Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act – Conviction Based on Evidence – Procedural Irregularities Noted – Despite several hostile witnesses, the trial court convicted the appellant on basis of seizure lists and testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10 – Held: Conviction upheld as evidence showed operation of shop without valid license and stock records [Paras 1–7].

Probation – Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act – Release in View of Delay and First-Time Offender – Incident occurred in 1995 and appellant had no subsequent criminal history – Held: Taking appellant into custody nearly 30 years later not justified – Sentence modified – Appellant released on probation on good conduct bond and directed to pay fine [Paras 8–10].

Minimum Sentence – EC Act Does Not Preclude Application of Probation Act – Held: Even though EC Act prescribes minimum sentence, later enactment i.e. Probation of Offenders Act prevails due to non obstante clause – Benefit of probation can be granted irrespective of statutory minimum sentence [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on bond of ₹5,000 to maintain peace and good behavior – Fine of ₹5,000 to be paid within 6 months, else appellant to undergo default sentence [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction – Civil Court vs. Revenue Court – Section 229-B U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act – Civil Suit Maintainable – Held: Where plaintiff claims cancellation of a void sale deed allegedly obtained by fraud, cheating, and impersonation, and the plaintiff or her predecessor was recorded tenure-holder, civil court has jurisdiction – Section 229-B not attracted since title was not under serious cloud and declaration not sought [Paras 3, 11–17].

Cancellation of Sale Deed – Fraud and Impersonation Alleged – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Plaintiff, widow of recorded tenure-holder Ram Dev, challenged a sale deed allegedly executed when the deceased was 80 years old – Held: Execution of deed not proved by defendants – Witnesses including co-beneficiary Radhey Shyam denied execution and payment – Trial and Appellate Courts rightly held it as fraudulent [Paras 4–6, 18–22].

Appellate Review – Findings Not Perversely Made – No Substantial Question of Law – Held: Both courts below considered oral and documentary evidence and recorded detailed findings – Findings supported by pleadings and not shown to be perverse – Appeal raises no substantial legal question warranting interference under Section 100 CPC [Paras 25–30].

Possession – Plaintiff Found in Possession of Disputed Land – Defendant’s Claim Not Substantiated – Held: Evidence showed plaintiff remained in possession of land – Sale consideration and possession not proved by appellant – Defence witnesses contradicted each other – Version of fraud accepted [Paras 20–22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Concurrent Judgments Affirmed – High Court upheld lower courts’ findings – Suit rightly decreed for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.04.1987 – No costs awarded [Paras 29–30].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal Against Acquittal - Appreciation of Evidence – Eye-Witness and Medical Testimony – Conviction Restored - The Trial Court acquitted all accused in a murder case citing contradictions and unreliable witness testimony – The High Court reversed the acquittal of Accused No.1, holding that minor contradictions did not discredit consistent and corroborated eye-witness accounts – Medical and FSL evidence supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the murder weapon was properly proved – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 6–34].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Acquittal of Co-Accused Upheld – The co-accused (Nos. 2 to 5) were present at the scene but the prosecution failed to prove they shared a common object or instigated the murder – FIR did not mention their instigation – Their presence was deemed natural and not sufficient to prove constructive liability – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 25–26].

Contradictions in Witness Testimony – Legal Position Clarified – Minor discrepancies or omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements do not vitiate credible eye-witness evidence – Reaffirmed that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in India – Conviction can rest on truthful core of testimony even if peripheral inconsistencies exist [Paras 19–21].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment with Consideration for Health – Accused No.1 was bedridden and paralysed – Court granted six months' time for surrender and directed jail authorities to provide medical care – Life imprisonment imposed under Section 302 IPC [Paras 40–42].
 

NDPS Act – Prolonged Pre-trial Custody – Commercial Quantity – Bail Granted - Despite applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act due to commercial quantity involved, petitioner granted bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration of over 1 year and 5 months – Cited multiple Supreme Court rulings allowing bail in similar cases where trial unlikely to conclude soon – Bail conditions imposed [Paras 7-11].

