Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Conviction - Eyewitness Credibility – Testimony of Relatives – Caution Required - Conviction Based Solely on Eyewitnesses Set Aside - The prosecution relied mainly on two eyewitnesses (PW11 and PW12), both children of the deceased – PW11 admitted to being tutored by police, while PW12’s presence at the scene and injury claims lacked corroborative evidence – Held: Evidence inconsistent, uncorroborated and mutually destructive, not reliable for conviction [Paras 26-38].

Investigation Lapses – Failure to Recover Weapons or Looted Articles – Serious Deficiency – The IO did not attempt recovery of the alleged murder weapons or looted items despite early arrest of accused – Such perfunctory investigation undermined the prosecution case – Held: Failure to collect best evidence significantly weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 33-34].

Framing of Charges – Improper Clubbing of Two Incidents – Procedural Error – FIR disclosed two separate incidents (murders of Ashok Das and Arati Das) involving different sets of accused – Trial court framed joint charges without segregating events or accused – Held: Such charge framing was erroneous and prejudicial to the accused [Para 35].

Identification of Accused – Absence of Proper Court Identification – Identification of accused in court not established against many appellants – Named accused in FIR were not consistently identified during trial – Held: Identification evidence unreliable, entitling appellants to benefit of doubt [Paras 14, 28-30].

Child Witness – Requirement for Corroboration – Lack of Supporting Evidence – PW11 was aged 13 during deposition, claimed to have witnessed mother’s murder – Her testimony lacked corroboration and contradicted her brother’s – Held: Sole testimony of child witness insufficient in absence of supporting material [Paras 15, 30-32].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Convictions Set Aside – Acquittal Ordered - The Court found serious lapses in investigation, contradictions in witness testimonies, and procedural irregularities – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Convictions under Sections 302/149 IPC set aside – All appellants acquitted [Paras 39, 42].
 

Criminal Law - Possession of Muddamal – Income Tax Proceedings vs. Criminal Jurisdiction – I-T Department Authorized to Retain Seized Cash – The department sought custody of ₹35,28,000 seized in a theft case, invoking Section 132A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act – Trial court initially directed fixed deposit in complainant’s name, but later denied department’s application – Held: Income Tax Department entitled to custody and to deposit the cash in PD Account for proceedings under tax law [Paras 1-3, 10, 15].

Jurisdiction – Power of Magistrate under CrPC vs. Powers under Income Tax Act – Distinguished – The court clarified that the powers under Section 132A override general CrPC provisions on muddamal – Income Tax authority has jurisdiction to requisition unaccounted assets under statutory mandate; Magistrate cannot override this by directing deposit in complainant’s name [Paras 10-12].

Unexplained Cash – Prima Facie Grounds for Requisition – The complainant failed to explain the source of ₹35,28,000 satisfactorily during Income Tax inquiry, triggering legal requisition – Held: Department has legitimate basis to retain and investigate under the Income Tax Act [Paras 3.7, 13].

Final Decision – Magistrate's Orders Quashed – Petitioner Permitted to Act Under Income Tax Law – High Court quashed both lower court orders and allowed the department to take possession of the cash and deposit it in PD Account within four weeks, with procedural safeguards like panchnama and videography [Para 15].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Serious Sexual Offences – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 354, 354-A, 451, 506, 376, and 511 IPC alleging false implication – FIR based on prosecutrix's complaint and corroborated by her Section 164 CrPC statement alleging attempted rape and physical assault – Court held that material on record disclosed prima facie case – FIR and chargesheet not liable to be quashed at pre-trial stage [Paras 1-4, 11-13, 22].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Caution in Exercise – Principles Reiterated – Citing Supreme Court precedents, Court emphasized that Section 482 powers are exceptional and should not be used to assess sufficiency of evidence or short-circuit criminal trials – Allegations were not so absurd or improbable to justify quashing – No procedural abuse shown [Paras 5-10, 13-21].

Victim Statement – Section 164 CrPC – Considered Credible at Prima Facie Stage – Prosecutrix’s detailed allegations of assault, attempted rape, and threats held sufficient to sustain continuation of prosecution – Court declined to assess credibility or merits at this stage [Paras 3, 22].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – High Court declined to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Held that trial must proceed in view of nature of allegations and supporting statements – No abuse of process demonstrated [Paras 22-23].
 

