Tenancy Law - Eviction Suit – Existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Section 12(1)(e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act – Eviction Decree Set Aside – The High Court set aside the eviction decree granted by the First Appellate Court which was passed on assumption of tenancy without written rent deed or receipts – Documentary evidence by appellant including driving licence, ration card, and long possession proved absence of tenancy – Held: Mere ownership and sale deed do not establish tenancy – Eviction decree reversed – Trial Court’s dismissal restored [Paras 19-25].

Appeal and Right to Possession – Appeal Not Infructuous Post Execution – Section 144 CPC – The Court held that eviction execution during appeal does not bar adjudication on merits – The right of appeal survives and restitution under Section 144 CPC is available if the appeal succeeds – Decree execution during pendency of appeal does not extinguish substantive rights – Held: Appeal allowed despite dispossession, possession rights restored [Paras 12-18].

Appellate Court Jurisdiction – Duty to Consider Trial Court Reasoning – Reversal without Appreciation of Evidence Invalid – The High Court ruled that the First Appellate Court erred by reversing trial court decision without properly dealing with trial court findings and evidence – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari to highlight illegality in ignoring reasoning of lower court – Held: First Appellate Court’s order unsustainable in law [Paras 24-25].

Proof of Tenancy – Mere Title Not Sufficient – Burden on Plaintiff – The High Court reaffirmed the principle that landlord must establish tenancy by admissible evidence – Sale deed and oral statements insufficient in face of pre-existing possession and lack of rent evidence – The findings that tenancy existed were based on conjectures and surmises – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove tenancy, eviction decree invalid [Paras 19-25].

Decision of the Case – Second Appeal Allowed – Decree of First Appellate Court Reversed – Trial Court Judgment Restored – Suit for eviction dismissed – Appellant’s possession protected – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 26-27].

Regular Bail – Section 18 of the NDPS Act - Long Incarceration Before Trial Conclusion – Grant of Bail Justified – The petitioner faced prolonged incarceration exceeding 2 years 10 months on allegation of recovery of 2.6 kg opium – Court noted the trial’s slow progress with only 5 out of 13 witnesses examined after charges framed – Citing improbability of carrying contraband in transparent polythene in plain sight, Court found continued detention unjustified – Bail granted considering marginal excess of recovery over commercial quantity and inordinate trial delay [Paras 1-4].

Right to Personal Liberty – Presumption of Innocence and Humanitarian Bail Approach – Court relied on Supreme Court’s ruling in Dataram v. State of U.P. (2018) affirming bail as a rule and custody as exception – Prolonged detention infringes Article 21 guaranteeing personal liberty and dignity – Held: Bail appropriate when trial remains incomplete and custody period is excessive [Para 4].

Right to Speedy Trial – Constitutional Safeguard – Citing Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980), Court reiterated that accused must not suffer indefinite pre-conviction incarceration, particularly when trial shows no sign of early completion – Held: Liberty cannot be curtailed due to systemic delay [Para 4].

Final Decision – Bail Granted – Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on execution of requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – Court clarified no expression on merits of the case [Para 4].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹3,000 for sanctioning a bill – The High Court observed that the de facto complainant (PW.1) and key witnesses (PW.2 and PWs.3-7) were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution’s version – Accused offered spontaneous explanation that the money was a hand loan sent by PW.16, which was corroborated by PW.16 – Held: In the absence of proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of bribe, mere recovery of money is insufficient to convict – Conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 2-35].

Bribery and Illegal Gratification – Requirement of Proof of Demand – Demand Not Established – Held: Demand of bribe is sine qua non to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – PW.1 turned hostile, and no direct evidence of demand was established – The prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted [Paras 23-26, 33-35].

Recovery of Tainted Money – Mere Recovery Without Demand Insufficient – Held: Recovery of tainted money from the accused without establishing demand or voluntary acceptance does not fulfill ingredients of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act – Appellant’s explanation of receiving hand loan remained unrebutted – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23-26, 30-34].

Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act – Not Applicable in Absence of Demand – Held: Presumption under Section 20 requires proof of demand and acceptance – When foundational facts regarding demand are absent, presumption cannot arise – Acquittal warranted [Para 27].

Appellate Interference – Acquittal on Reappreciation of Evidence – Appellate Court found concurrent hostile testimony, absence of demand, and credible alternative explanation – Conviction set aside on reevaluation of evidence in light of binding precedents [Paras 23-35].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Fine amount to be refunded – Bail bonds discharged – Miscellaneous applications closed [Para 35].

Devaswom Tender Conditions – Sub-letting and Encroachment by Kuthaka Holder – Breach of Tender Terms – Disciplinary Directions Issued - The Court considered suo motu proceedings initiated based on a report of unauthorised sub-letting and excess land occupation by the 7th respondent (kuthaka holder) in Stall No.113 at Pamba Manappuram – The 7th respondent failed to disclose co-partnership at the time of tender and sub-let portions of the stall to third parties, which was a clear violation of tender guidelines – Held: The respondent's action is in breach of tender terms, and the Devaswom Board is directed to take further disciplinary action beyond mere recovery of excess rent, including cancellation or blacklisting if warranted [Paras 16-19].

Public Auction Regulation – Mandatory Personal Conduct of Business – Court reiterated that kuthaka holders must personally operate the stall and are barred from re-auctioning or sub-leasing as per general guidelines framed in Sreekumar V. v. TDB – Held: Violation of these conditions undermines transparency and fairness in temple property management—stringent enforcement ordered [Paras 11-13].

Devaswom Board Duties – Duty to Enforce Tender Terms – Court observed that Travancore Devaswom Board officials failed in timely action against violation – Directions issued to enforce periodic inspection of stalls, to prevent unauthorised encroachments and sub-letting, and to proceed against violators strictly in terms of guidelines and circulars [Paras 19-20].

Income Tax Compliance – Tender Participants’ Financial Disclosure Mandatory – The Court noted lack of initial disclosure regarding partnership and inadequate financial compliance disclosures – Non-disclosure deemed material violation of tender process [Paras 17].

Decision – Directions Issued – Travancore Devaswom Board directed to take appropriate legal action against the 7th respondent within two months for breach of tender conditions, ensure regular monitoring of stalls, and maintain transparency in tendering process – Suo Motu proceedings disposed accordingly [Para 20].

Service Law – Regularization of Casual Workers – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Petition Allowed – Petitioners engaged under Raiganj Municipality on fixed remuneration since 2006 pursuant to formal municipal resolutions—appointments made during absence of recruitment rules—petitioners rendered uninterrupted service for nearly two decades—Court held appointments not illegal but procedurally irregular—Held: Long-standing, bona fide service created legitimate expectation for regularization—State directed to regularize services of petitioners with immediate effect [Paras 1-35].

Municipal Employment – Recruitment Rules and Regularization – Distinction between Illegal and Irregular Appointments – Regularization Directed – Court held that prior to 12.09.2006, absence of codified recruitment process did not render such appointments illegal—appointments were made to meet administrative necessity by competent authorities—held to be irregular but legitimate—reference made to Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Prasanta Kumar Das case directing similar regularization—petitioners entitled to similar relief [Paras 26-29].

Recruitment Notification – Recruitment Process Stayed – Validity of Recruitment Challenged – Stay Order Upheld – Recruitment notice issued on 28.12.2019 stayed by coordinate Bench—Court noted recruitment should be conducted by Municipal Service Commission, not Chairman—Respondents failed to challenge interim stay—fresh recruitment stayed till regularization of petitioners [Paras 30-31].

Constitutional Mandate – Fairness in Public Employment – Right to Regularization Recognized – Relying on judgments in Jaggo v. Union of India, Narendra Kumar Tiwari, and District Bar Association Bandipora—Court held that long-standing, indispensable service mandates regularization under Articles 14 and 16—reliance placed on humanitarian and equitable considerations to prevent arbitrary exclusion of bona fide employees [Paras 32-35].

