Criminal Procedure – Interim Custody of Property – Sections 451, 457 CrPC – Gold Ornaments and Bonds Not Released – Petitioner sought interim custody of 105 gold ornaments, seized cash, and proceeds of matured bonds, claiming personal ownership and irrelevance to the criminal proceedings – The trial court rejected the application, noting that the seized assets were subject to adjudication as potential proceeds of crime and that Enforcement Directorate (ED) had already attached related assets – Held: The seized assets are prima facie linked to the crime and must remain in official custody until the conclusion of trial – No merit in seeking interim custody on the ground of deterioration of gold or personal use [Paras 6-8, 38-40].

Economic Offences – Prevention of Corruption Act – Proceeds of Crime – Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 CrPC – The CBI contended that the assets seized were crime proceeds and that the petition under Section 482 CrPC was not maintainable as the appropriate remedy was revision under Section 397 CrPC – The High Court held that while Section 482 CrPC can be invoked in extraordinary cases, an application under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC seeking interim custody is interlocutory in nature and thus not subject to revision – Petition under Section 482 CrPC held maintainable, but relief denied on merits as the seized property is integral to the criminal case [Paras 13-18, 27-30].

Criminal Procedure – Seizure of Property – Role of Enforcement Directorate – ED had provisionally attached properties related to the case, including shares in M/s Brahmani Industries, treating them as proceeds of crime – The petitioner failed to implead ED in the present petition, weakening the claim for return of assets – Held: Since ED’s attachment was upheld by the adjudicating authority and pending before the Supreme Court, release of bonds and gold ornaments cannot be permitted at this stage – The petitioner may file an application under Section 452 CrPC after trial [Paras 44-46].

Natural Justice – Right of Accused to Use Property – Delay in Trial – Petitioner argued that the long pendency of the trial caused undue hardship and sought release of gold ornaments for his daughter’s wedding – Court rejected this argument, noting that the trial was at an advanced stage, and a portion of the gold was already returned for the wedding – Interim release of assets not justified given the gravity of allegations and ongoing trial [Paras 38-39].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – The High Court upheld the trial court’s order and dismissed the petitions, holding that the seized assets were crucial to the ongoing trial and could not be released at this stage – Petitioners granted liberty to file fresh applications under Section 452 CrPC upon completion of the trial [Paras 49].
 

Contempt of Court – No Willful Disobedience – Supervening Circumstances Justified Delay - The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to distribute the collected ‘Dakshina’ among the three managing families of the temple as per the 2018 High Court judgment – The respondents contended that distribution was temporarily halted due to an internal dispute among family members and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic – The High Court held that the delay was due to legitimate administrative and legal hurdles, and there was no deliberate violation of the court’s order – Held: Mere delay, without intent to defy the court, does not amount to contempt [Paras 12-13].

Judicial Directives for Temple Administration – Compliance Achieved – Contempt Petition Infructuous - The Court examined records and found that post-2023, the respondents resumed the daily counting and monthly distribution of ‘Dakshina’ as per the 2018 judgment – Evidence of deposits and withdrawals from bank accounts confirmed compliance – Held: Since the court’s directives were now being followed, no further action was necessary, and the contempt petition was closed [Paras 11-13].

Locus Standi in Contempt Proceedings – Petitioner’s Standing Disputed – No Proof of Membership in Managing Families - The respondents argued that the petitioner was not a direct party to the original writ petition and had not proven his status as a beneficiary – The Court noted that a contempt petition can only be filed by a party with a direct grievance regarding non-compliance – Held: Though the petitioner’s membership in the managing families was in dispute, the issue was moot since compliance had already been ensured [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Contempt Petition Dismissed – No Further Action Required - The Court found no willful disobedience of its 2018 judgment and dismissed the contempt petition – Held: The petitioner’s claims were now irrelevant as compliance had been established, and the case was closed [Paras 13-15].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC – No Premeditation – Sentence Reduced – Appellant convicted for causing the death of his 85-year-old mother during a drunken altercation—Trial court imposed 7 years RI—High Court held: There was no premeditation, and the act occurred in a sudden quarrel—Considering the appellant’s clean record and lack of intent to cause death, sentence reduced to 5 years RI [Paras 29-34].

Sentencing Principles – Proportionality and Reformative Justice – Consideration of Mitigating Factors – High Court observed that the appellant had no prior criminal record, the act was not preplanned, and he had shown remorse—Held: Prolonged incarceration would cause hardship to dependents—Sentence reduced while upholding conviction [Paras 31-33].

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Applicability in Sudden Fight Cases – Court relied on Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana—Held: Offense falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC—No undue advantage or cruelty—Proper sentencing must balance deterrence and rehabilitation [Paras 15-18].

