Writ Law - Eviction and Demolition - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 - Sections 2(g) 4 and 5 - Petitioners challenged the demolition of residential quarters owned by Kolkata Port Trust and Calcutta Dock Labour Board at Brook Lane Kolkata - Petitioners claimed they were in possession and were entitled to statutory notice under Section 4 and eviction proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1971 - Respondents relied on a police memo dated 22.05.2025 indicating imminent risk of building collapse posing threat to life and property - Court noted that petitioners failed to produce any cogent material beyond Aadhaar cards to substantiate their authority to occupy or their settled possession despite specific directions in previous orders - Court found that Aadhaar cards do not establish the legal status of occupation required to trigger the Public Premises Act - Held - Provisions of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act of 1971 have no application in the absence of evidence regarding unauthorised occupation - Writ petition lacks merit - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-27].

Writ Law - Public Premises - Unauthorised Occupation - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 - Section 2(g) - Definition and Evidence - Petitioners failed to satisfy the Court as to how they came into possession of the dwelling units under respondent authorities - Court held that mere submission of Aadhaar cards without further proof of possession or authority to occupy is insufficient to establish status as unauthorised occupants - Held - Protection under the Act of 1971 cannot be invoked by individuals who fail to substantiate their settled position in the public premises - [Paras 13-20].

Writ Law - Precedent - Distinguishable Facts - Applicability of Section 2(e) - Petitioners relied on Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata vs Vijay Kumar Arya (2009) 2 CHN 274 where notice was mandatory - Court distinguished the precedent noting that in the cited case a lease existed which was subsequently revoked - In the present case no lease or authority was demonstrated by the petitioners - Held - Facts of the cited case are distinguishable and do not assist the petitioners - [Para 21].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Interim orders if any vacated – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Maintainability of Revision against return of papers - Petitioner filed applications for issuing subpoena under Section 165 BSA and expert opinion under Section 47(1) BSA in O.S. No. 1239 of 2023 - Trial Court returned applications on grounds that plaintiff evidence was closed and questioned maintainability - Petitioner filed Civil Revision Petitions without re-representing the papers or complying with returns - High Court observed that an avenue was open to re-present and satisfy the Trial Court - Held - Revisions challenging order of return are not maintainable without exhausting the remedy of re-presentation - Petitions disposed of with direction to re-present within one week - [Paras 1-5].

Evidence Law - Expert Opinion and Subpoena - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam - Sections 47(1) and 165 - Procedure for maintainability - Trial Court returned applications questioning maintainability after closure of evidence - Petitioner sought directions for acceptance of applications - Held - Trial Court directed to post the matter for maintainability in Open Court and hear the learned counsel if not satisfied with compliance - Trial proceedings to be deferred until the maintainability of the applications is decided - Process to be completed within three weeks - [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Petitions disposed of – Petitioner directed to re-present the original applications within one week – Trial Court to hear maintainability in Open Court – Trial deferred pending maintainability order.

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal of five respondents for offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act - State challenged the Trial Court order dated 12.04.2012 - Prosecution alleged the accused assaulted the informant’s wife and daughter at a village dairy and used caste-related abuses - Trial Court acquitted the accused citing lack of independent witnesses and material contradictions - High Court observed that the informant (PW-1) was not an eyewitness - only interested witnesses were examined - evidence on record revealed deep animosity between parties as the informant’s son was accused of raping a relative of one of the accused - medical evidence did not support ocular testimony as no external injuries were found - material witness who informed the informant about the incident was not examined - Held - trial court rightly appreciated the evidence - judgment of acquittal suffers from no illegality or perversity - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-15, 23-25].

Criminal Law - Caste Based Abuses - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - Essential ingredients - Prosecution failed to prove that the alleged insults were made with the specific intent to humiliate on the ground of caste in a place within public view - Record suggested the altercation was rooted in personal enmity and land litigation rather than caste identity - Held - mere belonging to a Scheduled Caste is not sufficient to attract the Act unless the insult is laced with casteist remarks and targeted specifically at the victim’s community status - prosecution failed to satisfy essential requirements - [Paras 16-18].

