Civil Law - Expert Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Comparison of signatures on photocopies - Petitioner-defendant sought permission to examine handwriting expert to compare signatures on certified copies of sale deeds and a photocopy of a compromise deed after plaintiff heir denied signatures during cross-examination - Trial Court rejected application on the ground that comparison on non-originals is legally impermissible - High Court noted that the original compromise deed was available in another court file and sale deeds were certified copies of public documents - Held - Trial Court should not have shut out the petitioner case at the threshold - it is for the expert to decide if comparison can be made from certified copies or photocopies - science of identifying impressions has attained exactitude and best evidence available should not be excluded on a preposterous plea - final decision remains with the Court after expert report and cross-examination - impugned order set aside - [Paras 1-18].

Evidence Law - Handwriting Expert - Comparison from Photocopy - Permissibility - High Court observed that a photocopy of a document can be subject to expert opinion if signatures or thumb impressions appearing on the document are apparent - Held - Best evidence available with a party cannot be shut out on the plea that comparison cannot be made on the basis of a photocopy - expert opinion is subject to cross-examination and the final decision rests with the Court - [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 22.12.2021 set aside – Petitioner permitted to examine expert in accordance with law.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Forgery and Conspiracy - Petitioners sought quashing of FIR registered for offences under BNS involving alleged forgery of signatures of shareholders on a Special Power of Attorney used in NCLT proceedings - Petitioners contended that the complaint was malafide and filed at a remote location to cause harassment and that no prima facie case existed against the company directors and officers - Court observed that at the stage of investigation the veracity of allegations cannot be tested on merits - High Court cannot act as an investigating agency under Section 528 BNSS - Allegations of conspiracy involving the disclosure of confidential company information by the Company Secretary and CFO required proper investigation - Held - Unless allegations are found to be inherently improbable or absurd the investigation must be allowed to reach its logical conclusion - petition dismissed - [Paras 1-33].

Criminal Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 173(1) and 156(2) - Registration of FIR - Challenge to investigation on the ground that the police station at Baharampore lacked jurisdiction as the accused were residents of Delhi and the alleged acts occurred outside the local limits - Held - Section 173(1) BNSS mandates registration of FIR irrespective of the area where the offence is committed - Section 156(2) creates a statutory bar against challenging the proceedings of a police officer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction - Lack of territorial jurisdiction is not a valid ground for quashing an FIR - [Paras 35-41].

Criminal Law - Malafides of Informant - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Effect on Prosecution - Petitioners alleged that the complainant had a malafide motive to wreak vengeance - Held - Malafide of the informant is of secondary importance once a cognizable offence is registered - Fate of the accused is decided by the material collected during investigation and evidence produced in Court and not by the alleged motives of the complainant - [Para 34].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Investigating agency directed to conclude the investigation at the earliest.

Writ Law - Disability Pension - Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards 1982 - Rules 5 and 9 - General Rules - Rule 423(a) - Primary Hypertension - Petitioner Union of India challenged Armed Forces Tribunal order granting disability pension for Primary Hypertension at 30 percent rounded off to 50 percent - Respondent joined armed forces in 1991 as medically fit and served for 30 years until discharge in 2021 - Release Medical Board found 30 percent disability but opined it was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service - High Court relied on Dharamvir Singh v Union of India to hold that disease contracted during service is presumed attributable to service unless contrary reasons are recorded by Medical Board - No hereditary link or prior treatment record was shown to rebut presumption of fitness at entry - Held - Tribunal order requires no interference - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-11].

Writ Law - Rounding Off - Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards 1982 - Rules 5 and 9 - Eligibility - Petitioner argued rounding off applies only to personnel invalidated out of service - High Court cited Union of India v Ram Avtar to reiterate that benefit applies regardless of mode of exit if disability is attributable to or aggravated by service - Held - Respondent entitled to rounding off of 30 percent disability to 50 percent for life - [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension and rounding off benefits to the respondent stands upheld.

