Bail Application – PMLA – Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 – The applicant, accused of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, sought bail citing prolonged incarceration of more than 3 years and 10 months – The applicant has already served more than half of the maximum punishment prescribed under the PMLA (7 years) – The Bombay High Court held that prolonged detention violates the fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: Applicant entitled to bail under Section 436A of the CrPC despite non-fulfillment of twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA [Paras 13-15, 22-25].

Section 436A CrPC – Supremacy Over Section 45 PMLA – The Court noted that Section 436A CrPC, being a subsequent law enacted by Parliament, overrides the stringent provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA in cases of prolonged incarceration – The Court observed that detention for more than half the prescribed punishment, without conclusion of trial, violates constitutional protections under Article 21 – Held: Section 436A CrPC is applicable, and the applicant cannot be denied bail on account of Section 45 of the PMLA [Paras 16, 22-24].

Seriousness of Offence – Safeguarding Liberty – While the allegations against the applicant involved the laundering of public funds amounting to ₹147.30 crores, the Court noted that a substantial portion of the embezzled amount was recovered or secured, and stringent conditions could safeguard public interest – Held: Applicant released on bail with stringent conditions, ensuring no risk of flight or tampering with evidence [Paras 30-33].

Speedy Trial – Right Under Article 21 – The Court emphasized that the State and investigating agencies are constitutionally obligated to ensure timely trial in cases involving strict bail provisions like Section 45 of the PMLA – The failure to ensure speedy trial cannot justify prolonged incarceration – Held: Constitutional courts must uphold the rights of undertrials by granting bail in cases of unjustified detention [Paras 21-24, 27].

Decision: Bail granted under Section 436A CrPC – Applicant directed to comply with stringent conditions to ensure attendance during trial and prevent tampering with evidence – Trial court to decide the case on merits, uninfluenced by observations made in the bail order [Paras 33-36].
 

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Bar under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act – Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed – A suit for cancellation of a sale deed executed on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation is maintainable before a Civil Court – Section 331 does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court unless the relief sought pertains exclusively to rights under the Act – Held: The plaintiff, a recorded bhumidhar, whose title was not under cloud, is entitled to seek cancellation of the sale deed in Civil Court as no declaration of title was necessary [Paras 10-15].

Fraudulent Power of Attorney – Effect of Unregistered and Forged PoA – An unregistered Power of Attorney, which was not executed by the plaintiff but was fraudulently used to execute the sale deed, confers no title or authority – The sale deed executed based on such a document is void – Held: The trial and appellate courts rightly declared the sale deed void and canceled it [Paras 8, 17-18].

Admissibility of Suit in Civil Court – Prima Facie Title Not Under Cloud – The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Ram vs. Ist ADJ (2001) 3 SCC 24 has clarified that where a recorded tenure-holder with prima facie title seeks cancellation of a sale deed due to fraud or impersonation, the Civil Court has jurisdiction – This principle was upheld in the present case, as the plaintiff’s title was undisputed [Paras 11-14].

Power of Attorney and Transfer of Title – No title or interest in immovable property can be transferred on the basis of an unregistered Power of Attorney – The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1526) affirmed that an unregistered agreement or PoA cannot transfer title, rendering such transactions void – Held: The sale deed based on the fraudulent PoA is void ab initio [Paras 17-18].

Revenue Court Jurisdiction – Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act – The bar under Section 331 does not apply to a suit in Civil Court where no declaration of title or rights as a bhumidhar is sought – The suit in this case was for cancellation of a sale deed based on fraud and misrepresentation, which is within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court [Paras 10-15].

Non-Challenge to Power of Attorney – Effect on Suit Maintainability – The appellant’s argument that the Power of Attorney was not directly challenged was rejected – The Court held that since the Power of Attorney was found to be forged and fraudulent, the sale deed executed on its basis was void, and no separate challenge to the PoA was required – Held: The suit is maintainable without a direct challenge to the PoA [Paras 17-18].

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court canceling the fraudulent sale deed were upheld. The Civil Court’s jurisdiction was affirmed, and no substantial question of law was found to arise in the appeal [Paras 19-20].
 

