus marks – Writ petition dismissed [Para 17].
 

Bail in NDPS Cases – Section 37 NDPS Act – Prolonged Pre-Trial Custody – Bail Granted - The petitioner was accused of supplying narcotic drugs based on the disclosure statement of co-accused and call detail records – The prosecution failed to produce independent corroborative evidence such as recovery from the petitioner – The Supreme Court has granted bail in similar cases involving prolonged incarceration – Held: Given that the petitioner has spent over a year in custody and considering judicial precedents, bail is granted [Paras 14-18].

Disclosure Statements under NDPS Act – No Independent Corroboration – Insufficient to Deny Bail - The petitioner’s implication was based solely on the disclosure statements of co-accused – Relying on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the Court held that such statements made to police officers are inadmissible as evidence – Held: Mere disclosure statements without recovery do not satisfy the stringent requirements of Section 37 NDPS Act, justifying bail [Paras 10-11].

Call Detail Records – Mere Telephonic Conversations Do Not Prove Guilt – No Direct Evidence of Drug Trade - The prosecution relied on call detail records showing conversations between the petitioner and the co-accused – The petitioner did not explain these calls – The Court held that call records, without further evidence linking them to illegal activities, do not conclusively establish guilt – Held: Petitioner entitled to bail as prosecution failed to meet the burden under Section 37 NDPS Act [Para 9].

Right to Speedy Trial – Fundamental Right Under Article 21 – Bail Granted on Grounds of Delay - The petitioner had been in custody for over a year, with no substantial progress in trial – The Court relied on Tajmul SK v. State of West Bengal, CrA 3047-2024, where prolonged incarceration without trial commencement was held to justify bail – Held: Bail granted as further pre-trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 16-17].

Decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court – Bail Granted with Conditions - The Court allowed the bail application, imposing conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensuring the petitioner’s availability for trial – The petitioner was required to furnish personal identification details and was restricted from possessing firearms until acquittal – Held: Petition allowed, bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 20-30].

Taxation Law - Entry Tax – Constitutional validity of the West Bengal Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2012– Single Judge’s Judgment Set Aside – The Single Judge, relying on overruled precedents, declared the Entry Tax Act, 2012 unconstitutional—The Supreme Court in Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana held that the compensatory tax theory was not a valid basis for striking down entry tax laws—Held: The Single Judge’s judgment, based on overruled precedents, cannot survive—The Entry Tax Act, 2012 is valid [Paras 56-63].

Effect of Stay Order – Entry Tax Act Remained in Force Pending Appeal – The Single Judge granted a six-week stay on his own judgment—The Division Bench, in appeal, allowed assessment proceedings under the Act to continue—Held: The Entry Tax Act, 2012 remained in force despite the Single Judge’s decision—The retrospective amendments via the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 were enacted when the Act was still operational, making them valid [Paras 64-73].

Retrospective Amendment – Power of State Legislature – Validity of 2017 Amendment Act – The West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 retrospectively amended the Entry Tax Act, 2012 to remove alleged discriminatory provisions—Assessees contended that retrospective amendment was unconstitutional—Held: The legislature has the power to enact retrospective laws, provided they are not unduly oppressive—No evidence of oppressive taxation was produced—Retrospective amendments were upheld [Paras 74-88].

Discriminatory Taxation – Onus on Assessees – Opportunity to Challenge Specific Discrimination – The Supreme Court held that specific discrimination claims must be adjudicated individually—Held: Assessees who wish to challenge the Entry Tax as discriminatory must file fresh proceedings before the appropriate forum with necessary factual pleadings [Paras 81-83].

Validation Clause – Section 6 of West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 – Legality – The amendment retrospectively validated assessments made under the Entry Tax Act, 2012—Held: A legislative validation act is permissible provided it does not override judicial decisions without curing the defect—The 2017 amendments properly addressed previous concerns and were upheld [Paras 79-80].

Decision: The appeals of the State of West Bengal are allowed. The judgment of the Single Judge dated June 24, 2013, is set aside. The orders of the Tribunal striking down the 2017 amendments are set aside. The Entry Tax Act, 2012, and its amendments via the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017, are upheld as valid. Assessees are permitted to challenge specific instances of discrimination in individual proceedings. All pending applications in these appeals and writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
 

Bail under NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 37 – Twin Conditions to Be Met – The petitioner sought bail in an NDPS Act case involving commercial quantity – Held: Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, two conditions must be satisfied before granting bail – (i) The Court must hear the Public Prosecutor, and (ii) There must be reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offense while on bail – The burden lies on the accused to satisfy these conditions [Paras 6-7].

Evidentiary Value of Disclosure Statements – No Discovery of Fact – Petitioner Arraigned Solely on Co-Accused’s Disclosure – The petitioner was implicated based on disclosure statements of co-accused without any independent recovery linking him to the contraband – Held: As per Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, disclosure statements alone, without any corroborative material, cannot be the sole basis for conviction – In the absence of discovery of fact, no strong prima facie case is made out against the petitioner [Paras 9-11].

Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration – Consideration for Bail – Petitioner in Custody for Over One Year – The petitioner had been in custody for 1 year, 2 months, and 17 days – Held: Prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution – The Supreme Court in Chitta Biswas v. State of West Bengal, CrA 245-2020, and several other cases has granted bail in NDPS cases based on prolonged custody – Given the delay in trial and lack of direct recovery from the petitioner, bail granted [Paras 13-16].

Judicial Precedents Supporting Bail in Similar Cases – Several Supreme Court Rulings Considered – The Court referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions where bail was granted in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, particularly when custody was prolonged – Held: The present case is similar to those precedents, justifying bail under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 15-18].