Constitutional Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Custody Beyond Reasonable Time – Bail Justified - Emphasizing the right to life and liberty under Article 21, Court held that conditional liberty must prevail when prolonged detention causes irreversible harm – Cited Supreme Court in Chitta Biswas v. State of W.B., Rajib Dey v. State of W.B., Nandalal Mondal v. State of W.B., and others [Paras 8-9].

Bail Conditions – Compliance and Monitoring – Restriction on Firearms – Preventive Steps - Bail conditional on non-involvement in further offences, disclosure of identity information, and surrender of weapons if any – Reinforced preventive purpose of bail to protect public interest and ensure fair trial [Paras 12-19].

Final Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed with Conditions - Petitioner released on bail subject to statutory and special conditions including non-interference with trial and no involvement in similar offences – Trial court empowered to cancel bail on breach [Paras 20-22].
 

Civil Law  – Gift under Mohammadan Law – Essentials of Gift – Declaration, Acceptance, Delivery – Remand Ordered - The appeal challenged the reversal by the Appellate Court of the trial court's decree upholding plaintiffs’ title based on oral gift and adverse possession – Held: Declarations made in 1987, 1988, and 1989 by donor constituted valid gifts if essentials are fulfilled – Registration of gift deeds not mandatory under Muslim law; Appellate Court erred in insisting on registration – Matter remanded to Appellate Court for fresh consideration [Paras 6-11].

Gift under Muslim Law – Written Declaration – Registration Not Mandatory – Oral Gift Valid - Oral gift properly declared and accepted remains valid even if recorded later in writing and not registered – Reliance placed on Hafeeza Bibi v. Sheikh Farid, (2011) SCC 654 – Legal principles clarified [Paras 6-8].

Remand of Matter – Failure to Appreciate Essential Ingredients of Gift – Appellate Court Judgment Set Aside - Since factual findings on delivery of possession and acceptance of gift were not properly adjudicated, the High Court remanded the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law [Paras 9-11].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Section 148A and 149 of Income Tax Act – Reassessment Proceedings Quashed - Initiation of reassessment based on incorrect premise that the petitioner was a non-filer despite evidence of filing Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2015-16 – Issuance of notice under Section 148A(b) without furnishing material supporting allegations – Held: Proceedings vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 34-38].

Limitation – Applicability of Finance Act 2021 Amendments – Notice under Section 148 post 01.04.2021 - New Regime Applicable - Notice issued beyond prescribed limitation period as actual escapement of income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs – Held: Extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) not attracted, proceedings time-barred [Paras 37, 41].

Requirement of Supply of Material – Mandatory Compliance – Section 148A(b) – Incomplete Show-Cause Notice Invalid - The authorities failed to provide supporting material forming the basis of the alleged escaped income - Held: Mere issuance of a bald notice insufficient under new regime, violating due process [Paras 38-40].

Decision – Writ Application Allowed – Reassessment order, demand notice and all consequential proceedings initiated under Section 148A and 147 quashed – Held: Entire reassessment action without jurisdiction, based on incorrect facts and procedural irregularity [Paras 42-44].

Pension – Delayed Absorption – Entitlement Recognized – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Petitioner served as Medical Officer at a government-acquired institution and was directed to be absorbed in 2005 – Absorption delayed till 2010 despite court orders – Court held delay attributable solely to State – Held: 
Petitioner entitled to count service period from 22.02.2005 to 20.04.2010 toward qualifying service for pension [Paras 13–20]. 
 
Equitable Doctrine – No Advantage from Own Wrong – Delay by State Cannot Prejudice Employee – Following Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, Court held that respondents cannot deny pension on ground of shortfall in qualifying service when delay in formal absorption was their own doing – Period must be counted for pension entitlement to avoid civil consequences [Paras 18–19]. 
 
