Criminal Law – Sections 132, 135, 110(1B) of the Custom Act - Jurisdiction of Magistrate – No Power to Direct Revaluation Post-Adjudication – Magistrate Exceeded Authority – The Court held that once quasi-judicial adjudication proceedings under Customs Act were concluded and valuation upheld, the Magistrate could not order fresh revaluation – Certification proceedings under Section 110(1B) are limited to inventory authentication, not valuation reassessment – Magistrate’s order quashed [Paras 14-21].

Valuation Discrepancy – Explained by Investigation Progress – Not Arbitrary – Initial estimate at seizure stage was revised downward based on duty-free pricing inputs – DRI clarified valuation remained above ₹1 crore when duties included – High Court accepted explanation and found no arbitrariness to warrant judicial revaluation [Paras 16-17].

Parallel Proceedings – Adjudication and Criminal Trial Separate but Interlinked – Revaluation Not Needed Where Administrative Valuation Stands – While adjudication and prosecution are separate, adjudication’s finality on valuation sufficed – Fresh judicial direction for revaluation not justified when issue already addressed [Paras 18-19].

Maintainability – Withdrawal of Prior Petition Doesn’t Bar Fresh Challenge – Grounds Changed Post Impugned Order – DRI’s earlier petition was withdrawn after adjudication concluded – Respondents revived revaluation dispute later – Court held DRI could validly contest fresh direction as earlier withdrawal was conditional [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Revaluation Set Aside – Certification Proceedings to Continue – Direction for revaluation by ACMM set aside – Certification of panchnama to be completed under Section 110(1B) within three months – Court upheld investigative and prosecutorial discretion in valuation matters [Paras 22-23].

Anticipatory Bail - NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Rigours of Section 37 Applicable – Bail Denied - The petitioner was named in an FIR relating to the transportation of 4.36 kg of charas and was alleged to have fled from the spot with a co-accused – Held: Quantity recovered being commercial, stringent conditions under Section 37 applied – Prima facie involvement of petitioner found – Petition dismissed [Paras 2, 11, 15].

Statement of Co-Accused – Not Inadmissible at Bail Stage – Custodial Interrogation Warranted – Bail Denied - Though the petitioner contended reliance on inadmissible statement of co-accused under Tofan Singh, the Court noted the Supreme Court’s contrary approach in Khaliludeen, Ajay Kumar Singh, and Samarth Kumar – Held: Even at pre-trial stage, such disclosure warranted consideration for bail denial – Custodial interrogation deemed essential to unearth wider conspiracy [Paras 10–14, 16].

Anticipatory Bail – Extraordinary Relief – Not Routine in Narcotics Cases – Bail Denied - Reiterating P. Chidambaram, Srikant Upadhyay and State vs. Anil Sharma, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is not a rule and must be denied where serious offences are involved – Liberty must be balanced with effective investigation – Presence of petitioner in vehicle, abscondence, and destruction of evidence argued against bail [Paras 7–9, 16–18].

Decision – Pre-Arrest Bail Denied – Petition Dismissed - Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Shyam Lal – Held: Circumstances do not justify invocation of Section 438 CrPC – Observations confined to bail and not to be treated as findings on merits [Paras 19–20].

Writ - Service Law – Long-Term Ad Hoc Engagement Against Sanctioned Post – Abolition Order Held Arbitrary – Appeal Allowed - Appellant worked as Process Server on ad hoc basis since 1997 against a sanctioned post with pay scale, DA, and Grade Pay – Disengagement via abolition of post on basis of Office Memorandum dated 31.08.2019 was held arbitrary and a non-application of mind – Post was never vacant and was crucial for office function – Government’s decision struck down as violative of constitutional and administrative fairness [Paras 6, 7.10–8.6, 13–14.1].

Regularisation – Long Continuous Service in Sanctioned Post – Appointment Not Illegal – Directed to Consider for Absorption – Appeal Allowed - Court held that appointment was not backdoor or illegal, and met criteria under Umadevi and M.L. Kesari – Appellant’s selection, long service, and sanctioned position justified consideration for regularization – Engagement for over two decades deemed exploitative – Directed respondents to treat disengagement as null and consider regularisation [Paras 8–10.4, 14].

Perversity in Judgment – Factual and Legal Errors in Writ Petition Dismissal – Single Judge's Judgment Set Aside – Appeal Allowed - Court found the learned Single Judge erroneously assumed appellant’s appointment as contractual, ignored material documents, and misapplied precedents – Held: Findings were perverse and de hors record – Directed reinstatement with consequential benefits and set aside judgment dated 06.09.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 989 of 2020 [Paras 11–11.7].

