Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act – Conviction Based on Evidence – Procedural Irregularities Noted – Despite several hostile witnesses, the trial court convicted the appellant on basis of seizure lists and testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10 – Held: Conviction upheld as evidence showed operation of shop without valid license and stock records [Paras 1–7].

Probation – Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act – Release in View of Delay and First-Time Offender – Incident occurred in 1995 and appellant had no subsequent criminal history – Held: Taking appellant into custody nearly 30 years later not justified – Sentence modified – Appellant released on probation on good conduct bond and directed to pay fine [Paras 8–10].

Minimum Sentence – EC Act Does Not Preclude Application of Probation Act – Held: Even though EC Act prescribes minimum sentence, later enactment i.e. Probation of Offenders Act prevails due to non obstante clause – Benefit of probation can be granted irrespective of statutory minimum sentence [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on bond of ₹5,000 to maintain peace and good behavior – Fine of ₹5,000 to be paid within 6 months, else appellant to undergo default sentence [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law  – Gift under Mohammadan Law – Essentials of Gift – Declaration, Acceptance, Delivery – Remand Ordered - The appeal challenged the reversal by the Appellate Court of the trial court's decree upholding plaintiffs’ title based on oral gift and adverse possession – Held: Declarations made in 1987, 1988, and 1989 by donor constituted valid gifts if essentials are fulfilled – Registration of gift deeds not mandatory under Muslim law; Appellate Court erred in insisting on registration – Matter remanded to Appellate Court for fresh consideration [Paras 6-11].

Gift under Muslim Law – Written Declaration – Registration Not Mandatory – Oral Gift Valid - Oral gift properly declared and accepted remains valid even if recorded later in writing and not registered – Reliance placed on Hafeeza Bibi v. Sheikh Farid, (2011) SCC 654 – Legal principles clarified [Paras 6-8].

Remand of Matter – Failure to Appreciate Essential Ingredients of Gift – Appellate Court Judgment Set Aside - Since factual findings on delivery of possession and acceptance of gift were not properly adjudicated, the High Court remanded the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law [Paras 9-11].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Section 148A and 149 of Income Tax Act – Reassessment Proceedings Quashed - Initiation of reassessment based on incorrect premise that the petitioner was a non-filer despite evidence of filing Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2015-16 – Issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) without furnishing material supporting allegations – Held: Proceedings vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 34-38].

Limitation – Applicability of Finance Act 2021 Amendments – Notice under Section 148 post 01.04.2021 - New Regime Applicable - Notice issued beyond prescribed limitation period as actual escapement of income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs – Held: Extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) not attracted, proceedings time-barred [Paras 37, 41].

Requirement of Supply of Material – Mandatory Compliance – Section 148A(b) – Incomplete Show-Cause Notice Invalid - The authorities failed to provide supporting material forming the basis of the alleged escaped income - Held: Mere issuance of a bald notice insufficient under new regime, violating due process [Paras 38-40].

Decision – Writ Application Allowed – Reassessment order, demand notice and all consequential proceedings initiated under Section 148A and 147 quashed – Held: Entire reassessment action without jurisdiction, based on incorrect facts and procedural irregularity [Paras 42-44].

Murder of Family Members – Conviction Upheld – Death Sentence Commuted – Appellant convicted for murder of his wife, parents, and minor son – Trial court awarded death penalty – High Court confirmed guilt based on eyewitnesses (PW-1 & PW-2), medical, ballistic and FSL evidence – However, death penalty commuted to life imprisonment for 20 years actual incarceration considering mitigating factors [Paras 1–20, 41–50, 74–75]. 
 
Eyewitnesses and Medical Evidence – Convincing – Injuries Ante-Mortem and Homicidal – Evidence from Ranjana Bai and her son corroborated by postmortem reports – Axe and gun injuries matched – FSL confirmed blood on appellant’s clothes and weapon – Firearm used in murder of minor son Shivyansh confirmed by presence of lead [Paras 12–31, 39–44]. 
 
Mitigating Circumstances – Intoxication, Mental State, and Reformation Potential – Death Commuted – Court found appellant was in an intoxicated state, habitual cannabis consumer – No prior criminal record – Surviving minor son and possibility of reformation considered – Held: Case does not fall under “rarest of rare” doctrine requiring capital punishment [Paras 55–75]. 
 