Decision: Petitions Allowed – Court held that petitioners’ appointments were not illegal but irregular and made under genuine administrative need—long-standing service combined with repeated requests for regularization created enforceable legitimate expectation—State directed to regularize services of petitioners immediately—Fresh recruitment process stayed—pending applications disposed of—no costs imposed [Paras 35-38].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 364, 384, 388, 342, 120B of IPC - Rejection on Grounds of Absconding – Section 482 BNSS – Custodial Interrogation Required – The applicant, a police officer, sought anticipatory bail after being accused of kidnapping, extortion and corruption – The Court observed the applicant was evading arrest since registration of FIR and was declared proclaimed offender – Held: Granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would hamper investigation – Application rejected [Paras 1-11, 19].

Police Officer Misconduct – Breach of Duty – Higher Scrutiny Applied – Serious Offences Involving Public Trust – The Court emphasized that police officers are duty-bound to protect citizens, and any involvement in grave offences like abduction and extortion violates public trust – Held: Considering the nature and gravity of offences and the material evidence collected, anticipatory bail was not permissible [Paras 10-11].

Abscondence and Defiance of Court Orders – Proclaimed Offender Proceedings – Court found that despite initiation of warrant and proclamation proceedings under Sections 70 and 82 CrPC, the applicant continued evading law – Such conduct disentitled him from discretionary relief under Section 482 BNSS [Paras 11-13].

No Exceptional Circumstance – Anticipatory Bail Denied in Serious Economic and Corruption Offences – The Court relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments highlighting that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional cases – Held: Present case involves serious offences impacting societal interest, thus no ground to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS [Paras 14-18].

Final Decision – Application for Anticipatory Bail Rejected – Considering the conduct of the applicant, gravity of accusations, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail application was dismissed with liberty to not influence the main trial [Paras 19-20].

Civil Law - Section 2, 3 and 17 of the Indian Stamp Act  - Stamp Duty – Valuation Date – Market Value on Date of Sale Deed Relevant – Divergence Resolved – The Division Bench answered the reference on the issue of stamp duty valuation under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Held that for purposes of determining the stamp duty on a conveyance/sale deed, the relevant market value is that prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed, and not the date of agreement to sell – Judgment in Harvinder Pal Singla’s case held not good law – Reference answered accordingly [Paras 1, 10-12].

Interpretation – Charging Section vs. Transaction – Stamp Duty Payable on Instrument, Not Transaction – Section 3 of the 1899 Act makes stamp duty chargeable on the “instrument” and not on the underlying transaction – The nature of transaction may be relevant only for determining the type of instrument, but the charge is on the instrument itself [Para 5].

Binding Precedents – Harvinder Pal Singla Overruled – Judgment in Residents’ Welfare Association’s Case Distinguished – The Court held that the view taken in Harvinder Pal Singla’s case is not valid since it relied on a precedent that was inapplicable to conveyance deeds – Held: Judgment in Residents’ Welfare Association's case pertained to assignment of lease, not conveyance of ownership [Paras 7-9, 11].

Supreme Court Authority – Khandaka Jain Jewellers Followed – Prevailing Market Rate at Time of Sale Deed Controls – The Division Bench relied upon the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, where the Supreme Court held that stamp duty is to be computed on the basis of market value as on date of execution of sale deed – Also followed Shanti Bhushan v. State of U.P. reaffirming this position [Paras 6, 10].

Final Decision – Reference Answered – Market Value on Date of Execution Relevant – Division Bench held that the correct legal position is that market rate applicable at the time of execution of the sale deed governs the stamp duty – Reference disposed of accordingly [Para 12].

