Criminal Law – Revision Against Charge - Criminal Conspiracy and Corruption in Educational Appointments – Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, and Sections 120B, 477A, 471, 417, 420, 201 IPC – Charges Upheld – The petitioner, President of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, challenged the trial court’s order rejecting discharge and framing charges under P.C. Act and IPC – Allegations involved conspiracy with other accused in accepting bribes for appointing two individuals as teachers by falsifying score sheets, with resultant exclusion of meritorious candidates – Held: Prima facie evidence showed petitioner was involved in the alleged conspiracy, participated in falsifying records and appointments; sufficient material existed to proceed to trial [Paras 1-16].

Public Servant Status – Section 2(c)(xii) P.C. Act – Office Bearers Receiving Government Grants Held Public Servants – The petitioner argued he was not a public servant as President of an autonomous educational body – Held: Since Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha received substantial central government grants, office bearers are deemed public servants under Section 2(c)(xii), P.C. Act, making prosecution under the P.C. Act valid [Paras 6-12].

Sanction for Prosecution – Requirement of Sanction Considered – Petitioner contended absence of sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act for him invalidated proceedings – Held: Where accused falls within the public servant definition by virtue of receipt of government funds, prosecution is sustainable without separate sanction if other procedural requirements are satisfied; no merit in contention [Paras 4-5, 12].

Charge Framing – Sufficiency of Prima Facie Evidence – Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d), IPC Provisions – Trial Court’s Decision Affirmed – The trial court correctly appreciated materials indicating manipulation of selection processes for pecuniary gain and dismissed discharge plea; findings that grounds exist for presuming guilt upheld by High Court – Revision Petition Dismissed [Paras 14-16].

Decision:  High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the trial court’s order of framing charges, concluding that prima facie material exists for proceeding to trial against the petitioner under the P.C. Act and IPC offences related to conspiracy and corruption [Para 16].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Settlement Recognized – FIR Quashed - Petition filed for quashing of FIR No. 323/2022 under Sections 323/354/34 IPC on the basis of amicable settlement between husband and wife – Allegations included physical assault, molestation, and threats – The parties executed a settlement deed dated 24.04.2025 wherein they agreed to dissolve their marriage and settle all claims including alimony and istridhan – Respondent no. 2 confirmed the settlement in court and raised no objection to quashing – Held: Continuation of proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process of law – FIR and consequential proceedings quashed in the interest of justice [Paras 1-3, 5, 8-9].

Civil Law - Grant of Letters of Administration – Holographic Will – Long Delay in Publication – Grant Upheld – The appellants objected to the grant of letters of administration on the basis of a Will executed in 1968 but disclosed after 30 years – The Court held that the application for letters of administration was filed after disputes arose among heirs and hence was not time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act – The delay did not by itself create a suspicious circumstance sufficient to invalidate the Will – Grant of letters of administration by the Trial Court upheld [Paras 34-44, 60].*

Limitation in Probate Proceedings – Continuous Right to Apply – Article 137 of the Limitation Act – Not Time-Barred – The Court held that the cause of action to apply for letters of administration accrues upon the need to prove the Will, especially upon dispute or challenge from other heirs – Citing Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur and Sameer Kapoor cases, the Court ruled that probate rights are continuing and not extinguished by mere lapse of time – Appeal dismissed [Paras 38-44].*

Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof on Objector – Holographic Will Carries High Presumption of Regularity – The Court reiterated that the burden to dispel suspicious circumstances in case of a Will lies on the propounder, but once execution and attestation are proved by credible evidence, it shifts to the objector – In the present case, the handwritten Will was proved by attesting witness and corroborated by the propounder – The appellants failed to produce any evidence of physical or mental incapacity of the testator or any forgery – Allegations of suspicious circumstances were held to be conjectural and unsupported – Will upheld [Paras 45-57].*

Effect of Family Settlements – No Bar to Probate – Joint Mutation Not a Waiver of Probate Right – The Court clarified that family arrangements or joint mutation of properties do not defeat the right or duty to apply for probate or letters of administration – The probate court is bound to determine the validity of the Will irrespective of subsequent settlements among heirs – Reliance placed on Carapiet case – Grant of letters of administration affirmed [Paras 58-59].*

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Letters of Administration Confirmed – The appeal challenging the grant of letters of administration was dismissed – No costs awarded – Lower court records directed to be returned – Application for stay of judgment rejected [Paras 60-62].*

Cheque Dishonour – 'Account Closed' – Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction Restored - The Trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that dishonour for ‘account closed’ does not attract Section 138 NI Act and no presumption arose due to denial of signature – Held: The Hon’ble High Court held that dishonour of cheque on ground of 'account closed' is covered under Section 138 as per Supreme Court’s decision in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012) 13 SCC 375 – The Court also held that the accused had not specifically denied signature, and bare suggestion of misuse does not rebut presumption under the Act – Conviction restored, accused directed to pay Rs.3,20,000/- to the complainant or undergo one month simple imprisonment [Paras 10-13].