Service Law - Seniority – Promotees vs Direct Recruits – Rule 8(e) CRPF Rules Applied – Promotees Placed Below – Petitioners challenged revised seniority list dated 24 April 2020 that placed direct recruits en bloc below promotee Assistant Commandants (ACs) – Court held that Rule 8(e) mandates seniority to be determined by date of appointment – Promotees appointed in 2017 cannot claim seniority from vacancy years 2013–2016 – Held: Administrative instructions and DoPT OMs cannot override statutory rules – Revised seniority list quashed [Paras 1-5, 17-21, 32].

Delayed Promotions – No Benefit of Retrospective Seniority – CRPF Rules Prevail – Respondents contended that DPCs were delayed due to litigation and that promotees were placed against earlier year vacancies – Court held such retrospective assignment impermissible under Rule 8(e) – Appointees acquire seniority only from date of joining, not from date of vacancy – Held: Promotees not entitled to leapfrog seniority over earlier-appointed direct recruits [Paras 6-16, 22-24].

Precedents – Meghachandra Singh and Sunaina Sharma – Applicable – Court relied on Supreme Court rulings clarifying that inter se seniority must be based on date of appointment – Rejected reliance on Asis Kumar Samanta and U.D. Lama as distinguishable on facts – Emphasized statutory rules override executive OMs and equity-based arguments [Paras 13, 25-30].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned seniority list dated 24 April 2020 quashed to the extent it placed petitioners below promotees – Direction issued to ITBP to redraw seniority list strictly based on actual dates of appointment – Compliance to be completed within three months [Paras 32-34].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction - Forgery and Cheating – Real Estate Investment Fraud – Conviction Sustained – Petitioner, acting as Director of AVR Green Homes Pvt. Ltd., misrepresented land ownership and induced investment of over ₹3.88 crores – Evidence included undertakings, RTGS records, and depositions – Conviction under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 120B IPC upheld – Trial and Appellate Courts found fraudulent inducement and non-return of funds [Paras 5-14, 58-61].

Enhancement of Sentence – Jurisdictional Limit Exceeded – Sentence Reduced – Appellate Court enhanced sentence under Section 467 IPC from 7 to 10 years – Held: Appellate Court exceeded jurisdiction as trial was before Magistrate whose sentencing power is limited to 7 years – Enhancement set aside for being ultra vires Section 386 read with Section 29 CrPC [Paras 54-67].

Compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC – Legally Valid – No Fine Imposed – Petition Dismissed – Informant had filed appeal for compensation which Trial Court had omitted – Appellate Court lawfully substituted fine with compensation of ₹61,47,800 – Held: Denial of compensation also constitutes “inadequate compensation” under Section 372 proviso – Power to impose compensation under Section 357(3) upheld [Paras 22-52].

Revisional Scope – No Reappreciation of Evidence – Conviction Uninterfered – High Court declined to reassess factual findings of lower courts – Emphasized limited scope of revisional jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional error or manifest miscarriage of justice [Paras 59-60].

Decision – Partly Allowed – Conviction under IPC provisions sustained – Sentence under Section 467 IPC restored to 7 years – Order of compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC affirmed – Revisions partly allowed [Para 75].
 

Criminal Law - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Reclassification to Section 304 Part II IPC – Intent to Kill Not Established – The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 for stabbing a police constable during a raid – However, the injury was on the wrist, not a vital part, and occurred during a scuffle when the appellant was trying to escape arrest – Held: No clear intention to kill was established – Conviction under Section 302 altered to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 18-19].

Police Testimony – Sole Reliance – Credibility Upheld – All eyewitnesses to the incident were police officers – Court relied on consistent and corroborated testimonies from multiple officers, citing legal precedent that police evidence can be the basis of conviction if found credible – No independent civilian witnesses were available due to the nature of the raid [Paras 11-12].

Medical Evidence – Non-Vital Injury Led to Death – Injury on the deceased’s left arm ruptured brachial vessels and caused death due to shock – PM doctor confirmed the wound could cause death, but not necessarily inflicted with intent to kill – Held: Injury sufficient in ordinary course to cause death, but intent not proven [Para 10].