Taxation Law - Income Tax Act - Faceless Reassessment – Legality of Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers Post 01.04.2021 – Reassessment Notices Quashed – The High Court allowed a batch of writ petitions challenging reassessment notices issued under Section 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers after 01.04.2021 in cases assigned to Central Charges – Held: As per the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, the reassessment proceedings initiated after 01.04.2021 are mandatorily required to be conducted in a faceless manner by the National Faceless Assessment Centre – The exemption from faceless assessments under Section 144B is confined to assessment orders under Section 143(3) and 144, and does not extend to reassessment notices under Section 148 – Notices issued by JAOs without following the mandatory faceless procedure are void ab initio and liable to be quashed [Paras 17-31].

Jurisdiction – Distinction Between Final Assessment and Reassessment Proceedings – Assignment to Central Charges Not a Valid Ground to Bypass Faceless Procedure – The Court clarified that the exemption granted under Section 144B(7) to cases assigned to Central Charges applies exclusively to final assessment orders – There is no exemption provided in Section 148 or Section 151A for reassessment notices in such cases – Consequently, reassessment notices issued manually by JAOs without routing through the faceless system violate the statutory mandate of Section 151A read with the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 [Paras 19-24].

Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Judgment in Ashish Agarwal’s Case – Court followed the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, reaffirming that all reassessment proceedings post 01.04.2021 must comply with the amended provisions – Dismissed the Revenue’s reliance on divergent views of other High Courts and affirmed the binding effect of the Telangana High Court’s previous decision in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy’s case holding similar notices invalid [Paras 18-27].

Statutory Interpretation – Strict Application of Section 151A – No Exception for Central Charges – The Court adopted a strict interpretation of Section 151A, noting it prescribes faceless reassessment without carve-outs for cases assigned to Central Charges – Clarified that administrative circulars or CBDT orders cannot override statutory provisions – Held: Since the statutory scheme does not exempt Section 148 proceedings from faceless mechanism, notices issued by JAOs stand vitiated [Paras 28-30].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Reassessment Notices Set Aside – The impugned notices issued under Section 148 by jurisdictional officers post 01.04.2021 were quashed and set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory faceless procedure – Court declined to impose costs but directed the Revenue to proceed strictly in accordance with law in future reassessment proceedings [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act – Conviction Upheld – The petitioner was convicted for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of NI Act—Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld conviction relying on presumption under Section 139 as petitioner admitted issuance of cheque and failed to rebut presumption through credible defence evidence—Petitioner’s plea of cheque issued to Anu Kumari held unsubstantiated—Revision petition dismissed [Paras 1-46].

Burden of Proof – Reverse Onus – Issuance of Cheque Admitted – Petitioner’s admission of issuance of cheque activated statutory presumption—Court reiterated that onus lies on accused to rebut presumption by leading cogent evidence—Mere denial or unsubstantiated claim insufficient to rebut legal presumption under Section 139 NI Act [Paras 19-20, 23-25, 29].

Notice of Demand – Valid Service Presumed – Validity of notice established through acknowledgment receipt—Presumption under Section 27 of Evidence Act invoked—Held: Accused failed to rebut presumption of valid service and neglected payment within statutory period [Paras 37-39].

No Proof of Defence – Mere Statement under Section 313 CrPC Insufficient – Court reiterated that mere denial in statement under Section 313 CrPC without leading defence evidence does not rebut presumption—Held: Petitioner’s defence was rightly rejected [Paras 29-31].

No Requirement to Prove Financial Capacity – Presumption Sufficient – Court relied on precedents to hold that complainant need not initially prove financial capacity unless specifically challenged—Petitioner failed to raise any valid defence on financial incapacity [Paras 32-34].

Appropriate Sentence – Deterrent Purpose of Section 138 NI Act – Court upheld sentence of two months imprisonment and fine of ₹2,90,000/- including ₹2,85,000/- compensation—Held: Sentence reasonable in light of deterrent purpose of the provision and prolonged litigation since 2019 [Paras 41-44].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed—Petitioner’s revision found devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 46-47].