Evidentiary Considerations – Witness Testimonies and Medical Reports – Corroboration of Facts – Statements of key prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s son (PW-1), confirmed that the appellant had a history of alcohol abuse and engaged in frequent altercations—Medical report supported the prosecution’s claim that injuries were caused by a blunt object—Held: Evidence sufficiently established knowledge but not intention to cause death, justifying conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC [Paras 21-25].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC upheld – Sentence reduced from 7 years RI to 5 years RI – Accused to be credited for time already served – Directed to undergo counseling and engage in social welfare upon release [Paras 32-34].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction Under Section 498-A IPC Without Specific Charge – Conviction Set Aside – The appellants were initially charged under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide but were acquitted of that charge – However, the trial court convicted them under Section 498-A IPC despite the absence of a specific charge – Held: Section 498-A IPC is not a lesser offence of Section 306 IPC, and conviction under Section 498-A IPC without a specific charge is unsustainable – Appeal allowed, and conviction set aside [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Procedure – Applicability of Section 222 CrPC – No Automatic Conviction for a Lesser Offence – Trial court relied on Section 222 CrPC to convict the appellants under Section 498-A IPC – Held: Section 222 CrPC applies only if the offence charged includes all particulars of a minor offence – Since the elements of Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 498-A IPC (cruelty) are distinct, Section 222 CrPC cannot be invoked to sustain a conviction under Section 498-A IPC when no specific charge was framed [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Precedents – Conviction for an Offence Not Charged – Supreme Court’s Position Reiterated – Appellants relied on Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 1 RCR (Criminal) 617, which held that an accused cannot be convicted for an offence not specifically charged unless it is a lesser offence of the charge framed – Held: Trial court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 498-A IPC without framing a separate charge – Judgment set aside [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction – Since appellant no.1 (Talwinder Singh) passed away during the appeal, the proceedings abated against him – Appellant no.2 (Santosh Kumari) acquitted, and bail bonds discharged [Para 11].
 

Senior Citizens Act – Implied Condition of Care – Cancellation of Settlement

Deed Upheld – The appellant challenged the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) canceling a Settlement Deed executed by a senior citizen in favor of her son, on the ground that the son and daughter-in-law had failed to maintain the senior citizen – The Court held that Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act allows for cancellation of such deeds even if no express condition of maintenance is mentioned – Held: Love and affection serve as an implied condition, and failure to provide care justifies annulment of the deed [Paras 30-35].

Legislative Intent – Welfare of Senior Citizens – Beneficial Interpretation Required – The Court emphasized that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a welfare legislation, enacted to ensure financial security and protection for elderly individuals – Citing Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2], the Court held that provisions of the Act must be interpreted liberally to protect senior citizens from neglect and exploitation – Held: The primary intent of the Act is to safeguard the dignity and security of senior citizens, and courts must adopt a purposive approach in applying Section 23(1) [Paras 22-28].

Judicial Precedents – Recognition of Implied Condition in Property Transfers –

The Court referred to multiple judgments, including S. Vanitha v. Deputy

Commissioner, Bengaluru [2021 15 SCC 730] and Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684], which recognize that even in the absence of an express condition, a property transfer by a senior citizen carries an implied expectation of care – Held: The senior citizen’s right to revoke the Settlement Deed was validly exercised under the provisions of the Act [Paras 36-39].

Scope of Section 23(1) – No Mandatory Requirement of Express Condition in Deed – The appellant contended that since the Settlement Deed did not explicitly state a condition of maintenance, its cancellation was unlawful – The Court rejected this argument, holding that the existence of a familial relationship itself creates an expectation of care, and failure to fulfill this expectation constitutes grounds for cancellation – Held: The Tribunal has the power to annul a deed based on evidence of neglect, even in the absence of an express clause in the deed [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The cancellation of the Settlement Deed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was upheld, and the senior citizen’s right to revoke the deed was affirmed.

Criminal Evidence Law - Electronic Evidence – Right to Cloned Copy – Natural Justice – Cloned Copy Directed to Be Provided - Petitioners challenged denial of a cloned copy of hard disk relied upon for prosecution evidence – Court held that denial would violate right to fair trial – Directed trial court to provide cloned copy at petitioners’ expense to ensure effective cross-examination and defence [Paras 20–28].

Recall of Witness – Section 311 CrPC – Not a Ground to Deny Evidence Access - Prosecution had recalled PW-7 under Section 311 CrPC to introduce digital evidence – Court held that recall cannot bypass obligation to provide access to digital material if used against accused [Paras 11–13, 22].

Section 207 CrPC – Post-Supply Inspection Rights Retained – Cloned Copy Still Justified - Even assuming documents were supplied during charge, Court held that accused retains right to request copies at later stages, especially if trial is prolonged or records misplaced – Supply of cloned copy not barred [Paras 21, 26].

Precedent – P. Gopal Krishnan v. State of Kerala Applied – Cloned Copy of Electronic Records Mandatory - Citing Supreme Court ruling, Court emphasized that hard disks are electronic records and must be cloned and provided unless privacy issues exist – No such concern in this case [Paras 23–24].

No Delay Attributable to Accused – Prosecution Caused Trial Protraction - Court noted it was the prosecution that delayed the trial through multiple recall applications – Accused not found to be abusing process or causing delay – Cloned copy necessary for fair cross-examination [Para 22].

