Writ Law - Service Benefits - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 16 - Entitlement of legal heirs - Petitioners being the legally wedded wife and son of the deceased employee sought terminal benefits and compassionate appointment - Sixth respondent claimed to be the second wife with two children from the deceased - First marriage was subsisting at the time of the second marriage rendering the second marriage void - Legal heirship certificate issued by Tahsildar reflected petitioners the mother of deceased and children of sixth respondent as legal heirs - Supreme Court precedent dictates that children of a void second marriage are legitimate and entitled to property but the second wife is not - Held - The terminal benefits and family pension are payable to the legal heirs as per the legal heirship certificate excluding the second wife - Respondents directed to disburse benefits and consider the second petitioner for compassionate appointment - [Paras 1-12].

Family Law - Void Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 16 - Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages - Deceased employee contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was subsisting - Second wife claimed terminal benefits - Section 16 protects the legitimacy of children born out of void marriages - Held - Second wife is not entitled to retirement benefits or family pension but the children of the second wife are legitimate and entitled to a share in the death-cum-retirement gratuity and family pension - [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondents 1 to 3 directed to disburse the death-cum-retirement gratuity and other benefits to the legal heirs shown in the heirship certificate in accordance with law and to consider the application of the second petitioner for employment under the dying-in-harness scheme within three months.

Writ Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of interference - Petitioner sought to restrain Respondents from obstructing the laying of remaining 200 meters of a 14 km underground HT cable stretch - Lower courts rejected temporary injunction finding no prima facie case regarding the existence of a public road and citing alternative remedies - High Court found the lower courts ignored the Court Commissioner report of the Executive Engineer which explicitly identified the existence of Other District Road No. 61 - Held - The findings of the lower courts were ex-facie perverse and based on irrelevant considerations such as lack of PWD permission which the road authorities had already granted - High Court is duty bound to interfere under Article 227 where the sub-ordinate court exercise of discretion is totally perverse or suffers from patent illegality - [Paras 21-31].

Civil Law - Statutory Power to Lay Lines - Indian Telegraph Act 1885 - Sections 10 and 16 - Right of Licensee - Respondents obstructed cable laying work on a road margin claiming proprietary rights - Held - The statutory scheme under the Telegraph Act and Electricity Act empowers the licensee to place and maintain lines even through private property subject only to the liability of paying compensation - Unobstructed access to lay electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest and for economic growth - The right of a landowner is limited to claiming compensation and not to impede essential infrastructure work - [Paras 32-38].

Civil Law - Alternative Remedy - Works of Licensees Rules 2006 - Rule 3 - Temporary Injunction - Trial court held Plaintiff had an efficacious alternative remedy by approaching the District Magistrate under Rule 3 - Held - The proviso to Rule 3(1) applies where ownership or occupation of the land is undisputed or indisputable - Where a prima facie case exists that the work is on a public road margin and there is no evidence of Respondent ownership over that stretch the bar of alternative remedy is not attracted - Injunction cannot be declined solely on the availability of a remedy that applies to different factual circumstances - [Paras 39-40].

Civil Law - Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Petitioner completed 99 percent of the work over 13.8 km - Obstruction was for a short stretch of 200 meters - Held - Refusal to grant injunction would render the entire 13.8 km exercise nugatory causing irreparable loss to the Petitioner - Conversely the underground cable using horizontal directional drilling would cause no irretrievable damage to the land or restrict surface use - Balance of convenience tilts heavily in favor of the Petitioner - [Paras 41-47].

Civil Law - Interim Relief Amounting to Final Relief - Mandatory Injunction - Grant of relief at interim stage - Held - While courts ordinarily refrain from granting interim relief that amounts to final relief it is not an immutable rule - In rare and exceptional cases where a very strong prima facie case exists and withholding relief would prick the conscience of the court or result in extreme hardship such relief can be granted - To balance equities the Petitioner is directed to deposit security for potential compensation - [Paras 48-54].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned orders of the District Court and Civil Judge quashed – Temporary injunction granted – Petitioner permitted to complete cable work using HDD method – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 20,00,000 as security before the trial court.