Service Law – Recruitment – Two-Child Norm – Relaxation for Widows – The petitioner's candidature for the post of School Lecturer was rejected due to having more than two children after 01.06.2002 – The petitioner contended that a disabled child should not be counted under the two-child norm as per the notification dated 28.02.2011 – The respondents argued that even excluding the disabled child, the petitioner still had three children, exceeding the permissible limit – Held: The amendment introduced vide notification dated 16.03.2023 extended relaxation to all widows, not just those under compassionate appointment, making the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature unjustified [Paras 5-7, 13.3, 19-22].

Constitutional Law – Right to Equality – Articles 14 & 16 – Discriminatory Treatment of Widows – The petitioner argued that widows applying under compassionate appointment were granted relaxation from the two-child norm, while those applying on merit were not – The Court held that such differential treatment was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Held: All widows must be treated equally regarding recruitment relaxations, and the petitioner’s exclusion was unconstitutional [Paras 6, 17, 19-20].

Beneficial Legislation – Liberal Interpretation – Welfare-Oriented Approach – The 2023 amendment removing the restriction of relaxation only to compassionate appointees was considered a beneficial provision – The Court emphasized that welfare provisions should be interpreted liberally to achieve their intended objective – Held: The petitioner, being a widow from an SC community and the sole breadwinner for her children, including a disabled child, deserved the benefit of the amendment [Paras 13.3, 14, 18-20].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Power under Article 226 – Interference in Recruitment Matters – The respondents argued that the recruitment process had already concluded – The Court held that under Article 226, it had the power to rectify arbitrary and unconstitutional actions – Held: The petitioner’s exclusion was contrary to constitutional principles and required judicial intervention to uphold fairness and justice [Paras 16, 21-22].

Humanitarian Consideration – Socio-Economic Hardship – Parens Patriae Doctrine – The petitioner, as the sole earner, was responsible for raising four children, including a specially-abled son – The Court took a sympathetic approach, stating that the judiciary must act as a guardian for vulnerable citizens – Held: The petitioner’s financial instability warranted judicial relief, and denying her appointment would cause irreparable hardship [Paras 23-25].
 

Maintainability of Writ – Article 226 – Guild Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction – The Court held that the Publishers and Booksellers Guild, being a private society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is not a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Guild's actions do not qualify as discharging public functions akin to State functions. The event, though supported and facilitated by the State, remains a private function, and a writ petition against the Guild is not maintainable (Paragraphs 22-27, 40).

Freedom of Speech and Expression – No Violation by Guild’s Refusal – The petitioners alleged that refusal to allot a stall at the book fair infringed their freedom of speech and expression. The Court held that the Guild’s decision does not restrict the petitioners from exercising their right elsewhere, nor does it create a monopoly preventing them from showcasing their publications at other platforms (Paragraphs 32-41).

Private Event – Guild's Right to Choose Participants – No Obligation to Allot Stalls – The Court observed that the Guild, as a private entity, has the right to frame its own policies and select participants for its event. The petitioners have no vested right to demand participation in the fair, and the Guild is not bound to provide explanations for its decisions (Paragraphs 33-34).

State’s Role in the Event – Financial Aid and Infrastructure Support Insufficient to Render the Event Public – The Court clarified that the State’s infrastructural support for the event does not transform it into a public function. The State acts as a facilitator and promoter to encourage tourism and cultural activities, but this does not make the Guild’s event a public event under Article 12 (Paragraphs 35-39).

Alternative Remedies – Private Law Remedy Available – The Court held that while the petitioners may feel aggrieved, their remedy lies in private law and not in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioners’ expectation of allotment of a stall, based on previous participation, does not warrant interference by the writ court (Paragraphs 42-43).

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – The Court held that the Guild is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and the petitioners failed to demonstrate a violation of constitutional rights – Petitioners may pursue private law remedies if they feel aggrieved (Paragraphs 44-45).