Sentencing Doctrine – Extensive Review of Rarest of Rare Jurisprudence – 
Balance Sheet Test Applied – Court elaborated on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, Swamy Shraddananda, and Manoj v. MP principles – Applied balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors – Determined that alternative punishment of life imprisonment for 20 years was appropriate [Paras 52–73]. 
 
Final Decision – Death Sentence Set Aside – Life Imprisonment for 20 Years Imposed – Appellant’s conviction under IPC and Arms Act upheld – Sentence modified: death penalty commuted to life imprisonment (actual incarceration of 20 years), with concurrent sentences – Fine and other punishments unchanged [Para 75]. 
 

Employment Law - Home Guards Recruitment – Prior Approval Under Section 3 of HG Act – Not Required for Selection – Approval Needed Only at Appointment Stage – Writ Allowed - Petitioner challenged refusal by Commandant-General to accord approval to selection list on the ground that prior approval was not obtained – Held: Section 3 of the Odisha Home Guards Act requires approval only for appointment, not for initiating selection process – Board’s selection process without prior approval not irregular – Rejection of approval based on misinterpretation of law – Direction issued to consider approval afresh [Paras 9–13].

Statutory Interpretation – "Subject to" and "Approval" – Distinction Between Approval and Permission – Approval May Be Post-facto - Court held that “approval” under Section 3 is not synonymous with “permission” – Prior approval is not mandated unless expressly stated – Circular requiring prior approval is not statutory and cannot override the Act – Selection list is valid pending post-facto approval [Paras 10–11].

Administrative Instructions vs Statute – Circular Cannot Override Statute – Selection Not Void - Circular dated 03.07.2014 requiring prior approval before appointment cannot be read into the statute where the law only requires approval at appointment stage – Rejection of entire selection on this basis is unjustified – Authority cannot assume appellate role in rejecting selection process [Paras 11.3–13.4].

Doctrine of Ratification – Approval Can Be Granted Post-facto – Action Not Invalid for Lack of Initial Sanction - Approval includes ratification of existing acts – Where appointment is yet to be made, Commandant-General can validly accord approval retrospectively – Held: No illegality in seeking approval after selection process concludes [Paras 11.4–13.4].

Writ – Decision Quashed – Direction for Reconsideration - Refusal to grant approval quashed – Matter remitted back to Commandant-General to re-examine approval request in accordance with law [Para 13.5].
 

Pension – Delayed Absorption – Entitlement Recognized – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Petitioner served as Medical Officer at a government-acquired institution and was directed to be absorbed in 2005 – Absorption delayed till 2010 despite court orders – Court held delay attributable solely to State – Held: 
Petitioner entitled to count service period from 22.02.2005 to 20.04.2010 toward qualifying service for pension [Paras 13–20]. 
 
Equitable Doctrine – No Advantage from Own Wrong – Delay by State Cannot Prejudice Employee – Following Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, Court held that respondents cannot deny pension on ground of shortfall in qualifying service when delay in formal absorption was their own doing – Period must be counted for pension entitlement to avoid civil consequences [Paras 18–19]. 
 
Service Law – Rights Crystallized by Judicial Direction – Binding on State – Court emphasized that petitioner’s right to absorption under the 1983 Act crystallized on 22.02.2005 as per previous writ order – State bound to honour such finding; inaction thereafter cannot be used against petitioner [Paras 14–16]. 
 
Retrospectivity – No Wages for No Work – But Period Counts for Pension – While denying claim for salary during 2005–2010, Court held petitioner entitled to count that period for pension qualifying service – “No work no pay” does not apply to pension rights if employee ready to serve and State delays appointment [Para 18]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Allowed – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Pension Directed – Tribunal’s rejection order dated 02.09.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to treat petitioner’s qualifying service as commencing from 22.02.2005 – Pension and arrears to be paid within 8 weeks with transparent calculation details [Paras 20–21]. 
 

Heatwave Crisis – State Inaction Amidst Climate Emergency – Directions Issued – Despite judicial orders in 2024, Rajasthan government failed to implement the Heat Action Plan or health preparedness schemes – Court criticized passive state response despite soaring temperatures and mass vulnerability – Suo motu action revived to enforce institutional accountability [Paras 1–3, 10–14].

Constitutional Right to Life – Extreme Heat as Public Health Emergency – Judicial Duty to Intervene – Holding that right to life under Article 21 includes protection from environmental and climate-induced harms, Court emphasized duty of the State to protect lives through preventive public health action and environmental safeguards [Paras 12–13, 20–22].