Criminal Law - Narcotics - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - Possession of commercial quantity - Appellant convicted for possession of seven kilograms of Charas and sentenced to fifteen years rigorous imprisonment - Intercepted by Narcotic Cell on Diamond Harbour Road - Search conducted in presence of Gazetted Officer PW-3 - Seven kilograms of Charas recovered from rucksack - Appellant challenged conviction on grounds of non-preparation of nil seizure list for raiding officer and non-examination of nearby shop witnesses - High Court found independent witness PW-5 credible and chemical report confirmed substance - Held - Non-preparation of nil seizure list for raiding officer not fatal - Conviction and sentence affirmed - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-25].

Criminal Law - Search and Seizure - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985 - Section 50 - Nil seizure list - Raiding officer searched by Gazetted Officer prior to searching accused - No contraband recovered from officer - No nil seizure list prepared - Held - When nothing objectionable is recovered from raiding officer and ocular evidence of witnesses confirms the search - non-preparation of nil seizure list is not fatal to prosecution - [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law - Gazetted Officer - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985 - Section 50 - Neutrality of officer - Appellant opted for search before Gazetted Officer - Police summoned Additional Officer-in-charge of the same police station to act as Gazetted Officer - Held - Calling an officer from the originating police station to act as Gazetted Officer upon option of accused does not dilute prosecution case - Raiding party cannot be faulted for using available officer for search and seizure - [Paras 15-17].

Evidence Law - Independent Witnesses - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985 - Non-examination of specific witnesses - Interception near a retail shop - Shop staff not called as witnesses - Two independent passers-by cited and one examined as PW-5 - Held - While desirable to have local shop witnesses - absence is not fatal if other independent witnesses unconnected to police prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28th and 29th March, 2017 affirmed.

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 332, 504 and 506(2) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - State challenged the judgment of the Special Judge Patan acquitting the respondent of assaulting a rent collector and using caste-based slurs - Prosecution alleged that on 15.09.2009 the accused assaulted the complainant over a previous grudge related to rent collection - High Court noted material contradictions in the testimony of PW-4 who claimed to be an eye-witness but admitted reaching the spot fifteen minutes after the incident - PW-2 did not support the prosecution version - Investigating Officer PW-6 admitted failing to record statements of independent shop owners present at the scene - Trial Court found the FIR to be concocted due to delay and lack of corroboration - Held - The prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt - Trial Court assigned cogent and sufficient reasons for disbelieving the case - No manifest illegality found in the acquittal - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Caste Based Insult - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - Essential Ingredients - Abusive words must be uttered in a public place within public view with specific intent to insult a person on the basis of community - Prosecution must lead satisfactory and cogent evidence to prove these ingredients - In the present case the evidence was silent on the aspect of public view and intent - Witnesses did not support the allegation of abusive words used with intent to insult - Held - Offence under the Atrocity Act not established - [Paras 11-14].

Evidence Law - Appellate Power - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Re-appreciation of Evidence in Acquittal Appeals - Presumption of Innocence - Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and such presumption is reinforced by an order of acquittal - Appellate Court should not interfere with the trial court finding even if two reasonable conclusions are possible - Interference is permissible only if the lower court approach is vitiated by manifest illegality or perversity - Appellate Court has power to review and re-appreciate evidence but must show firm and weighty grounds to discard the trial court's reasoning - Held - Findings of the trial court were sustainable on facts and law - [Paras 12-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court confirmed – Bail bond stands cancelled.

Criminal Law - Attachment of Property - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 107 - Petitioner being the wife of the main accused challenged the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate Howrah attaching three joint properties and two exclusive properties - Petitioner was not arraigned as an accused in the FIR - Trial Court passed the attachment order without serving the mandatory notice under Section 107(2) and (3) of BNSS - Magistrate erroneously held that the petitioner was absconding and thus had no right of audience - High Court observed that Section 107 BNSS provides multiple layers of checks and balances including executive approval and judicial scrutiny - Statute mandates a fourteen-day show cause notice period and a reasonable opportunity of being heard - Attachment at the threshold of investigation must follow procedural fairness as it involves valuable property rights - Held - Trial Court flouted the mandate of Section 107 by failing to serve notice and by unjustly treating the petitioner as an absconding accused - Order of attachment set aside - [Paras 1-9 and 25].