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted under Sections 364, 376, 379, 411, 302, and 201 IPC – Trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for each of the offences under Sections 364, 376, and 302 IPC, along with imprisonment under Sections 201, 379, and 411 IPC – Prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellant to the crime – Held: Circumstantial evidence was consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, leaving no reasonable ground for innocence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 38-40].

Witness Testimony – Consistency and Identification – PW-6 (tempo driver) and PW-8 (another driver) identified the appellant traveling with the victim on the day of the incident – PW-6 corroborated that the appellant persuaded him to stop the tempo at a lonely place (Panar Bridge), where both alighted – PW-9 (husband of the deceased) confirmed the victim’s mobile was switched off after her departure – Identification of appellant at trial corroborated by witnesses – Defense's claim of coercion was denied by witnesses and deemed baseless [Paras 25-35, 38].

Recovery of Evidence – Mobile Phones and Dead Body – PW-10 (Investigating Officer) confirmed the recovery of the victim’s Nokia mobile (IMEI No. 351948/05/556302/2) from the appellant – Confessional statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act led to the recovery of the victim's body from a riverbed (Khataghat) – Forensic and medical evidence (PW-7) corroborated rape and strangulation as the cause of death – Held: Recovery evidence and appellant’s confessional statement admissible and corroborated by other witnesses [Paras 36-38].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – PW-7 (doctor) conducted the post-mortem and found injuries consistent with rape and strangulation – Ligature marks, fracture of the hyoid bone, and dislocation of cervical vertebra confirmed asphyxia as the cause of death – Swabs taken from the victim suggested sexual assault, corroborating the prosecution’s case [Paras 32-33].

Chain of Circumstances – Consistency with Guilt – Evidence established that the appellant traveled with the victim, misled the tempo driver to drop them at an isolated place, and subsequently killed her – Recovery of the body based on the appellant's confession corroborated the chain of events – Held: Circumstantial evidence satisfied principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 39-40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 364, 376, 379, 411, 302, and 201 IPC upheld – Prosecution proved the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant to serve sentences as directed by the trial court [Paras 40-41].
 

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation – Quashing of Order – Revision Application – Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 23.03.2021, rejecting further investigation in a case registered under Sections 363/365/366/372/34 IPC – Trial Court found no error in the investigation and held the case fit for trial – Petitioner argued for further investigation to address deficiencies – Court rejected the prayer, holding that the investigation was thorough, fair, and unbiased, with no visible deficiency [Paras 1-18].

Judicial Discretion – Scope of Further Investigation – The Court reiterated that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is discretionary and can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances to rectify material deficiencies – Cited precedents clarified that such powers should not be used arbitrarily, especially where investigations are complete, and no new facts or evidence warrant further action [Paras 7-15].

Findings on Investigation – Thorough and Just – Case diary and evidence demonstrated that the investigation was unbiased, complete, and based on all relevant facts – Trial Court retains the authority to address issues during the trial, including framing or altering charges under Section 216 CrPC if needed [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Revisional application dismissed – No irregularity in the impugned order rejecting further investigation – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously, with liberty to consider relevant issues during the trial – Urgent certified copy of the judgment to be supplied to the Trial Court for compliance [Paras 19-27].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Re-determination – The Reference Court enhanced compensation for acquired land at Rs.250 per sq. ft., but the High Court reduced it to Rs.200 per sq. ft. – The Court noted that the Reference Court erroneously relied on post-notification market values and failed to base its determination on contemporaneous evidence of 2007 when the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued – The High Court applied the principle of uniformity, relying on judgments involving similarly situated lands acquired under the same notification [Paras 8-9, 12(i)].

Compensation for Trees – Error in Non-Award for Remaining Trees – The Reference Court had failed to grant compensation for 157 teak and 18 coconut trees despite mahazar (Ex.P23) identifying these as standing on the acquired land – The High Court awarded compensation of Rs.4,59,459/- for the omitted trees, based on rates determined by the Reference Court for similar trees – The Court upheld the enhanced compensation for all other structures, trees, and fixtures [Paras 10-11, 12(ii)].