Evidence Law - Medical Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Conflict between ocular and medical testimony - Prosecution witnesses alleged being struck by a milk can and a knife - The Medical Officer who examined the victims found no external injuries on PW-2 or PW-3 - Held - when the medical evidence fails to support the version of injured witnesses regarding the nature of the assault - it creates a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case - [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Appellate Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Scope of interference in acquittal - Double presumption of innocence - Appellate Court has full power to re-appreciate evidence but should not disturb acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible - Interference is warranted only if the trial court's conclusion is perverse or ignores material evidence - Held - Trial Court’s findings were just and proper - presumption of innocence is reinforced by the order of acquittal - [Paras 19-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal confirmed – Bail bonds stand cancelled.

Writ Law - Citizenship - Foreigners Act 1946 - Section 9 - Burden of proof - Petitioner assailed Foreigners Tribunal opinion declaring him a foreigner - Claimed legacy through father Mohiruddin Sheikh and grandfather Pasan Ali recorded in NRC 1951 and voter lists from 1966 onwards - Tribunal rejected claims citing significant age discrepancies and inconsistent family details in voter lists across three different villages - NRC 1951 copies were computer-generated printouts without mandatory certification - School certificate author not examined - High Court observed that Section 9 places the entire burden on the proceedee to prove citizenship - Failure to establish a continuous chain of residence and linkage between the projected ancestors and the petitioner - Held - No patent error or perversity found in the Tribunal order - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-35].

Evidence Law - Electronic Records - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 65-B - Admissibility - Admissibility of computer-generated NRC legacy data and voter lists - Petitioner submitted computer-generated printouts without the certificate required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act - Court noted corresponding Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 - Held - Without statutory certification - electronic records or computer-generated printouts have no evidentiary value in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings - Ratio of Anowar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer followed - [Paras 12-17].

Evidence Law - Public Documents - Census Act 1948 - Section 15 - NRC 1951 - Petitioner produced NRC 1951 extract to prove domicile - Court held that NRC 1951 was prepared under the Census Act 1948 - Records of census are not open to inspection nor admissible in evidence under Section 15 of the said Act - Held - NRC 1851 extract produced to prove domicile is inadmissible in evidence - [Paras 13-16].

Writ Law - Certiorari - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Scope of jurisdiction - High Court's power to review Tribunal findings - Petitioner argued that oral testimony of father should not have been discarded - Court emphasized that a writ of certiorari is not an appellate remedy - High Court cannot re-weigh evidence or substitute its view for that of the Tribunal unless there is a manifest error of law or perversity - Held - Error in decision itself may be amenable to certiorari only if it is a patent error apparent on the face of the record and not a mere wrong decision - [Paras 28-31].

Evidence Law - Citizenship Proof - PAN Card and EPIC - Petitioner relied on PAN card and Electoral Photo Identity Card to establish citizenship - Court held that these documents are not proof of citizenship as they are often issued on self-declaration and are post-reference documents - Held - Mere filing of PAN card or EPIC without supporting foundational records does not prove citizenship - [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Foreigners Tribunal order declaring the petitioner a foreigner is upheld – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law - NDPS Act - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 20(B) and 22(B) - Possession of Bhang vs Ganja - Appellant was apprehended near Chaibasa Bus Stand with a briefcase containing 11 Kg of alleged Ganja - Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to 07 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 50000 - FSL report dated 29.11.2002 Exhibit-6 opined the substance was broken leaves of vegetable flowery substances found to be Bhang and not Ganja - High Court examined the statutory definition of cannabis hemp under Section 2(iii) - Found that while Ganja and Charas are included the Act excludes leaves and seeds when not accompanied by tops - Bhang is not referred to as a prohibited drug in the NDPS Act and no state rules were shown to prohibit it - Held - Possession of Bhang does not constitute an offence punishable under the Act - Conviction and sentence set aside - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Definition of Cannabis - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 2(iii) - Exclusion of Bhang - Statutory definition of cannabis hemp includes charas and ganja defined as flowering or fruiting tops excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by tops - No scientific evidence was presented to show Bhang is prepared out of charas or ganja - Different High Courts have consistently held that Bhang does not fall within the definition of cannabis hemp - Held - Possession of Bhang is specifically excluded from the purview of the NDPS Act and cannot form the basis of conviction under Sections 20 or 22 - [Paras 11-14].

