Civil Law - Redemption of Mortgage – Oral Mortgage – Limitation Applies – Mortgage Not Admitted – Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Relief - Plaintiffs initially denied the mortgage and asserted absolute ownership, but later sought to redeem the mortgage allegedly created in 1926 – Courts below held that plaintiffs were not in exclusive possession and that the mortgage was oral with joint possession – Held: Since the mortgage was not admitted and possession was joint, it was not a usufructuary mortgage; thus, limitation under Article 61 of the Limitation Act applies – Suit filed in 1983 held barred by limitation [Paras 27-32].

Usufructuary Mortgage – Distinction from Oral Mortgage – Findings of Fact – Not Interferable in Second Appeal - Plaintiffs' reliance on Sheo Ram and Ram Kishan cases rejected – Courts below found that the case was not a usufructuary mortgage as possession was not exclusive to the mortgagee – Held: The claim of redemption without admitting the mortgage itself is legally unsustainable; plaintiffs cannot approbate and reprobate – Oral mortgage created in 1926 cannot be redeemed after expiry of 60 years [Paras 29-33].

Denial of Mortgage – Subsequent Plea for Redemption Not Maintainable – Pleadings Inconsistent – No Right to Relief - Plaintiffs cannot deny the mortgage and yet claim relief by redeeming it later – Courts emphasized settled principle that no evidence can be adduced on facts not pleaded – Held: Pleadings are the foundation of the case and absence of consistent plea on redemption bars relief – Reference to Bhagat Singh v. Jaswant Singh applied [Paras 30, 40].

Decision of the Case – Second Appeal Dismissed – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Suit Barred by Limitation - The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court that the mortgage, if any, was oral and not usufructuary – Possession was joint, and the claim for exclusive possession was not proved – Suit barred by limitation and no redemption maintainable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 38-41].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Criminal Conspiracy and Forgery – Role of Professional Valuer – FIR Quashed – Petitioner, an empanelled bank valuer, was accused of preparing false valuation reports without physically inspecting properties – Court held petitioner relied on representations made by bank officer and submitted a valuation opinion, not a forged document – No evidence of collusion or meeting of minds to establish conspiracy under Sections 120B or 467 IPC – FIR and proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 8-24, 29-32].

Forgery – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Mere Negligence Not Criminal – Court reiterated that for forgery under Sections 463, 464 IPC, intent to defraud or fabricate must be shown – Petitioner’s report may be based on negligent reliance, but no evidence of intentional fraud or fabrication – No entrustment or inducement proven to attract Sections 406, 409, or 420 IPC – Criminal charges ruled unsustainable [Paras 21-24].

Professional Opinion – Valuation Report as Expert Opinion – No Mens Rea – Court found valuation report to be a subjective professional opinion, disclaiming liability and ownership verification – Bank could independently verify the report before acting – Held: Valuer cannot be criminally prosecuted unless shown to have actively conspired or abetted fraud [Paras 17-18, 30-31].

Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR registered as CR No.11199010210968/2021 with Bharuch ‘A’ Division Police Station and subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioner – Court held continuance of trial against petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law [Para 32].
 

Civil Law - Plot Allotment – Cancellation without Notice – Restoration Sought – Trust Failed to Intimate Allotment – Allotment Cancelled by Blanket Order – Petitioner Not Notified – Held: Cancellation unjustified as petitioner was never informed and could not comply – Trust’s non-notification and subsequent cancellation were improper [Paras 3-6].

Loss of Records – Effect – Responsibility of Custodian – Non-application of Mind – Trust Admitted Loss of Records – Restoration Resolution Passed – Held: Loss of records does not justify denial of rights to allottees – Custodian of records responsible – Principles of natural justice violated [Paras 14-22].

Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation – Tender of Earnest Money and Allotment Through Draw – Rights Accrued – Held: Petitioner, having tendered earnest money and succeeded in the draw, acquired vested rights – Trust bound by doctrine of promissory estoppel – Withdrawal of benefits by citing loss of records untenable [Paras 20-24].

Jurisdiction of Improvement Trust – Independence from Department – Interference by Department Unwarranted – Held: Trust as a statutory body had independent authority – Department’s interference in Trust’s resolution cancelling restoration held without jurisdiction [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Allotment Cancellation Set Aside – Direction to Restore Plot and Hand Over Physical Possession – Exemplary Compensation of ₹2 Lakhs Awarded Against Respondents for Malfeasance and Nonfeasance [Para 30].
 