Post-Notification Evidence – Inapplicability – Market value evidence for 2018 (Ex.P49) was excluded, as the valuation for acquired land must align with the notification year (2007) – Evidence of later valuation cannot determine the land’s value at the relevant time [Para 9].

Judicial Review – Scope of Reference Court’s Findings – The High Court found errors in the Reference Court’s determination of market value based on incorrect interpretation of evidence and admission by witnesses – The Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to reassess compensation in line with legal precedents and contemporaneous evidence [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeal Partly Allowed: Market value of land re-determined at Rs.200 per sq. ft., along with interest and statutory benefits.
Cross-Objection Partly Allowed: Additional compensation of Rs.4,59,459/- awarded for omitted trees, with all statutory benefits.
Final Order: The enhanced compensation for trees, structures, and fixtures as awarded by the Reference Court was upheld.
 

Permanent Injunction – Co-sharers – Right to Possession – Encroachment – Plaintiffs, a registered management committee, claimed exclusive possession of the suit property and sought a permanent injunction against Defendant No.1 from interfering in its management, possession, and structures – Defendant No.1 argued that the plaintiffs had encroached upon public land – The lower courts found that the plaintiffs were in exclusive settled possession and had a valid electricity connection in their name – Defendant No.1 admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of 14 marlas – Held: A co-sharer cannot dispossess another co-sharer by force, and any dispute regarding possession must be resolved through legal proceedings – Injunction upheld, and the second appeal dismissed [Paras 15-21] – Decision: Appeal dismissed.

Encroachment – Right to Remove – Defendant’s Lack of Locus Standi – The Defendant contended that plaintiffs had encroached on public land – However, the passage land was gifted to plaintiffs via a resolution, and even assuming encroachment, the Defendant had no right to remove it – Held: Any action regarding alleged encroachment must be taken by the competent municipal authorities and not by private individuals – Courts restrained the defendant from interfering with possession except in due course of law [Paras 19-22] – Decision: The decree of permanent injunction upheld, and appeal dismissed.
 

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Injuries by Firearm – Trial court acquitted respondents Nos. 2 to 6 of charges under Sections 307/149, 147, 148, 324/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Prosecution proved that Respondent No. 2 (Dilip Singh) fired with a double-barrel gun causing simple injuries to the informant and his son – Medical evidence confirmed multiple metallic pellet-like shadows in X-rays of injured – Trial court erred in dismissing the charge under Section 324 IPC – Held: Respondent No. 2 convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt using a dangerous weapon – Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 convicted under Section 324/149 IPC for being members of an unlawful assembly with a common intent to commit the offence [Paras 36-40].

Witness Testimony – Consistency of Injured Witnesses – PW-4 (Mahendra Singh) and PW-3 (Rakesh Kumar) deposed consistently about the firing by Respondent No. 2 and their injuries – PW-1 (independent witness) and PW-2 (informant’s son) corroborated the occurrence – Defense failed to discredit witnesses’ testimony during cross-examination – Trial court overlooked reliable and corroborated oral evidence – Held: Testimonies of injured witnesses and corroborative accounts of other witnesses prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 22-27, 35].

Medical Evidence – Injury Reports and X-rays – PW-5 (Doctor at PHC Bakhtiyarpur) and PW-8 (Doctor at PMCH) confirmed simple lacerated injuries and presence of metallic foreign bodies – PW-8 proved radiological findings of pellets in soft tissues – Absence of pellet extraction or seizure not sufficient to negate firearm injuries – Trial court's dismissal of medical evidence deemed perverse – Held: Injuries consistent with firearm use as alleged by prosecution [Paras 30-34].

Unlawful Assembly – Liability under Section 149 IPC – Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were armed and present during the occurrence – Prosecution established their participation in the unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the offence – Held: Conviction of Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 under Section 324/149 IPC upheld [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of Respondent No. 2 under Section 324 IPC – Conviction of Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 under Section 324/149 IPC – Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 taken into custody – Sentence under Sections 148 and 323/149 IPC remains undisturbed [Paras 37-39].