Criminal Law - Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act & Section 7 and 25 of the Arms Act – Acquittal Upheld – Arms and Explosives Case – Prosecution Version Unreliable – The appeal challenged the judgment dated 02.01.2014 passed by the Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Jammu, acquitting the respondents of charges under the Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, and RPC – The trial court found material contradictions in the prosecution’s narrative regarding arrest, disclosure, and recovery of arms – The High Court held that the trial court’s findings were plausible, based on proper appreciation of evidence – Held: No perversity found – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed [Paras 1, 44-50].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles for Interference – No Perverse Findings – Trial Court View Held Plausible – The High Court reiterated that unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or impossible, the appellate court cannot interfere with a judgment of acquittal merely on an alternate appraisal of evidence – Held: Trial court's view was reasonable and supported by material contradictions and lack of credible evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 45-47, 50].

Recovery of Arms and Explosives – Doubtful Disclosure – Contradictions in Prosecution – Prosecution failed to establish that disclosure statements were made voluntarily and in presence of credible witnesses – Several material witnesses turned hostile and contradicted each other – Held: Recovery process doubtful; prosecution case unreliable [Paras 28-35, 48-49].

Credibility of Witnesses – All Police Officials – Absence of Independent Witnesses – Prosecution failed to associate civilian witnesses despite availability – Several official witnesses contradicted each other regarding arrest, disclosure, and recovery – Held: Non-association of independent witnesses and contradictions rendered evidence untrustworthy [Paras 16-18, 43].

Arrest and Disclosure – Contradictory Testimonies – Unclear Narrative – Discrepancies in prosecution version whether accused were walking or travelling, whether they were taken to police station or directly to recovery site – Held: Inconsistencies undermined reliability of prosecution version [Paras 21-27].

Chain of Custody and Seizure – Not Proved – No Evidence of Sealing, Safe Custody – Prosecution failed to prove how arms and explosives were secured, sealed, or stored – Magistrate who supervised sealing not examined – Held: Investigation lacked integrity and failed legal standards [Paras 39-42].

Final Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – High Court held that the trial court’s view was reasonable and no ground existed to interfere – Judgment of acquittal dated 02.01.2014 sustained – Appeal dismissed [Paras 50-51].

Civil Procedure – Closure of Evidence – Opportunity Granted Subject to Costs – Revision Partly Allowed – The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order closing evidence after petitioner failed to lead entire evidence, citing communication gap with counsel – The High Court found merit in granting limited indulgence due to the nature of the suit (possession and injunction) where no interim injunction existed – Held: Petitioner granted two effective opportunities to complete evidence subject to deposit of ₹30,000/- as costs payable to respondents [Paras 1-3].

Prejudice in Possession Suit – No Injunction in Favour of Petitioner – Delay Could Be Prejudicial – The Court noted absence of any interim relief in petitioner’s favour, which made delay detrimental to petitioner’s interests – Held: Opportunity granted on payment of costs to avoid irreparable prejudice [Para 3].

No Notice Issued to Respondents – Expeditious Disposal Considered Paramount – The Court refrained from issuing notice of motion to respondents to avoid further delay in suit proceedings and unwarranted expenses for respondents – Held: Order subject to respondents’ right to seek recall if any false statement detected [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Order Closing Evidence Set Aside – Costs Imposed – The Court allowed the revision petition partly, set aside the order closing evidence, and allowed two opportunities to lead evidence at petitioner’s responsibility, subject to deposit of ₹30,000/- payable equally to respondents, failing which the petition to stand dismissed [Paras 3-5].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Proof of Will and Gift Deeds – Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 Evidence Act – Rejection Upheld – Plaintiff sought partition of ancestral properties claiming intestate succession after mother’s death – Defendants relied on Will and two settlement deeds – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected Will and settlement deeds on grounds of non-proof in law, absence of attesting witness examination, and internal inconsistencies – Held: Courts correctly applied law, mandatory requirements of execution and attestation of Will and settlements not satisfied, partition granted in favour of plaintiff [Paras 1-24].

Suspicious Circumstances – Misdescription in Will – Disinheritance Invalidated – Will described son as minor when major, raising serious doubt on mental awareness of testatrix – Courts rightly held such misdescription rendered Will suspicious – Onus on propounders to dispel suspicion not discharged – Held: Non-compliance with proof requirements and suspicious circumstances rightly led to rejection of Will – Partition rightly decreed [Paras 25].

Settlement Deeds – Lack of Proof – Rights Not Established – Settlement deeds relied upon by defendants were not proved through attesting witnesses and formal legal requirements – Mere possession or enjoyment under such deeds insufficient to establish title when challenged – Held: Courts correctly disregarded unproven settlement deeds, no legal right conferred thereby [Paras 26-28].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Limited Interference – Held: Under Section 100 CPC, High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings unless substantial question of law arises – In absence of procedural error or perversity, concurrent findings stand affirmed – Appeal dismissed [Paras 29].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld lower courts’ judgment granting 1/3rd share each to parties in A and C schedule properties, dismissing Will and settlement deeds for want of legal proof – Appeal dismissed without costs [Para 29].