Service Law – Rights Crystallized by Judicial Direction – Binding on State – Court emphasized that petitioner’s right to absorption under the 1983 Act crystallized on 22.02.2005 as per previous writ order – State bound to honour such finding; inaction thereafter cannot be used against petitioner [Paras 14–16]. 
 
Retrospectivity – No Wages for No Work – But Period Counts for Pension – While denying claim for salary during 2005–2010, Court held petitioner entitled to count that period for pension qualifying service – “No work no pay” does not apply to pension rights if employee ready to serve and State delays appointment [Para 18]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Allowed – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Pension Directed – Tribunal’s rejection order dated 02.09.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to treat petitioner’s qualifying service as commencing from 22.02.2005 – Pension and arrears to be paid within 8 weeks with transparent calculation details [Paras 20–21]. 
 

Heatwave Crisis – State Inaction Amidst Climate Emergency – Directions Issued – Despite judicial orders in 2024, Rajasthan government failed to implement the Heat Action Plan or health preparedness schemes – Court criticized passive state response despite soaring temperatures and mass vulnerability – Suo motu action revived to enforce institutional accountability [Paras 1–3, 10–14].

Constitutional Right to Life – Extreme Heat as Public Health Emergency – Judicial Duty to Intervene – Holding that right to life under Article 21 includes protection from environmental and climate-induced harms, Court emphasized duty of the State to protect lives through preventive public health action and environmental safeguards [Paras 12–13, 20–22].

Contempt Warning – Continued Non-Compliance of 2024 Order – Show Cause Issued – Court noted shocking disregard of 2024 directions and non-submission of compliance reports by authorities – Held such conduct contemptuous and indicative of systemic apathy – Show cause notice issued to all respondents [Paras 15–17, 25–26].

Interim Relief – Cooling Shelters, Water, ORS and Awareness Campaigns Ordered – Directions issued to provide cooling shelters, drinking water, and ORS at public spaces and issue regular heatwave alerts across Rajasthan – Workers to be granted rest period from 12–3 PM – Coverage to include humans and animals [Paras 22–24].

Policy Direction – Bill on Heat/Cold Deaths to be Enacted – Compensation Framework Proposed – Directed Centre and State to revive and implement the 2015 Bill on prevention of deaths due to temperature extremes – Suggested compensation mechanism for heatwave victims – Called for statutory backing to preventive obligations [Paras 5, 14, 25©, 25€].

Environmental Governance – Tree Plantation and Climate Action Plan Implementation Mandated – Directed plantation along roads, water conservation measures, and effective implementation of Rajasthan’s Climate Change Heat Action Plan – Government not permitted to cite financial constraints when public safety is at stake [Paras 25(a), 25(b), 24].

Final Directions – Compliance by 24.04.2025 – Officials Put on Notice – All District Collectors to file reports on compliance with interim directions – Matter to be reviewed on 24/04/2025 – Central and State departments directed to take steps or face coercive orders [Paras 26, 29–30].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious Liability – Non-Director Cannot Be Prosecuted – Petitioner Not Liable – Petitioner was neither a director of the accused company nor a signatory to the dishonoured cheques – Extract from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs confirmed he had no association with the company – Held: As per settled law under Section 141 NI Act, mere designation without active role in the company’s affairs does not fasten liability – Prosecution against petitioner quashed [Paras 3, 7].

Quashing of Complaint – Section 482 CrPC – Specific Averments Mandatory – The complaint lacked any specific allegations detailing the petitioner’s role in the conduct of the company’s business – Held: In the absence of such averments, vicarious liability cannot be inferred – Continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 7-8].

Precedents – Binding Nature of Apex Court Decisions – Followed – Court relied on landmark judgments including SMS Pharmaceuticals, Harmeet Singh Paintal, Saroj Kumar Poddar and K.K. Ahuja to reiterate that criminal complaints must specifically show how the accused was responsible for business conduct – Held: The petition deserved to be allowed based on established legal principles [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Petitions Allowed – Criminal Case Nos. 53135 and 53136 of 2016 pending before Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, quashed against the petitioner – Rule made absolute [Para 8].