Land Acquisition – Compensation - Valuation of Orange Trees – Income Capitalization Method Applied – Award Modified – Court rejected the valuer’s report for lacking scientific backing and uniform data reuse across cases – Compensation revised to ₹2,700 per orange tree (including wood value) based on government circulars and adjusted yield rate – Total compensation for 375 orange trees fixed at ₹10,12,500 [Paras 23–48].

Valuation Methods – Income Capitalization v. Sale Exemplar – No Double Valuation Permitted – Where land with fruit-bearing trees is valued using income capitalization method, no separate compensation for land can be granted – This principle affirmed through precedents including Ambya Kalya Mhatre and Gurcharan Singh – Court held valuation must reflect entire orchard, not trees and land separately [Paras 50–76].

Compensation for Remaining Land – Seasonally Irrigated Land Valued at ₹1,87,500 per Hectare – Based on 7/12 extracts and connected case law, non-orchard portion of land treated as seasonally irrigated – Compensation awarded at established rate for 2.73 HR = ₹5,11,875 [Paras 77–79].

Valuer’s Credibility – Report Discarded for Lack of Transparency and Repetition – Court noted suspicious uniformity in tree age, size, and yield in multiple cases handled by same valuer – Disregarded report due to lack of field-specific analysis, absence of supporting documents, and failure to justify conclusions [Paras 28–44].

Final Decision – First Appeal Partly Allowed, Cross-Objection Partly Allowed – Award modified to ₹10,12,500 for trees + ₹5,11,875 for 2.73 HR land – Compensation directed with statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act [Para 81].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal Against Acquittal - Appreciation of Evidence – Eye-Witness and Medical Testimony – Conviction Restored - The Trial Court acquitted all accused in a murder case citing contradictions and unreliable witness testimony – The High Court reversed the acquittal of Accused No.1, holding that minor contradictions did not discredit consistent and corroborated eye-witness accounts – Medical and FSL evidence supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the murder weapon was properly proved – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 6–34].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Acquittal of Co-Accused Upheld – The co-accused (Nos. 2 to 5) were present at the scene but the prosecution failed to prove they shared a common object or instigated the murder – FIR did not mention their instigation – Their presence was deemed natural and not sufficient to prove constructive liability – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 25–26].

Contradictions in Witness Testimony – Legal Position Clarified – Minor discrepancies or omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements do not vitiate credible eye-witness evidence – Reaffirmed that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India – Conviction can rest on truthful core of testimony even if peripheral inconsistencies exist [Paras 19–21].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment with Consideration for Health – Accused No.1 was bedridden and paralysed – Court granted six months' time for surrender and directed jail authorities to provide medical care – Life imprisonment imposed under Section 302 IPC [Paras 40–42].
 

Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 NI Act – Conviction Confirmed – Petitioner convicted for issuing a cheque of ₹5 lakhs which was dishonoured for "insufficient funds" – Trial Court convicted him to one year simple imprisonment and fine – Conviction upheld by Appellate Court – Held: Evidence of complainant and bank officials, along with cheque, return memo, statutory notice, and acknowledgment, conclusively proved offence – Petitioner failed to rebut legal presumption [Paras 2–7].

Legal Presumption – Unrebutted by Accused – No Defence Evidence – Petitioner neither denied signature nor produced any evidence disproving legally enforceable debt – Legal presumption under Section 139 NI Act not rebutted – Held: Courts below rightly convicted based on unrebutted evidence [Paras 6–7].

Modification of Sentence – Compensation in Lieu of Imprisonment – Sentence Reduced – Considering petitioner's willingness to pay cheque amount and part payment already made, Court modified sentence of imprisonment to compensation of ₹5 lakhs – ₹2.5 lakhs already deposited; remaining ₹2.5 lakhs paid via DD in court – Held: Imprisonment undergone shall be treated as sufficient punishment [Paras 10–13].

Final Directions – Compensation of ₹5 Lakhs – Conviction Maintained – Petitioner released – Respondent permitted to withdraw court-deposited amount – Criminal Revision allowed in part to modify sentence [Paras 14–15].
 