Evidence Law - Forensic Report - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 20 - Reliability of FSL opinion - Prosecution case rested on the seizure of 12 polythene packs of Ganja - FSL examination concluded the substance was Bhang - State contended that both are cannabis and fall under the Act - High Court rejected this contention citing the specific statutory exclusions in Section 2(iii) - Held - The specific finding of FSL identifying the substance as Bhang necessitates acquittal as the substance is not prohibited under the federal statute - [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.07.2009 and 23.07.2009 set aside – Appellant discharged from liability of bail bonds.

Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 323, 325 and 34 - Accused persons Harish Kumar and Rajesh Kumar were charged for assaulting the informant and her family over a dispute regarding plucking of brinjals - Informant suffered broken teeth and facial injuries - Trial Court convicted Rajesh Kumar under Section 325 read with 34 IPC and Harish Kumar under Section 323 IPC - Trial Court awarded simple imprisonment and fines - Appellate Court modified the order by granting the benefit of probation under the POB Act for three years and enhanced compensation to the victims - High Court observed that the testimony of injured witnesses carried high evidentiary value and was corroborated by medical evidence showing fractured incisors and malocclusion - High Court noted that the incident occurred in 2001 and the trial concluded after significant delay - Held - Concurrent findings of conviction based on credible ocular and medical evidence require no interference - Appeal and Revision dismissed - [Paras 1-7, 32-35, 64-65].

Evidence Law - Injured Witness - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Reliability - Testimony of injured witnesses Urmila Devi (PW5) and Ram Piari (PW1) was challenged on grounds of minor contradictions in distances and locations - High Court held that the presence of an injured witness at the crime scene is established by their injuries and their testimony is entitled to great weight - Held - Minor discrepancies occurring due to memory lapse over twenty-five years do not shake the core of the prosecution case - Testimony of a stamped witness should be believed unless there are compelling reasons to discard it - [Paras 28-31, 36-41].

Criminal Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 397 - Scope of Interference - Accused sought setting aside of conviction in revision - High Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and narrow - Held - Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the lower courts unless there is a patent defect - error of jurisdiction - or perversity - No such error found in concurrent findings of guilt - [Paras 15-21].

Criminal Law - Probation and Sentencing - Probation of Offenders Act 1958 - Sections 4 and 6 - Victims challenged grant of probation citing criminal antecedents - High Court noted that no material was produced to prove any offence committed by the accused in the twenty-five years following the incident - Held - The Act is reformative in nature and intended to reclaim offenders - Given the lack of premeditation and the long duration since the offence - the Appellate Court was justified in extending probation irrespective of the age of the offenders - [Paras 56-61].

Evidence Law - Contradictions and Omissions - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 162 - Procedure for proving contradictions - Accused argued that improvements made by witnesses in court should invalidate their testimony - High Court detailed the mandatory procedure under Section 145 of the Evidence Act - Held - An omission is not a contradiction unless it relates to a material particular - If a witness denies a previous statement - the Investigating Officer must be questioned to prove the contradiction - Mere suggestions in cross-examination are insufficient - [Paras 42-51].

Decision: Appeal and Revision dismissed – Order of the Appellate Court granting probation and awarding compensation affirmed.

Criminal Law - Illegal Arrest - Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 22 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 35 and 47 - Petitioner arrested for multiple offences including rape and sexual exploitation - FIR registered at Tardeo Police Station - Petitioner produced before Magistrate where he objected to the legality of the arrest on grounds that written grounds of arrest were not furnished - Magistrate remanded the Petitioner holding that the presence of counsel fulfilled the main purpose of providing legal aid for protecting constitutional rights - High Court scrutinized the Arrest Form and General Diary Entry No. 40 - Observed that the documents only reflected general reasons for arrest such as preventing further offences or tampering with evidence - Held - Communication of written grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement under Article 22-1 of the Constitution and the BNSS - Failure to furnish specific grounds of arrest in writing vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand orders - Arrest declared illegal - Petitioner directed to be released forthwith - [Paras 1-28].

Criminal Law - Grounds of Arrest vs Reasons for Arrest - Constitution of India - Article 22-1 - Distinction between formal parameters and specific basic facts - Reasons for arrest are general in nature and apply to any person arrested to prevent absconding or tampering - Grounds of arrest must contain specific details and basic facts that necessitated the arrest to provide the accused an opportunity to defend against custodial remand and seek bail - Held - Grounds of arrest must be personal to the accused and must be furnished in writing without exception - [Paras 18-22].