Civil Law - Partition - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 115 - Final Decree Proceedings - Suit for partition of schedule A and B properties was decreed and subsequently modified in first appeal - Review petition filed in the first appeal was allowed in 2015 setting aside the earlier finding that Item No 4 of schedule A was sold and directing its partition - Trial Court in final decree proceedings vide impugned order dated 19.12.2024 directed Advocate Commissioner to partition only Item Nos 1 and 3 as per the review order - High Court found that the Trial Court recorded the error rectification in the review order but nonetheless rejected the contention to include Item No 4 - Held - Trial Court misinterpreted the review order and committed a lapse by failing to refer to Item No 4 - Since no order disturbed the findings of the review petition in pending Second Appeal or CMAs the review order must be implemented - Impugned order modified to include Item No 4 for division by metes and bounds - [Paras 1-13].

Civil Law - Succession - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Entitlement of daughters to share in property - Petitioners contended that Item No 4 property admeasuring Ac.16-08 guntas was not sold and daughters were entitled to allotment of shares - Appellate Court in review proceedings corrected an apparent error regarding the non-existence of Item No 4 and directed its partition instead of distributing sale proceeds - Trial Court failed to implement this modification in final decree proceedings - Held - Review order dated 11.08.2015 established that Item No 4 was liable for partition - Trial Court directed to appoint Advocate Commissioner to divide Item Nos 1 3 and 4 of suit schedule A properties - [Paras 7-12].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 19.12.2024 set aside – Trial Court directed to ensure Advocate Commissioner partitions Item Nos. 1, 3, and 4 of suit schedule ‘A’ properties in terms of the review order.

Civil Law - Possession and Mesne Profits - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - Title through Will - The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession and mesne profits regarding an LIG Flat in Vikas Puri asserting title through a registered GPA and Agreement to Sell executed by Respondent No 2 in 2006 - The Appellant No 1 who is the wife of Respondent No 2 contested the suit claiming she became the absolute owner via an unregistered handwritten Will dated 15-08-1986 executed by her late father-in-law - She alleged her husband snatched the original Will - The Trial Court observed that neither the original nor a photocopy of the Will was produced and the alleged attesting witnesses denied being witnesses during cross-examination - The suit was decreed and the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment - In Second Appeal the High Court framed questions regarding the bar under Section 91 of the Evidence Act - Held - The appellant failed to establish the existence or execution of the Will - The respondent established superior title through a clear chain of documents - Concurrent findings upheld - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-74].

Evidence Law - Exclusion of Oral Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 91 and 92 - Documentary Evidence - The appellant attempted to prove the disposition of property through oral testimony in the absence of the written instrument - Held - Section 91 operates as a complete bar against proving the terms of a disposition by oral evidence when the transaction has been reduced to writing - The document itself is the most reliable and authentic evidence of its own contents - Oral evidence is inadmissible to prove the actual contents where the law requires the transaction to be proved through writing - [Paras 45-53].

Evidence Law - Secondary Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 65 - Factual Foundation - Appellant sought to lead evidence on a missing Will alleging it was stolen - Held - Before secondary evidence can be admitted the party must prove that the original document factually existed and was executed and provide valid reasons for its non-production - The appellant's police complaint was found to be a belated attempt to create evidence - Since the existence of the primary document was not proved the question of leading secondary evidence does not arise - [Paras 56-66].

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 - Finality of Suit - The appellant had previously filed Suit No 261/2011 for a declaration of ownership based on the same 1986 Will - That suit was dismissed in 2014 and the judgment was never challenged - Held - The findings of the earlier suit operate as res judicata and the appellant is barred from re-agitating the claim of ownership based on the said Will - [Para 67].

Evidence Law - Witness Competency - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 59 and 60 - Power of Attorney Holder as Witness - The appellant challenged the competency of the plaintiff’s attorney DW-1 to depose - Held - It is settled law that any person aware of the facts of the case is a competent witness - A witness does not need a Power of Attorney to depose about facts within their personal knowledge - The objection that an attorney is incompetent to depose is legally untenable - [Paras 68-69].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the lower courts affirmed – All pending applications disposed of.