Criminal Law - Statutory Interpretation - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 107 - Reason to Believe vs Reason to Suspect - Investigating officer must record reason to believe that property is derived from criminal activity - Approval by Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police must reflect application of mind and not be a mere formality - Higher threshold of reason to believe is required for attachment compared to reason to suspect under Section 176 BNSS for investigation - Court must record satisfaction that victim would be prejudiced if order is not passed - Analogy drawn from PMLA regarding physical possession which should be an exception and not the rule before formal confiscation - Held - The term reason to believe must get strict interpretation and must be based on hard admissible material clearly indicating guilt - [Paras 13-16 and 20-24].

Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Constitution of India - Article 300A and Article 14 - Right to property is a human and constitutional right that cannot be taken away except in accordance with law - Attachment has a deleterious effect and must receive strict interpretation - Non-application of judicial mind or casual approach to attachment orders renders Section 107 BNSS vulnerable under multiple constitutional provisions - Held - Deprivation of property without sound judicial discretion violates Article 300A and the principles of procedural fairness - [Paras 12, 17, 21 and 24].

Decision: Revision allowed – Order of attachment dated 24.09.2025 set aside – Investigating authority granted liberty to initiate process afresh strictly in compliance with Section 107 BNSS within four weeks.

Criminal Law - Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 7 - Demand and acceptance - Appellants were convicted by the Special Court for demanding illegal gratification to release the withheld salary of the complainant wife - Trial Court relied on the recovery of tainted currency notes during a trap operation - High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand which is the foundational requirement and sine qua non for an offence under the Act - Complainant admitted in cross-examination that he had received the salary cheque several days before the trap was conducted - Testimony of the complainant was found inconsistent with his previous statements and the dates of the complaints - Panch witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version of the demand - Held - Mere recovery of money without proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Act - Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted - [Paras 1-28].

Evidence Law - Electronic Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 65-B - Admissibility of recordings - Prosecution produced digital voice recordings to prove the demand of bribe - No certificate under Section 65-B was produced to authenticate the electronic record - Investigating Officer admitted that voice samples were never collected from the accused or the complainant for expert comparison - Recordings were found to be inaudible due to background noise - Held - Electronic records without the mandatory certificate and voice authentication are inadmissible and cannot be used to prove the demand of illegal gratification - [Paras 18-25].

Criminal Law - Presumption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 20 - Drawing of presumption - Trial Court invoked the statutory presumption against the appellants based on the recovery of tainted notes - High Court held that the presumption under Section 20 can only be drawn once the acceptance of money is proved to be pursuant to a demand - Since the demand was suspicious and not established by reliable evidence the chain of circumstances was incomplete - Held - Presumption does not apply where the initial demand is not proved beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 21-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 08.09.2017 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Directed to furnish personal bonds under Section 481 BNSS for a period of six months.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Allegations of misappropriation and forgery - Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 4 sought to quash FIR No. 52 of 2026 registered for offences under Sections 420- 406- 467- 468- 471 and 120B r/w 34 IPC - Complainant alleged that the CEO of the partnership firm and the petitioners acting as agents for land procurement misappropriated approximately Rs. 5.52 Crores - Allegations stated that the accused produced fabricated Agreements of Sale and fake payment receipts to induce the firm to transfer funds while making only partial payments to land owners - Petitioners contended that the dispute was purely civil and contractual in nature and that the respondent should have invoked the arbitration clause as per the Memorandum of Understanding - High Court held that the existence of an arbitration mechanism or civil remedy does not nullify criminal prosecution if the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences - Whether the sale agreements are genuine and whether the amounts were actually paid to land owners are disputed questions of fact requiring investigation - Held - Power under Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and not to interdict investigation at the threshold when a prima facie case is made out - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-21].