Civil Law – Electronic Evidence – Section 65B Certificate – Admissibility Denied – Court held that electronic evidence, such as a video clip stored on a pen drive, cannot be relied upon unless accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act – It rejected the argument that such certificate could be submitted later without leave of the Court – Held: Without proper certification, authenticity and admissibility of electronic records cannot be ensured [Paras 26-28].

Commercial Courts Act – Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC – Non-disclosure of Documents – Plea Rejected – Petitioners attempted to rely on a video not disclosed in pleadings or counterclaim – Court held that exception under Order XI Rule 1(7)(c)(i) (confrontation in cross-examination) does not override mandatory disclosure obligations under Rule 1(10) – Leave of the Court required and must be supported by reasonable cause, which was not shown in this case [Paras 29-32].

Cross-examination – Right to Confront with New Evidence – Element of Surprise Not Applicable – Petitioners' argument that video was used to surprise and confront the witness during cross-examination was rejected – Court noted prior complaints and emails referencing the video indicated respondent’s prior knowledge – Therefore, “element of surprise” principle did not apply [Paras 33-35].

Commercial Suit Procedure – Strict Compliance Mandated – Court reiterated that procedural rigour under Commercial Courts Act must be followed strictly – Late or surprise introduction of documents defeats the purpose of expeditious and transparent adjudication – Held: Petitioners cannot bypass requirements by invoking provisions meant for general civil suits [Paras 36-39].

Final Decision – Civil Revision Dismissed – High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s refusal to allow confrontation with undisclosed video – Non-compliance with Order XI CPC and Section 65B of the Evidence Act found to be valid grounds for exclusion of such evidence [Paras 40-41].
 

Criminal Procedure – Multiple FIRs – Same Incident – Quashing of FIRs - Petitioners challenged registration of multiple FIRs (Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024) arising from the same occurrence as Cr.No.153 of 2024 relating to an alleged attack on government officials – Court held that multiple FIRs for the same incident and cause of action are impermissible and amount to abuse of process – Held: Subsequent FIRs quashed, and related proceedings set aside [Paras 2-7, 32-44].
Unlawful Assembly and Conspiracy – Allegations against Petitioners – Petitioners alleged to have conspired to obstruct public servants and attack them during land acquisition hearing – Court found allegations against Petitioners were identical in all FIRs without specific distinct acts – Held: Allegations insufficient to justify continuation of multiple proceedings [Paras 6, 9-11, 40].
Police Procedure – Registration of FIRs – Commonality in Complaints – Complaints in three crimes prepared by same scribe without specific individualization by complainants – Court observed that multiple FIRs with identical allegations prepared mechanically were impermissible – Held: Abuse of process established [Paras 36-39].
Investigation – Consolidation of Evidence – Statements recorded in subsequently quashed FIRs can be treated as evidence in main FIR – Court permitted Investigating Officer to treat materials from Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 as part of investigation in Cr.No.153 of 2024 [Para 45].
Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Remand orders dated 09.01.2025 in Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 set aside – Proceedings in Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 against petitioners quashed – Investigation to proceed in Cr.No.153 of 2024 alone [Paras 47].
 

Criminal Law - Bail Application – NDPS Act – Section 37 Bar – Stringent Compliance Required – Petitioner accused of active involvement in organized narcotic syndicate – Court emphasized strict application of twin conditions under Section 37 for grant of bail – Reasonable belief of innocence not established [Paras 23-28].

Role of Intercepted Calls and CDRs – Voice Sample Match – Strong Prima Facie Evidence – Intercepted conversations between petitioner and co-accused, coupled with CDR analysis and voice sample match confirmed by FSL, prima facie established petitioner's active role in narcotic distribution network [Paras 17, 24-25].

Recovery at Instance of Petitioner – 1 Kg Heroin and Other Seizures – Recovery of 1 Kg heroin from petitioner’s shop and further arrests and seizures linked to disclosures made by petitioner weighed heavily against grant of bail [Paras 9-10, 23-24].

Parity with Co-Accused – Distinguished – Bail of Co-Accused Not Sufficient Ground – Court rejected plea of parity with co-accused Jaipal, noting stronger and more incriminating evidence against petitioner, including recoveries and role in network [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Petitioner’s request for regular bail rejected – Court held that involvement in organized narcotics network necessitated cautious approach, and no grounds existed for believing petitioner not guilty or unlikely to reoffend [Paras 28-29].