Presumption of Debt – Rebuttal of Presumption – Failure to Produce Evidence – Conviction Justified - The accused failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption – Cross-examination was limited to an unsubstantiated suggestion of misuse – No substantive evidence produced to show loan was not taken – Held: In absence of rebuttal evidence, statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act prevails in favour of complainant [Paras 12-13].

Sentence – Substitution with Compensation – Efflux of Time – Considering the lapse of time since offence, Court directed payment of cheque amount within stipulated time, failing which simple imprisonment to follow – Emphasis on compensatory approach in cheque dishonour cases reaffirmed [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law - Corruption Case – Demand and Acceptance – Section 7 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Conviction set aside – Acquittal - Accused challenged the conviction for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹3,000 in relation to granting a temporary electricity connection – The Court noted serious discrepancies including the complainant’s partial hostility, contradictions in the evidence, procedural violations, and questionable credibility of the trap proceedings – The Court held that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, setting aside the conviction and sentence [Paras 22-33].

Demand Not Proved – Inconsistent Witness Evidence – Reversal of Conviction – The complainant (P.W.2) turned hostile regarding the acceptance of the bribe and the official witness (P.W.5), being of inferior cadre, contradicted key events – The prosecution failed to establish a clean chain of events supporting demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, rendering conviction unsustainable [Paras 26-31].

Violation of Vigilance Manual – Trap Procedure Flawed – Conviction Reversed – The Court found multiple violations of mandatory safeguards under the Vigilance Manual, such as improper selection of trap witnesses, lack of crucial documents like arrest memos, and procedural irregularities – The Court observed the probability of motivated entrapment, leading to the acquittal of the accused [Paras 30-32].

Circumstantial Doubt – Inference of Malice – Acquittal Warranted – Given the previous disputes involving the local Counsellor and the inconsistencies surrounding the construction project, the Court inferred malice and manipulation of the complaint to falsely implicate the accused – Held: Accused entitled to benefit of doubt, conviction set aside, fine refunded [Paras 29-33].

Decision of the Judgment – Appeals allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellants acquitted, and fine ordered to be refunded [Para 33].

Civil Law - Title and Possession Dispute – Declaration and Injunction – Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act – Plaintiffs’ Title Upheld – The appellant/1st defendant challenged the decree declaring plaintiffs’ title and injunction against defendants from creating encumbrance – Plaintiffs produced prior title deeds tracing ownership from 1950 onwards and proved possession through tax receipts and mutation entries – The 1st defendant relied on a gift deed executed by his father, but the court found the predecessor had already alienated the entire property before the gift, leaving nothing to be gifted – Held: Plaintiffs successfully proved title and possession; gift deed executed in favour of appellant invalid and unenforceable [Paras 13-19].

Burden of Proof – Shifting Onus in Title Suit – High Degree of Probability Principle – Supreme Court Precedent Applied – Though plaintiffs initially lacked full title narration in pleadings, court accepted evidence of title through prior deeds, tax payments, and possession – Held: Once high probability of plaintiffs’ ownership was established, burden shifted to defendants to prove their claim, which they failed to discharge [Paras 12-14].

Tenant-Owner Conflict – Denial of Tenancy by Defendant – Adverse Inference Drawn – Defendant initially admitted tenancy in earlier rent control proceedings but later claimed ownership through gift deed – Court held admissions made in judicial proceedings are best evidence; held defendant continues as tenant, and ownership claim fabricated post-facto – Held: Denial of tenancy found dishonest and rejected [Paras 23-27].

Survey Commission Report – Limited Evidentiary Value – Inconsistent with Title Documents – Defendant relied on Commissioner’s report demarcating property, but court held report could not override title deeds and possession documents which favoured plaintiffs – Held: Commissioner report cannot validate baseless ownership claims when contradicted by documentary title [Paras 10, 32].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment confirming plaintiffs’ title and possession over suit property – Gift deed in favour of appellant declared non-binding and injunction against defendants sustained – Appeal dismissed with costs [Final Para].

Taxation Law - CGST – Detention & Penalty under Section 129(3) – Rule 138 Violation via Loading-Point Mismatch – Petition Dismissed – Goods in transit intercepted on 09.03.2025; E-Invoice and E-Way Bill were generated but actual loading point (Rupnarayanpur, West Medinipur, West Bengal) differed from the declared dispatch point (Village-Sakui, Kharagpur) – GPS logs (six-hour halt on 08.03.2025) and driver’s statement corroborated mismatch – Held: Violation of Rule 138 established; adjudicating authority had adequate adverse material; writ held to be an afterthought and devoid of merit – Petition dismissed in limine [Paras 2, 5, 8, 10].

E-Way Bill Compliance – Sufficiency of GPS/Driver Evidence – Discrepancy in Place of Dispatch – Outcome: Violation Upheld – The Court accepted GPS location data and driver’s statement as confirming the true loading point, justifying detention and penalty proceedings under Section 129 read with Rule 138 – Mere possession of e-way bill/e-invoice is insufficient when core particulars (place of dispatch) are incorrect [Paras 2, 6, 8].