Criminal Law - Civil vs Criminal Remedy - Ratio Decidendi - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 18 - Effect of arbitration clause on criminal prosecution - Criminal law cannot be employed as a mechanism for enforcing contractual rights alone but its process is not barred merely because a civil remedy exists - Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to try criminal charges even if they arise out of the same transaction - Held - Initiation of arbitral proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution if the acts complained of constitute offences under law - [Paras 12-16].

Criminal Law - Investigation - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Scope of quashing at nascent stage - Police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences - Courts should not scuttle investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR - FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts - Held - When specific allegations of forgery and misappropriation exist the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial and cannot be quashed at the investigation stage - [Paras 17-20].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – FIR investigation to proceed in accordance with law – All pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Criminal Law - Narcotics - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 50 - Mandatory compliance during body search - Accused intercepted by police during patrol - Detecting officer conducted body search and noticed a bulge in the front pocket of the accused - Accused directed to remove the item which was found to be 52.45 grams of MDMA - Prosecution argued Section 50 compliance unnecessary as accused voluntarily handed over the item - Court observed that the contraband was seized after a body search was initiated and the detection of the bulge occurred during said search - Held - When a body search is conducted it is mandatory to comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act - Prosecution admitted non-compliance - Search and seizure held to be vitiated - [Paras 1-6].

Criminal Law - Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act - Impact of procedural violation - Seizure of commercial quantity of MDMA - Finding of non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act - Court held that due to the total violation of mandatory search procedures the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be attributed to the applicant - Applicant in custody since 12.07.2025 - Continued detention found unnecessary for investigation - Held - Bail application allowed with conditions - [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Application allowed – Petitioner granted bail on executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties – Directed to cooperate with investigation and appear before the investigating officer every Saturday – Prohibited from tampering with evidence or leaving the State without permission.

Criminal Law - Discharge - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 406 420 465 468 and 471 - Petitioner who was the second accused challenged the order of the Magistrate dismissing his discharge petition - The prosecution arose from a complaint alleging that the Petitioner was entrusted with a lorry and three lakh rupees but later conspired to transfer the vehicle ownership to the first accused using forged signatures - Petitioner claimed parity with the first accused whose proceedings were quashed by the High Court - Court found the Petitioner played a distinct and central role as the primary entrustee - Held - Principle of parity has no applicability when the role played by the petitioner is totally distinct from the role attributed to the co-accused - Revision petition dismissed - [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Law - Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 156(3) - Filing of affidavit - Requirement of affidavit to accompany a complaint as per Priyanka Srivastava - Complainant filed the affidavit six days after filing the complaint but before the Magistrate forwarded it to the police - Held - Substantial compliance of the law exists as the Magistrate satisfied himself about the existence of the affidavit before invoking powers under Section 156(3) - Requirement cannot be given a strict interpretation like election petitions - [Paras 4-6 10].

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 188 - Offence committed outside India - Petitioner was abroad during the period the offences were committed - Allegations included phone calls from abroad and subsequent transfer of vehicle records within India - Held - Major portion of the offence was committed inside India and thus no sanction under Section 188 CrPC is required - [Paras 5 11].

Criminal Law - Civil Nature - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 406 and 420 - Criminal Breach of Trust vs Civil Dispute - Petitioner argued the matter was a civil dispute arising from a breach of contract - Held - Criminal prosecution cannot be wound up merely because the facts also disclose a civil liability - Offence of criminal breach of trust and forgery are clearly made out from the records - [Paras 12-14].

Evidence Law - Forgery - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 465 and 471 - Contention that petitioner was not the maker of the forged document - De facto complainant alleged Petitioner and co-accused resorted to forgery by affixing bogus signatures - Held - Identification of the specific person who forged the signatures is a matter for evidence at trial - Petitioner can be prosecuted even if he is not the actual maker of the false document if intent to commit fraud is present - [Paras 13 15].

Criminal Law - Simultaneous Charges - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 406 and 420 - Petitioner argued that cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot co-exist in the same set of facts - Held - While there is merit in the contention that the offences are antithetical the trial court shall look into this at the stage of framing charges - Termination of prosecution at the discharge stage is not warranted - [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Trial Court directed to proceed with framing of charges under Sections 406, 465 and 471 IPC.