Writ Law - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 94 - Acquisition of part of house or building - Petitioner owned 2.05 Ares of land in Sy. No. 20/5 of Alappuzha West Village along with a building - Government notified 1.65 Ares for widening Shavakotta Bridge leaving behind 40 Square Metres of triangular land - Petitioner requested acquisition of the entire plot on 18.04.2022 claiming the leftover portion would be of no practical use - Special Tahsildar rejected the request via Ext.P7 communication stating that the balance land was not required as per the current project alignment - Possession was subsequently taken and an award was passed only for the notified portion - High Court observed that Section 94(1) contains a statutory prohibition against acquiring only a part of any house or building if the owner desires the whole to be acquired - Court found that while no specific rule prescribes the stage for expressing such desire the petitioner had submitted objections well before possession was taken - Held - The option under Section 94 is available to the person losing the land and is not an option for the Requisitioning Authority - The Authority cannot refuse acquisition of the entire property on the grounds that the balance is not required for the project - Action of respondents in taking possession without referring the question to the appropriate authority was contrary to law - Ext.P7 set aside - District Collector directed to refer the question regarding the balance land to the appropriate authority within six weeks - [Paras 1-6].

Writ Law - Statutory Procedure - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 94(1) Proviso - Reference to Authority - Petitioner raised a question regarding the acquisition of the whole building before possession was taken - Collector proceeded to take possession and pass an award without making a reference - Held - Proviso to Section 94(1) mandates that if a question arises whether land forms part of a house or building the Collector shall refer the matter for determination and shall not take possession until the question is determined - Failure to refer the matter and taking possession for the notified extent alone was clearly against statutory provisions - [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Ext.P7 set aside – District Collector Alappuzha directed to refer the question regarding the balance land of 40 Square Metres to the appropriate authority within six weeks – Authority directed to decide the reference within four months after hearing the petitioner.

Criminal Law - Murder and Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 379, 120B and 34 - Appellants Paulus Surin and Jetha Kachhap challenged the Trial Court judgment convicting them for the murder of Bhushan Singh and Ram Govind Singh by PLFI extremists - Prosecution alleged that Surin, a local MLA, conspired with extremists to kill the deceased because the deceased was acting as a police spy and was involved in a rape case - Jetha Kachhap was identified as one of the shooters - Trial Court relied on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 and a statement by Kachhap under Section 164 CrPC - High Court found that PW-1 and PW-4 were actually inside their house during the firing and only reached the spot after the miscreants fled - Identification of the appellants was based on photographs shown previously and was not credible - Alleged previous threats were not corroborated by independent witnesses - Held - Identification of appellants as perpetrators was not proved beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside - Appeals allowed - [Paras 1-24].

Evidence Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 120B - Proof and Acquittal of Co-conspirators - Appellant Surin was convicted for conspiracy while all other alleged co-conspirators named in the FIR were acquitted by the Trial Court - High Court observed that the prosecution case was based on simple suspicion without concrete facts proving a meeting of minds - A letter from 2011 regarding threats was found to be stale and lacked a causal connection to the 2013 incident - Held - An individual cannot be attributed to entering into a conspiracy with himself in the absence of other persons - Charge of conspiracy failed - [Paras 15, 18-20].

Evidence Law - Confessional Statement - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 164 - Exculpatory nature - Prosecution relied on the statement of appellant Jetha Kachhap recorded before a Magistrate - High Court noted the statement was exculpatory as it did not admit involvement in the firing but merely placed the appellant at a distance - Procedural safeguards regarding voluntariness and time for reflection were not followed - Held - An exculpatory statement cannot be treated as a confession of guilt or used as evidence against the maker or co-accused - [Paras 15, 18].

Criminal Law - Ocular Evidence - Reliability - PW-1 claimed to have seen the firing while playing cards - Evidence surfaced showing 35 bullet marks on the wall of the house where PW-1 fled - High Court found it impossible for PW-1 to have fled safely from the chabutra to the house under such heavy firing - Held - Factual scenario indicates witnesses were already inside the house and did not witness the actual commencement of the crime - Evidence of identification is unreliable - [Paras 13, 15, 18].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith.