Bail Conditions – Restrictions Imposed to Ensure Compliance – The petitioner directed to surrender all firearms and not tamper with evidence – Held: Bail conditions imposed to prevent reoffending and ensure a fair trial – Violation of conditions may result in cancellation of bail [Paras 24-28].

Decision – Bail Granted – Considering prolonged custody, absence of direct recovery, and judicial precedents favoring bail in similar cases, the petitioner was granted bail subject to conditions – Petition allowed [Paras 19-31].
 

Limitation Law – Condonation of Delay – Family Court Appeal – Held: Delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is not inordinate – The explanation provided by the applicant is reasonable – Courts must adopt a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach in matrimonial matters – Delay condoned [Paras 10, 13, 24].

Limitation Law – Family Courts Act vs. Hindu Marriage Act – Inconsistency in Limitation Period – Held: The period of limitation for filing an appeal under the Family Courts Act remains 30 days, while under the amended Hindu Marriage Act, it is 90 days – Lack of uniformity causes prejudice to litigants – Desirable for a uniform limitation period for appeals in matrimonial matters [Paras 18-21].

Legal Interpretation – Supreme Court and High Court Precedents – Held: Courts should adopt a liberal approach in matrimonial disputes – Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (AIR 2002 SC 591), the inconsistency in limitation periods needs legislative intervention – The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shivram Dodanna Shetty v. Sharmila Shivram Shetty (2017(1) Mh.LJ) held that the 90-day limitation should apply uniformly [Paras 16, 22-23].

Decision – Delay condoned – Appeal directed to be registered and listed for admission – Recommendation for legislative intervention to harmonize limitation periods under the Family Courts Act and Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 24-26].
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Rule Against Reopening Same Issue Twice – The petitioner’s income for AY 2017-18 was previously reassessed under Section 147 read with Section 144B based on allegations of undervaluation of shares – The assessment order passed on 29.03.2022 accepted the petitioner’s explanation and made no additions – The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated fresh reassessment proceedings on 28.03.2024, relying on the same facts and assumptions – Held: Reopening the assessment for the same issue is impermissible – The impugned order and notice are quashed [Paras 1-7, 19-21, 24-25].

Income Tax – Reassessment Based on New Information – Absence of Fresh Tangible Material – The AO claimed that fresh information was received indicating that the petitioner had transferred the entire Friends Colony property through a sale of shares – The petitioner demonstrated that TREPL, the company in question, owned only two floors and not the entire property – No new material was provided by the AO to contradict the petitioner’s position – Held: In absence of new tangible material, reopening of assessment is invalid [Paras 16-22].

Income Tax – Requirement to Consider Assessee’s Reply Before Passing Reassessment Order – Section 148A(d), Income Tax Act – The petitioner provided detailed replies to both the earlier and latest reassessment proceedings, explaining that TREPL owned only two floors of the Friends Colony property – The AO disregarded this explanation and proceeded with reassessment – Held: Failure to consider the assessee’s reply before passing an order under Section 148A(d) renders the reassessment order unsustainable [Paras 23-24].

Decision: The impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and the impugned notice dated 22.04.2024 issued under Section 148 are set aside – Reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 quashed as they were based on the same issue previously adjudicated – Court refrains from examining the limitation issue [Paras 25-27].
 

Civil Law - Will – Burden of Proof – Right to Lead Rebuttal Evidence – The petitioner, as defendant No.1, claimed ownership based on a Will dated 29.06.2000 – The onus to prove the execution of the Will was on the petitioner – Once the defendant led evidence, the plaintiff had the right to rebut the same – Held: The plaintiff’s affidavit in rebuttal was correctly admitted by the trial court – No ground to discard the same [Paras 6, 9].

Civil Procedure – Order of Leading Evidence – Plaintiff’s Right to Rebut Evidence of Will Execution – It is a settled law that the propounder of a Will must first prove its execution before the burden shifts to the objector – The trial court correctly relied on judicial precedent to allow rebuttal evidence – Held: The trial court’s order does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution [Paras 7-8].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference Under Article 227 – The High Court’s power of supervision under Article 227 is to correct jurisdictional errors and gross injustice – Held: The impugned order is well-reasoned and does not suffer from legal infirmities – No interference warranted [Paras 10].

Decision: The impugned order dated 13.09.2024, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, is upheld – The present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for lack of merit [Para 10].

Civil Law - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment of Pleadings – Post-Trial Amendment – Due Diligence Requirement – Plaintiffs sought amendment after trial commenced, contending that they discovered fraud in a prior decree only when documents were marked in another suit—Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish due diligence as the defendants had disclosed all relevant documents in their written statement filed in 2017—Amendment impermissible under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC [Paras 15-16].

Fraud Allegation in Pending Suit – Change of Cause of Action – Amendment sought to challenge the binding nature of a decree in O.S. No. 44 of 1984 on grounds of fraud—Held: The proposed amendment introduced a new dimension and changed the nature of the suit—Allowing such an amendment would prejudice the defendants and cannot be permitted under law [Paras 17, 19].

Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents on Amendments – Court referred to Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2022) regarding conditions under which amendments can be allowed—Held: The amendment failed to satisfy the conditions as it raised a time-barred claim, changed the nature of the suit, and was sought belatedly without due diligence [Para 18].

Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Trial court’s rejection of amendment found to be proper—Held: No illegality or irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution—Civil Revision Petition dismissed [Para 20].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Trial Court’s rejection of amendment upheld – Amendment held impermissible due to lack of due diligence and introduction of a new cause of action [Paras 20-21].