Input Tax Credit (Section 16) – Suspicious/Cancelled Suppliers – Relevance at Detention Stage – Investigation Warranted – Records indicated heavy ITC availed (about ₹1.01 Cr in FY 2023-24 and ₹1.03 Cr in FY 2024-25) from suppliers largely suspended/cancelled or unrelated to the stated line of business – Though not finally adjudicated, such material supported detention and the authority’s adverse view at the roadside proceedings [Paras 3–5].

Release on Payment – No Absolute Waiver – Still, Writ Found Meritless – Payment of penalty to secure release, even without protest, does not per se waive the right to challenge – Nevertheless, given the cogent adverse material (GPS/driver corroboration and compliance breach), the challenge was deemed an afterthought and lacking in merit [Paras 8–9].

Final Order – Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus – Reliefs Denied – With Rule 138 violation proved and adequate material before the adjudicating authority, the Court refused to interfere with the MOV-09 penalty and declined refund with interest – Writ petition dismissed in limine [Para 10].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Correction in Preliminary Decree – Sections 152, 153 CPC – Revision Petitions Dismissed – The petitioners challenged the trial court’s order allowing correction in the preliminary decree passed in 1985, whereby the property number in Schedule A was changed from “Plot No. 51” to “Plot No. 57”, Veer Nagar, Jain Colony, Delhi – Petitioners contended they were bona fide purchasers without notice of partition proceedings and that the correction prejudiced their proprietary rights – The Court held that the correction was clerical in nature, permissible under Sections 152,153 CPC, and necessary to reflect the actual subject matter involved in the original suit – The Court refused to decide on lis pendens or title of petitioners, leaving that open to be decided under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC – Revision petitions found to be devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 20-24, 28-29].

Correction of Decree – Typographical Error in Property Number – Sections 152, 153 CPC – Correction Allowed – The preliminary decree mistakenly referred to the property as Plot No. 51 instead of Plot No. 57 – Defendant No.10, the original owner, had clearly identified the correct property in his written statement – Held: Trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Sections 152/153 CPC to correct a clerical error which did not change the subject matter or nature of the decree – Substantial justice must prevail over technical mistakes [Paras 20-24].

Lis Pendens – Claim of Bona Fide Purchaser – Determination Deferred – Petitioners contended that their title was protected as they purchased the property during pendency without knowledge of the litigation – Held: Since the present revision was confined to correction of the decree, the question of lis pendens or validity of purchasers’ claim was left open to be determined in appropriate proceedings under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC or otherwise – No adjudication on merits of title [Para 28].

Procedural Objection – Multiple Orders Challenged in Single Petition – Objection Raised – Respondents raised the issue that multiple orders were impugned in a single revision – Held: Though not conclusively ruled upon, the Court proceeded to dispose of the revision on merits in interest of justice [Para 17].

Finality of Partition – Longstanding Decree Not to be Undermined – Partition proceedings initiated in 1982 were upheld by Supreme Court in 2016 – Petitioners raised objections only after appointment of Local Commissioner for final decree – Held: Allowing such objections would defeat the purpose of a decree that had attained finality – Courts must prevent delay and obstruction in execution of lawful decrees [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Revision Petitions Dismissed – The correction of property description in the preliminary decree from Plot No. 51 to Plot No. 57 was upheld – Petitioners’ claim of being innocent purchasers without notice was not adjudicated – All pending applications disposed of – No merit found in either revision petition [Para 29].

Civil Law - Redemption of Mortgage – Limitation Period under Article 61 Limitation Act, 1963 – Suit for redemption not barred – The suit seeking redemption of usufructuary mortgage executed in 1969 was dismissed by the lower courts as time-barred—Held, limitation for redemption of mortgage accrues from the date when the right to redeem arises—Assignment of mortgage in 1986 created acknowledgment of mortgage rights—The right to redeem remains alive under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act—Decree of lower courts rejecting redemption suit set aside [Paras 9-23].

Gift Deed – Validity under Section 123 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Gift upheld – Courts below held gift deed void for lack of proper attestation by two witnesses—Held, Registrar (PW2) acted as attesting witness with sufficient animus, satisfying the statutory requirement—Execution not denied by executant; proviso to Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act applies—Registered gift deed operates as valid transfer of ownership—Decree declaring gift deed invalid is reversed [Paras 24-28].

Counter-Claim – Maintainability under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC – Counter-claim dismissed – Counter-claim was not linked to the suit property or cause of action—Held, counter-claim must arise from cause of action related to the suit and be within limitation—Counter-claim regarding gifted property after long inaction held untenable—Lower courts’ acceptance of counter-claim incorrect and reversed [Paras 29-33].

Injunction Suit – Decree of Injunction Denied – Suit for injunction by respondent dismissed – Plaintiffs having valid redemption and partition rights and existence of valid gift deed disentitles defendants from absolute injunction relief—Decree granting injunction in OS 216/2004 set aside [Paras 34-35].

Final Decision – Judgment of Trial Court and Appellate Court set aside – Redemption suit decreed – Gift deed upheld – Counter-claim dismissed – Injunction suit dismissed – Plaintiffs entitled to partition and costs throughout [Para 35].