Decision – Writ Appeal Allowed – Disengagement Order Set Aside – Reinstatement and Regularisation Ordered - Court set aside disengagement Order No. 4392 dated 21.12.2019 – Directed immediate reinstatement and grant of service and financial benefits within three months – Writ petition allowed as a consequence of appeal being allowed [Paras 14–15].

Criminal Bail – Habitual Offender – Bail Denied - The applicant, Kamlesh Yadav, sought bail in a case under multiple IPC sections related to forgery and fraud involving impersonation in a property transaction – FIR alleged he facilitated a sale deed using an impostor and received ₹14.5 lakh – The Court noted that he had 52 prior cases, mostly for cheating under Section 420 IPC, indicating habitual conduct – Bail was denied on grounds of potential tampering with evidence and risk of reoffending [Paras 1–2, 20–24].

Delay in FIR – No Benefit Due to Pattern of Offences – Bail Denied - Although the FIR was lodged nearly four years after the alleged incident, the Court found no merit in the claim of delay being grounds for bail – Applicant’s pattern of offenses and volume of similar FIRs negated any leniency – Court emphasized the seriousness of charges and impact on victims [Paras 3–4, 22].

Comparative Bail Plea – Co-accused Granted Bail Irrelevant – Bail Denied - The Court rejected comparison with co-accused Sub-Registrar who was granted bail, holding that the applicant’s criminal history and primary role in the fraudulent transaction made his case distinct – Held: Bail jurisprudence must consider individual conduct and risk [Para 23].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – No Leniency for Repeat Offenders - Court dismissed the bail application observing serious nature of the offense and applicant’s habitual criminal behavior – Found sufficient material to prima facie connect the applicant to the crime – Concluded that releasing him would jeopardize fair trial and public interest [Paras 24–25].

Electricity Law - IBC vs. Electricity Dues – Applicability of Section 238 IBC – Refund of Deposited Amount Ordered – Petitioner purchased industrial premises through liquidation under IBC – Electricity connection was denied until petitioner paid arrears of prior owner – Payment made under protest – Respondents refused refund – Held: Section 238 of IBC has overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of Electricity Act – Respondents were required to file claims in liquidation under Section 53 – Demand for dues from the purchaser unjustified – Refund directed with interest [Paras 5, 8-11, 14].

Secured Operational Creditor – Role under IBC – Electricity Dues Not Recoverable Outside Liquidation Process – Electricity Board, being an operational creditor, is bound by IBC provisions – Recovery must be sought within liquidation mechanism – Direct demand from auction purchaser not permissible – Supreme Court rulings in Paschimanchal Vidyut and Southern Power Distribution Company applied [Paras 9-10].

Maintainability of Writ – Alternate Remedy No Bar in Pure Questions of Law – Though alternative remedies exist, they are not adequate in present case involving pure question of law already settled by Supreme Court – Hence, writ petition maintainable – Court exercises discretion under Article 226 [Paras 12-13].

Relief Granted – Amount Refundable With Interest – Condition of Arrears Clearance Unjustified – Respondents directed to refund Rs. 55,29,000/- with 6% interest from 27.10.2021 – Failing which, higher interest at 12% imposed – Bank guarantee for remaining dues also to be released [Para 14].

Education Law – Eligibility Criteria for BDS Course – 50% PCB Requirement – Rounding-Off Not Permitted – Appellant had 49.66% marks in Physics, Chemistry, Biology (PCB) in 10+2—Did not meet 50% eligibility criteria under Clause 6 of notification dated 10.06.2016—Family Court and Single Judge held rounding-off impermissible—Appellant’s name struck off from college rolls [Paras 2, 6–7].

Equitable Jurisdiction – Completion of Full Course under Interim Order – Degree Directed to be Conferred – Appellant allowed to continue BDS studies under interim order since 2017—Completed entire course and internship—High Court held: Appellant acted in good faith; no fraud; equity warrants issuance of degree—Writ Court cannot permit technicalities to defeat substantial justice [Paras 5, 8–10, 13].

Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – Litigant Not to Suffer Due to Court Delay – Court emphasized that delay in final hearing must not prejudice litigants protected by interim orders—Cited binding precedents (Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu, Milind, Budhia Swain)—Held: Interim protection matured into legitimate expectation of qualification—Degree cannot be denied [Paras 9–12].

Administrative Law – Rigid Application of Rules Disfavored – Proportionality Doctrine Invoked – Court stressed writ jurisdiction must balance fairness over technicality—Doctrine of proportionality used to assess harm from denying degree versus regulatory breach—Held: Larger public interest served by confirming degree of trained dentist [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned communication and judgment of Single Judge set aside – Respondents directed to confer BDS degree upon appellant within one week – No costs awarded [Paras 13–14].