Contempt Warning – Continued Non-Compliance of 2024 Order – Show Cause Issued – Court noted shocking disregard of 2024 directions and non-submission of compliance reports by authorities – Held such conduct contemptuous and indicative of systemic apathy – Show cause notice issued to all respondents [Paras 15–17, 25–26].

Interim Relief – Cooling Shelters, Water, ORS and Awareness Campaigns Ordered – Directions issued to provide cooling shelters, drinking water, and ORS at public spaces and issue regular heatwave alerts across Rajasthan – Workers to be granted rest period from 12–3 PM – Coverage to include humans and animals [Paras 22–24].

Policy Direction – Bill on Heat/Cold Deaths to be Enacted – Compensation Framework Proposed – Directed Centre and State to revive and implement the 2015 Bill on prevention of deaths due to temperature extremes – Suggested compensation mechanism for heatwave victims – Called for statutory backing to preventive obligations [Paras 5, 14, 25©, 25€].

Environmental Governance – Tree Plantation and Climate Action Plan Implementation Mandated – Directed plantation along roads, water conservation measures, and effective implementation of Rajasthan’s Climate Change Heat Action Plan – Government not permitted to cite financial constraints when public safety is at stake [Paras 25(a), 25(b), 24].

Final Directions – Compliance by 24.04.2025 – Officials Put on Notice – All District Collectors to file reports on compliance with interim directions – Matter to be reviewed on 24/04/2025 – Central and State departments directed to take steps or face coercive orders [Paras 26, 29–30].
 

Taxation Law - Income Escaping Assessment – Validity of Reopening – Prima Facie Material Justifying Reassessment – Reopening of assessment for AY 2012-13 challenged on grounds that original assessment under Section 143(3) was already concluded and that reassessment notice was issued based solely on third-party information – Held: Department acted on tangible material received from DGIT regarding accommodation entries, and a preliminary enquiry was conducted before issuance of notice under Section 148 – Presence of prima facie belief satisfies statutory requirement for reopening [Paras 1–3, 10–11, 16].

Limitation – Four-Year Bar under Section 147 Proviso – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – Petitioner claimed full and true disclosure was made during original assessment and reopening beyond four years was barred – Held: Whether full and true disclosure was made is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be conclusively decided in writ jurisdiction – Detailed factual enquiry required before competent authority [Paras 3, 12, 19].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Statutory Remedy Availed – Petitioner simultaneously filed appeal before appellate authority challenging reassessment order while writ was pending – Held: Petitioner cannot pursue dual remedies and writ petition is not maintainable under such circumstances [Paras 22–24].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on SC and HC Rulings – Scope of Judicial Interference – Petitioner’s reliance on precedents like A. Raman & Co., Micro Marbles, and Kohinoor Hatcheries distinguished – Held: In present case, there existed prima facie material unlike in cited cases – Proper procedure under GKN Driveshafts followed – Writ jurisdiction limited to testing existence, not sufficiency, of material [Paras 5–9, 17–19].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – No Grounds Made Out – Court held that reassessment notice and order were not vitiated by procedural or jurisdictional errors and petitioner had alternative remedy through appeal – Petitioner granted liberty to pursue statutory remedies [Para 25].

Family Law - Guardianship – Jurisdiction under Guardians and Wards Act – Territorial Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence – Dismissal of Revision - Wife filed guardianship petition claiming child under 5 years forcibly retained by husband’s family – Husband challenged maintainability on jurisdictional ground under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – Held: Where child is under 5 years, presumed to reside with mother – Jurisdictional fact needs evidence – Not a pure question of law – Revision against rejection not maintainable [Paras 2–11].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Not Decidable under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Petitioner sought dismissal claiming minor resided outside Boudh district – Court held that ordinary residence is a factual issue needing inquiry – Cannot be decided solely on pleadings – Appropriate to be addressed during trial [Paras 7–10].

Applicable Precedents – Apex Court and High Court Decisions Considered – Kerala, Allahabad, and Supreme Court Rulings Applied - Court relied on Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, S. Prabhu v. Rajani R, and Sarabjit v. Piara Lal – Emphasized that child’s ordinary residence requires factual determination – Rejected applicability of contrary ruling in Dillip Kumar Behera v. Puspanjali Behera to present case [Paras 6, 10].

Revision – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Interference Declined – Trial Court Order Not Perverse - Family Court's rejection of husband’s objection found reasonable and legally sound – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Section 115 CPC – Revision dismissed [Paras 11–13].