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) - Disproportionate Assets - Appellants husband and wife both public servants - Prosecution alleged acquisition of assets worth Rs 44,79,283.32 disproportionate to known sources of income during the check period 01.03.2000 to 30.01.2008 - Trial Court convicted appellants and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine - High Court observed that the initial check period in FIR was 2001-2008 but was later altered to 2000-2008 without giving the accused an opportunity to explain properties acquired in the extended period - Investigating Officer failed to consider legal sources including bank loans from IDBI and Central Bank of India and rental income supported by statutory documents like Form 16 and Income Tax returns - Evidence showed properties were gifted by relatives which was ignored by the prosecution - Held - Prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt as the Investigating Officer did not conduct a proper enquiry into the rendered accounts - Conviction and sentence set aside - [Paras 1-28].

Criminal Law - Investigation Procedure - Opportunity to Explain - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(1)(e) - Statutory Requirement - Public servant must be given an opportunity to account for pecuniary resources or property - Investigating Officer failed to call for explanation after altering the check period - Selection of assessment period without considering anterior legal income is arbitrary - Held - Failure to give an opportunity to the accused to explain disproportionate wealth is fatal to the prosecution - [Paras 19-23].

Criminal Law - Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(1)(e) - Possession vs Account - Primary burden lies on the prosecution to establish that the public servant was in possession of disproportionate assets - Burden shifts to accused to satisfactorily account for the same only after prosecution discharges its initial burden - Held - In the absence of proof of allegation the public servant cannot be compelled to furnish an explanation - [Paras 21-25].

Criminal Law - Investigation Standards - Calculation of Expenditure - Standing Instructions - Investigating Officer deducted one-third of the gross salary for household expenditure - High Court held that investigating agency cannot be allowed to deduct one-third as a matter of routine - In the interest of justice only 10 percent of gross salary should be deducted under the head of kitchen expenses as per standing instructions - Held - Investigating Officer failed to follow proper norms for quantifying unverifiable expenditure - [Paras 22-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Trial Court set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Fine amount to be refunded – Bail bonds cancelled.

Writ Law - Recruitment and Selection - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Challenge to rejection of candidature for post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) - Petitioner applied under OBC category for the post advertised via Advertisement No. 51/2022 - MPPSC initially provisionally selected the petitioner but later rejected his candidature through a corrigendum dated 14.10.2025 - Rejection was based on the fact that the petitioner possessed M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Entomology and Ph.D. in Agriculture and had cleared NET in Agriculture - Petitioner contended that Entomology is an allied branch of Zoology and relied on SET-2024 notification where Entomology was categorized under Life Sciences - Respondents argued that the Higher Education Department order dated 22.12.2022 strictly delineates core and allied subjects which the petitioner did not meet - A specialized Committee of Subject Experts examined the documents and found the Agriculture-based degrees unsuitable - Court observed that judicial review under Article 226 in academic matters is circumscribed and the Court cannot act as an appellate academic body - Held - Rejection of candidature was justified as the petitioners did not possess the prescribed Master's degree in the main or designated allied subjects or the requisite NET in Life Sciences - Petitions dismissed - [Paras 1-25].

Writ Law - Judicial Review - Equivalence of Degrees - Scope of interference - Determining whether a particular qualification is equivalent to the prescribed criteria - Held - The prescription of qualifications is a matter of recruitment policy for the employer - The Court does not possess the expertise to assess equivalence and cannot substitute its views for those of academic experts - Whether a qualification should be regarded as equivalent is exclusively for the State to determine - Reliance placed on the mandate that any appointment made in disregard of strict terms of the advertisement would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - [Paras 15-17 and 23-24].

Writ Law - Eligibility Criteria - NET/SET Qualification - Nature of qualifying exams - Petitioner claimed eligibility based on qualifying SET-2024 in Life Sciences where Entomology was an allied subject - Held - NET/SET is merely a qualifying examination and does not operate as substantive eligibility for a specific post - The UGC does not possess the jurisdiction to restrict the State from prescribing its own essential educational qualifications tailored for its public services - Permitting flexible interpretations of the advertisement mid-process would amount to a fraud on the public - [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Rejection of candidature by MPPSC upheld – No order as to costs.