Civil Law – Will - Suspicious Circumstances – Allegations Rejected – Probate Upheld – Appellant raised doubts over timing of execution, non-production of original Will initially, use of different inks, and alleged contradictions in witnesses' evidence – Court held none of the issues raised amounted to real or germane suspicious circumstances – Execution of Will during marriage of daughter found natural and explained by presence of attesting witnesses – Court held that presence of relatives, lack of objection to exhibit marking, and acknowledgment of property distribution supported genuineness of Will [Paras 44-56].

Proof of Will – Compliance with Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – Valid Execution Proven – Sole surviving attesting witness (P.W.2) deposed to all elements required under Section 63 – No contradiction found in his testimony – Execution proven even though full cross-examination was not completed – Appellant chose not to avail further cross-examination opportunity or challenge relevant order – Valid proof of Will held to be established [Paras 71-73].

Evidence of Attesting Witness – Partial Cross-Examination – Not Fatal – Deposition Accepted – Despite initial expunction, High Court remitted matter to trial court to assess sufficiency of P.W.2’s testimony – Trial court found evidence substantial – Appellant failed to challenge this or produce further evidence – Court affirmed lower court's decision to accept the evidence [Paras 74-85].

Codicil – Letter Not Compliant with Legal Requirements – Not a Codicil – Letter dated 21/08/1999 allegedly modifying Will treated as informal correspondence – Lacked required formalities of execution and attestation under law – Held: Not a codicil and irrelevant for grant of probate [Paras 66-69].

Disparity in Bequests – Not a Ground to Invalidate Will – Property Distribution Justified – Testatrix’s Kalna property bequeathed to appellant and Kolkata property to other daughters – Appellant admitted this aligned with prior promises – Will not vitiated by uneven distribution – Courts must respect testatrix’s autonomy in property disposition [Paras 50-53, 63].

Decision – Probate Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed – Court found valid execution, no suspicious circumstances, and proper evaluation of evidence – Judgment and decree of probate granted on 17/12/2018 affirmed – Appeal dismissed on contest without costs – Stay on judgment’s operation granted for three weeks [Paras 86-89].

Service Law - Seniority vs. Qualification – By-Transfer Appointment – Seniority Not Decisive – Although the petitioner (Rajashree A.V) was senior in service, her B.Ed. qualification was in Natural Science, which is not in the same faculty as Sociology – Respondent (Subairabi P.) held B.Ed. in Social Science, which falls under the same faculty as Sociology – Government rightly prioritized relevant qualification over mere seniority [Paras 2-5, 10-12].

Government Authority – Valid Exercise of Power – No Illegality – The Government considered Rule 6.2.28 of Chapter XXXII KER, and found that the respondent met the essential qualification (MA Sociology + B.Ed. in related faculty + SET) – Petitioner lacked B.Ed. in Sociology or related faculty – Government’s preference for respondent was valid and within legal parameters [Paras 10-12].

Binding Nature of Prior Judgment – Inter-Party Adjudication – Challenge Barred – Respondent relied on previous judgment in WP(C) No. 13762/2022 which clarified that equivalency of B.Ed. in Social Science with Sociology is valid – No fresh challenge was made to that ruling – Government’s follow-up order (Ext.P7) was consequential and lawful [Paras 6, 9].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Merit in Challenge – The petition filed by Rajashree A.V was dismissed – The Government’s decision to appoint Subairabi P. as HSST (Sociology) was upheld – Writ petition by Subairabi P. was allowed to the extent of directing approval of her appointment by DEO [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – No Direct Instigation – Framing of Charge Quashed – Petitioner alleged to have borrowed money from the deceased who later committed suicide – Suicide note did not allege harassment, threats, or instigation – No forensic confirmation of authorship of suicide note – Mere issuance of cheques not indicative of abetment – Held: Mere lending of money or failure to repay debt does not constitute instigation under Section 107 IPC, nor does it justify charge under Section 306 IPC – Trial court erred in framing charge in absence of prima facie evidence showing mens rea or proximate causation of suicide.

Mens Rea and Proximity – Requirement for Section 306 IPC – Instigation Must Be Immediate and Intentional – Supreme Court precedents reiterate that for a charge under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear and proximate instigation leading to suicide – Held: Absent any active or proximate conduct by the accused, charge under Section 306 is unsustainable.

Revision Allowed – Charge Framed Without Prima Facie Evidence – Suicide Note Does Not Indicate Abetment – Petitioner Discharged – No credible allegation of instigation, harassment, or coercion linking petitioner to suicide – Charge under Section 306 IPC quashed – Revision petition allowed and petitioner discharged .