Final Decision – Application Allowed – Cloned Copy Ordered – Cross-examination Deferred - Trial court directed to clone and provide hard disk copy through authorized IT experts – Cross-examination of PW-7 deferred until then to protect fair trial rights [Paras 27–30].

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings based on Same Allegations as Criminal Trial – Proceedings vitiated – The petitioner, a bank employee, was earlier acquitted honourably in a criminal trial arising out of alleged issuance of fraudulent CRIS certificates – Later, departmental proceedings were initiated on identical facts with the same witnesses – Held: Departmental punishment unsustainable in view of acquittal and settled law that parallel departmental proceedings cannot be sustained on identical allegations when the accused has been honourably acquitted [Paras 1-5, 17-28].

Criminal Trial – Acquittal on Merits – Not a Case of Mere Benefit of Doubt – The Trial Court found prosecution witnesses unreliable, disbelieved the case of the bank, and recorded a finding that the petitioner was made a scapegoat – Department cannot re-litigate the matter through disciplinary proceedings – Findings of acquittal were substantive and not technical [Paras 11-14, 25].

Departmental Proceedings – Same Witnesses and Evidence as in Criminal Case – Departmental witnesses were the same as prosecution witnesses who had already been disbelieved in criminal trial – Proceedings hit by the principles laid down in G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 – Supreme Court ruling squarely applicable [Paras 19-23].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court recognized that ordinarily judicial review in service matters is limited to illegality, perversity, or violation of natural justice – However, when departmental action is contrary to settled law and ignores acquittal on merits, intervention is justified – Reliance placed on G.M. Tank, Capt. Paul Anthony, and Ram Lal cases [Paras 25-29].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned orders dated 19.12.2002 and 04.08.2003 quashed – Petitioner entitled to all consequential service and pensionary benefits – Bank directed to implement the order within 3 months and pay arrears within a further period of 2 months, failing which 6% interest shall apply [Para 30].

Motor Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim for non-examination of eyewitness – Accident proved through FIR, post-mortem report, and police investigation – Criminal acquittal of respondent No.1 not binding on Tribunal – Negligence proved on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities – Claimant entitled to compensation [Paras 9-17].

Standard of Proof – Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal wrongly insisted on strict proof as required in criminal trial – Held: Strict rules of evidence do not apply in claim petitions – Tribunal is to decide claims on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment in Sunita vs Rajasthan State Transport Corporation followed [Paras 11-14].

Driving Licence – Validity of LMV Licence to Drive Tractor – Tribunal’s finding that respondent No.1 did not possess valid licence is contrary to law – As per Supreme Court in Bajaj Allianz vs Rambha Devi (2024 INSC 840), a driver holding LMV licence is competent to drive transport vehicles below 7500 kg including tractors – Issue No.3 answered against the Insurance Company [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Acquittal – Not Binding on Tribunal – Criminal acquittal of the driver by giving benefit of doubt does not ipso facto absolve him of civil liability under the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal ought to have independently appreciated evidence – Supreme Court’s ruling in N.K.V. Bros v. M. Karumai Ammal applied [Paras 14-15].

Compensation – Computation – Minimum wages considered as basis of income – Future prospects added @40% – Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses applied – Multiplier of 17 adopted considering age of deceased at 28 years – Compensation awarded under conventional heads following Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram [Paras 18-21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Award dated 06.08.2005 set aside – Claimant entitled to total compensation of ₹3,55,320/- with interest @9% per annum from date of petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit compensation within two months – Costs imposed for non-appearance of counsel also addressed [Paras 26-30].

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement of Income – Application of Minimum Wage Notification – Future Prospects and Deduction Adjusted – Compensation Enhanced - Tribunal treated the deceased, a building material shop owner, as a casual labourer due to absence of income proof and applied minimum wage of ₹6,000/- – Court held that minimum wage applicable at the time of the accident was ₹7,200/- as per government notifications – Deduction for personal expenses reduced to 1/4th as deceased left behind four dependents including an unborn child – Tribunal correctly applied multiplier of 18 – Future prospects added at 40% following Pranay Sethi – Total compensation enhanced to ₹18,12,960/- [Paras 6-7].

Unborn Child – Entitlement to Compensation – Included as Dependent - The deceased's widow was pregnant at the time of the accident – The male child born later was held entitled to be treated as a dependent and eligible for compensation under the MV Act – Court followed settled law that unborn children are also entitled to compensation if born alive [Para 6].

Conventional Heads – Omission Rectified – Consortium and Loss of Estate Compensation Awarded - Tribunal failed to award compensation for loss of estate and consortium – High Court awarded ₹1,44,000/- under loss of consortium (₹48,000 x 3 for widow, mother, and minor son) and ₹18,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate – Computation of compensation realigned as per Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, and Magma General Insurance guidelines [Paras 6-7].

Final Award – Compensation Enhanced – Interest Modified - Total enhanced compensation fixed at ₹18,12,960/- with an additional ₹9,29,000/- payable to the appellants along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization – Appeals allowed and disposed [Paras 8-9].