Final Decision – Conviction Modified – Life Imprisonment Set Aside – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellant sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine – Ordered release if not required in any other offence [Para 20].

Civil Writ – Service Law - Departmental Enquiry – Disproportionate Punishment – No Parity Violation – Dismissal Upheld – Respondent-doctor dismissed for drug misappropriation during a common enquiry – Tribunal had set aside dismissal citing discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis co-delinquents – High Court held doctors held higher responsibility than compounder/nurse and both doctors were similarly dismissed – Hence, parity was maintained and Tribunal’s review order exceeded its scope [Paras 3–11].

Review Jurisdiction – Tribunal's Scope – Improper Exercise – Review Order Quashed – Tribunal allowed review without adequately analyzing comparative roles and punishments of co-delinquents – High Court held review based on oversimplified reasoning and lacking material justification – Tribunal exceeded permissible scope of review under law [Paras 10–12].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Matters – Interference Limited – Held – Punishment not found “shockingly disproportionate” – Reliance placed on Supreme Court's ruling in P.C. Kakkar – No error in dismissal of doctor for serious misconduct – Writ petition allowed [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Tribunal's Order Set Aside – Writ Petition Allowed – Tribunal's review order dated 29.04.2011 quashed – Original dismissal of respondent reinstated – Rule made absolute with no costs [Paras 14–15].
 

Civil Writ - Service Law - Retiral Benefits – Withholding Due to Pending Criminal Proceedings – Criminal Case Abated – No Disciplinary Action Initiated – Held Arbitrary - The deceased teacher was accused of misappropriating ₹4,00,000 but no disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the criminal case abated due to his death – Held: Retiral benefits cannot be withheld in absence of proven misconduct – Pension is a vested right of the deceased [Paras 1, 4, 8-9].

No-Liability Certificate – Refusal by School on Grounds of Unproven Allegation – Unwarranted - The school declined to issue the certificate citing lack of evidence on fund usage – Held: In absence of disciplinary proceedings or conviction, denial of certificate unjustified – Court directed school to issue certificate within three weeks [Paras 3, 5, 9].

DCRB Scheme – Applicability of Para 19(5) – Not Attracted – No Pending Proceedings - Paragraph 19(5) bars disbursal of final pension if judicial/departmental proceedings are pending – Since no such proceedings were in place, the provision inapplicable – Retiral dues must be released [Para 8-9].

Direction to State – Duty to Disburse Pension Benefits – Petition Allowed - Court ordered issuance of 'No-Liability Certificate' and directed State to disburse arrear retiral benefits and initiate family pension – Held: State may initiate recovery as per law, but cannot deny pension without proof of liability [Final Para].
 

Civil Law - Auction Sale – Stamp Duty on Sale Certificate – Auction Value Prevails – Demand on Market Value Held Illegal - Petitioners purchased immovable property in public auction conducted by SBI – Sub-Registrar refused to register Sale Certificates unless stamp duty was paid on market value instead of bid amount – Held: Registration authorities must assess duty based on auction price, not market rate [Paras 3-6, 9-10].

Precedents – Consistent Judicial View on Auction Sales – Registration to Follow Auction Price - Court reiterated settled legal position from multiple precedents including V.N. Devadoss, Marvel Financial Services Ltd., and recent Supreme Court decision in Ferrous Alloy Forgings Pvt. Ltd. – Held: No deviation permissible by registration authorities from binding precedent [Paras 7-8].

Sale Certificate – Not Compulsorily Registrable Unless Used Otherwise – Supreme Court Clarification - A sale certificate issued by an authorised officer under auction need not be compulsorily registered unless used to transfer title or for other purposes – Held: Stamp duty arises only if voluntary registration is sought and must be calculated based on auction value [Para 7].

Direction to Registering Authority – Duty to Act on Auction Price – Mandamus Issued - Sub-Registrar directed to assess and collect stamp duty based on auction bid of ₹55,10,000 and process registration accordingly within two weeks – Held: Executive action contrary to judicial precedent not sustainable [Para 10].