Taxation Law – Recovery of Tax - GST Liability – Liability of Retired Partner – Section 90 of CGST Act – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner challenged a demand of Rs. 37,84,228/- and land attachment initiated against him under GST laws, arguing he had retired from the partnership firm on 20.04.2021 and was no longer responsible – The Court held that under Section 90 of the CGST Act, a partner remains jointly and severally liable until written intimation of retirement is furnished to the Commissioner – No timely intimation was made – Petitioner's continued reflection as active partner in GST records justified proceedings against him [Paras 5, 10-14].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Availability of Statutory Appeal under Section 107 of PGST Act – Writ Not Entertained – The Court observed that petitioner had an efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the PGST Act to challenge the assessment and recovery proceedings – Reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where statutory remedies exist unless exceptional circumstances are shown – No such circumstances made out [Para 5].

Land Attachment – Validity of Red Entry – Recovery Action Under Section 79 of PGST Act – Upheld – Petitioner's claim that he learned of land attachment only later and did not consent to it was held irrelevant in light of non-compliance with statutory requirements – The Department’s actions in seeking red entry and initiating recovery under DRC-09 and related provisions were found lawful [Paras 3, 6, 8].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Liberty Granted – The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law [Para 16].

Civil Law - Title and Recovery of Possession – Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act - Dar Raiyati Interest – Right Not Heritable – Adverse Possession Plea Rejected – The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of right, title and possession over raiyati land, claiming defendants, recorded as sikmi dakhaldars, had no inheritable rights – Trial Court dismissed the suit relying on limitation and adverse possession – The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s finding, holding that Sikmi rights are not inheritable without proof of custom – Second appeal dismissed confirming the Appellate Court's findings that the defendants are mere trespassers – Provisions of the C.N.T. Act and Specific Relief Act do not bar such suits by recorded raiyats – Held: Entry in records shows plaintiffs as rightful raiyats and defendants' occupation is unauthorized [Paras 3-23].

Adverse Possession – No Hostile Animus Established – Continuous Possession Insufficient – The defendants claimed long possession for 70-75 years and heritable sikmi rights by custom – Court held possession alone does not constitute adverse possession – There was no hostile assertion against plaintiffs nor claim of ownership adverse to them – Revenue records remained unchanged reflecting plaintiffs' title – Held: No adverse possession established, defendants liable to be ejected [Paras 9, 17-21].

Suit Maintainability – Bar under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and Section 46(1)(a) of C.N.T. Act – Clarified – The Court held that a recorded raiyat is entitled to sue for recovery of possession from unauthorized occupants despite remarks column entries showing sikmi rights – Suit is not barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act or Section 46 of C.N.T. Act as no lease exceeding five years was in question – Notice under Section 106 T.P. Act is not necessary in cases of unauthorized possession – Held: Plaintiffs' suit maintainable [Paras 7, 22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court upheld – Defendants are trespassers liable to be evicted from suit land – No interference warranted in concurrent findings on title and possession in favor of plaintiffs [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law - DNA Testing in Rape Case – Quashing of Sessions Court Order – Mandatory DNA Sampling Upheld – The petitioner, prosecutrix, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which had set aside the Magistrate’s order permitting DNA sampling of Respondent No.2 in a case registered under Section 376 IPC. The Delhi High Court held that the Sessions Court had erroneously applied the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act despite clear evidence of separation between the prosecutrix and her husband. It was concluded that in cases involving allegations of rape, DNA examination under Section 53A Cr.P.C. is mandatory and indispensable for a fair investigation. The Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and directed Respondent No.2 to provide his blood sample for DNA testing within fifteen days. The Court also permitted use of reasonable force if the accused declined or resisted [Paras 1-99].

Collection of DNA Sample – Section 53A Cr.P.C. – DNA Testing is a Mandatory Step in Rape Investigation – The Court reaffirmed the legal position that in cases of sexual assault, DNA sampling is mandatory under Section 53A Cr.P.C. The rationale is to ensure comprehensive investigation and facilitate accurate determination of guilt or innocence. The order of the Magistrate allowing DNA testing was found to be correct and aligned with the statutory mandate of fair investigation [Paras 53-57, 86-88].

Presumption of Legitimacy under Section 112 Evidence Act – Not Applicable in Criminal Investigation – The Court held that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is meant for matrimonial disputes and cannot be allowed to interfere in criminal proceedings. In the present case, since the prosecutrix and her husband were separated without access to each other, the presumption was inapplicable. The Court held that modern scientific tools like DNA testing must prevail over presumptions to ascertain truth in criminal cases [Paras 60-93].

Scientific Evidence Prevails – Importance of Truth in Criminal Justice – The Court emphasized that in criminal justice, truth is paramount and DNA testing is a near-perfect scientific tool to determine paternity and establish facts in sexual assault cases. Courts must prefer conclusive scientific evidence over legal fictions or presumptions where justice demands it [Paras 64-71, 85-87].

Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Principles of Matrimonial Law Not Applicable – The Court distinguished between civil and criminal cases, observing that while certain presumptions may apply in matrimonial disputes, they cannot limit the investigative powers of the police in criminal proceedings. The right to fair investigation in rape cases includes recourse to scientific methods like DNA testing irrespective of matrimonial presumptions [Paras 83-89].

Direction for Compliance – ASJ Order Set Aside – Blood Sample to be Collected – The Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and directed Respondent No.2 to present himself for DNA sampling within fifteen days. The Investigating Officer was authorized to use reasonable force if Respondent No.2 failed to cooperate. The petition was allowed, ensuring proper application of legal provisions to aid investigation [Paras 98-99].

Criminal Law - Dowry Death and Suicide – Conviction under Section 304B Modified – Section 306 and 498A Sustained – The appeal was preferred against conviction under Section 304B IPC for dowry death following suicide of wife within seven years of marriage—High Court found lack of evidence establishing harassment or dowry demand 'soon before death' but consistent dowry demands established during marriage—Held: Conviction under Section 304B IPC unsustainable, altered to Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 498A IPC (cruelty)—Sentence reduced—Appeal partly allowed [Paras 12-24].

Dowry Demand and Cruelty – Section 498A – Established – Continuous dowry demand including demand for car shown by reliable testimony—Court held the demands amounted to cruelty under Section 498A IPC—Conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed with reduced sentence of two years [Paras 23-24].

Soon Before Death Requirement – Section 304B IPC Not Attracted – Court explained that absence of dowry-related cruelty immediately before death disables presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act—Last proven dowry demand made more than three months prior to death—Conviction for dowry death under Section 304B IPC set aside [Paras 19-21].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Upheld Due to Lack of Evidence – Co-accused (mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law) acquitted by Trial Court as they lived separately and their involvement was not established—Revision petition against their acquittal dismissed—Held: Trial Court’s finding proper, no interference warranted [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed, Revision Dismissed – Conviction altered from Section 304B to Section 306 and 498A IPC—Sentence reduced to four years for Section 306 and two years for Section 498A, to run concurrently—Revision petition against acquittal of co-accused dismissed [Paras 24-26].

Civil Writ – Service Law - Pension Entitlement – Daily Wager Service Prior to Regularization – Non-Consideration of Pre-Regularization Service – Dismissal of Writ – Petitioner, a Chowkidar in Gorakhpur Development Authority, sought inclusion of daily wage service from 1988 to 2010 towards pension qualifying service under the Retirement Rules, 2011—Held: As per Rule 2(i), qualifying service requires 20 years of regular service; petitioner’s regular service was only 13 years post-regularization—Service prior to regularization as daily wager excluded from qualifying service computation—Petition dismissed [Paras 14-18].

Application of Prem Singh Principle – Distinction Between Work-Charged and Daily Wager Service – Petitioner Ineligible – The Supreme Court’s ruling in Prem Singh (2019) applies to work-charged employees under 1961 Rules; clarified in Uday Pratap Thakur (2023) that daily wager service cannot be counted for pension quantum or qualifying service under Retirement Rules, 2011—Held: Petitioner being daily wager, not entitled to pensionary benefits for pre-regularization service [Paras 17-18].

Pending Reference Before Larger Bench – Judicial Restraint Exercised – The issue of counting daily wage service under the 2011 Rules is sub judice before Division Bench in Kanhai Ram (2024)—Held: Court refrained from granting relief pending authoritative determination of issue—Petitioner at liberty to avail remedy post reference outcome [Para 18-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Pension Entitlement for Daily Wage Service – Court dismissed petition noting absence of requisite 20 years qualifying service post-regularization, and legal distinction between work-charged and daily wager categories—Petitioner’s remedy remains open subject to decision in pending reference [Para 19].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, 190, 296(b) of the BNS - Advocate Assaulted for Professional Duty – Bail Rejected – Petitioners, political leaders, sought anticipatory bail after allegedly attacking a lawyer who had drafted a complaint against them – Court found motive established from documentary evidence and confirmed grievous injuries to the complainant – Held: Granting bail would impair custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon – Bail application dismissed [Paras 1–12].

Custodial Interrogation – Supreme Court Precedent – Pre-arrest Protection Dilutes Investigation – Relying on Supreme Court judgment in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail may hinder effective interrogation – Held: Bail at pre-investigation stage can insulate accused and reduce interrogation to a ritual – Therefore, custodial interrogation justified [Para 10].

Rule of Law – Attack on Advocates Threatens Judicial Access – Grave Concern – Court observed that assaulting a lawyer for drafting a legal complaint undermines the justice system and the right of citizens to access legal remedies – Held: Such conduct cannot be condoned as it erodes rule of law – Petitioners not entitled to anticipatory bail [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court directed no protection under Section 482 of BNSS – Petitioners to be available for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon of offence – Seriousness of charges and professional nature of enmity considered decisive.