Criminal Law - Remand - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 47 - Production before Magistrate - Duty of Judicial Officer - Petitioner argued that the Magistrate failed to ascertain whether the mandatory safeguards of Article 22-1 were followed - State argued that oral explanation and the presence of counsel during remand proceedings constituted sufficient compliance - Held - Explanation by the Court or oral appraisal at the time of remand can never be an adequate compliance with the constitutional mandate of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing at the time of securing an accused - [Paras 23-26].

Decision: Petition allowed – Arrest of the Petitioner declared illegal – Remand orders dated 22.05.2026 25.05.2026 and 28.05.2026 quashed and set aside – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith – Liberty granted to the State to take recourse to law to arrest if a case is made out.

Criminal Law - Rape - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376 - Appellant convicted for raping a 12 year old girl - Trial Court sentenced him to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment - High Court evaluated the evidence of the prosecutrix who provided a vivid description of the incident - Defense argued lack of eyewitnesses and medical evidence not corroborating rape - Maternal grandmother and mother were declared hostile - High Court noted that the prosecutrix remained consistent in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and during trial - Medical examination was delayed by one week explaining the absence of injury or spermatozoa - Court held that solitary testimony of a reliable prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction - Held - Conviction upheld - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-31].

Evidence Law - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 118 - Reliability of solitary witness - Case of rape - Accused challenged conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of the victim - High Court observed that the prosecutrix was absolutely trustworthy and her evidence was of sterling quality - Held - Conviction can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence - [Paras 22-25].

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 376 - Proportionality - Occurrence dated back to 2007 - Appellant sought reduction of sentence to period already undergone of one and a half years due to long pendency of nearly two decades - Court relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing proportionality and gravity of offence - Held - Mere long pendency or time spent in custody does not warrant mechanical reduction of sentence for heinous crimes - [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender before the Trial Court within two months to undergo the remaining sentence.

Civil Law - Commercial Dispute - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Sections 2(1)(c)(vi) and 21 - Nature of Development Agreements - Appellants being property owners entered into registered development agreements and powers of attorney in 2016 for housing projects - Alleging delay in construction they filed suits in 2020 for cancellation before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Barasat - Defendants filed applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for return of plaints citing commercial nature and high pecuniary value - Trial Court allowed applications returning plaints for presentation before the Commercial Court at Rajarhat - Appellants challenged this contending agreements involve transfer of title rights in rem and are not pure construction contracts - High Court affirmed trial court findings noting the phrase a dispute arising out of in Section 2(1)(c) lends expansive connotation - Held - any contract contemplating construction and infrastructure irrespective of additional ownership transfer ingredients falls under commercial dispute - development agreements for housing projects pertain to infrastructure - trial court justified in returning plaints - [Paras 1-38].

Civil Law - Specified Value - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Sections 12 and 21 - Determination of Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Dispute over whether self-assessed valuation for court fees determines specified value - Appellants claimed dominus litis right to choose valuation under the West Bengal Court Fees Act 1970 and Suits Valuation Act 1887 - High Court rejected reliance on contrary Delhi and Kerala High Court views - Observed that Section 21 of the CC Act lends unbridled overriding effect over all other statutes - Held - market value of the immovable property on the date of suit filing is the sole determinant for specified value under Section 12(1)(c) where relief relates to property rights - certificates showed market values of subject properties exceeded the thirty lakh rupees threshold - [Paras 39-47].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 15 - Transfer of Proceedings - Appellants sought transfer of suits to the Commercial Court instead of return of plaints to mitigate limitation risks - High Court distinguished cases filed after the enactment of the CC Act - Held - Section 15 only permits transfer of suits pending at the time of the Acts commencement in 2015 - Institution of commercial suits before ordinary civil courts after 2015 lacks inherent subject-matter jurisdiction ab initio - threshold defect cannot be cured by transfer - return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is the appropriate course - Plaintiffs at liberty to argue Section 14 Limitation Act 1963 before the proper forum regarding bona fide proceedings - [Paras 48-60].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Impugned orders returning the plaints affirmed – Interim orders vacated – No order as to costs.