Criminal Law - Dying Declaration – Reliability and Fit Mental Condition – The conviction was based solely on the dying declaration recorded by a medical officer and Dehati Nalishi, both allegedly made by the deceased. However, there was no certification of the deceased’s mental fitness by a medical professional, and prosecution witnesses stated the deceased was not in a condition to make a statement – Held: The dying declaration was unreliable, and the lack of corroboration further weakened its evidentiary value [Paras 14-18].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Location and Time of Incident – The dying declaration (Ex. P/10) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/12) provided conflicting accounts regarding the location of the incident and time of occurrence – Held: The inconsistencies created serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case and rendered the evidence unreliable [Paras 17-18].

Plea of Alibi – Proof Through Evidence – The appellant claimed he was in Guna at the time of the incident and presented call records, tower locations, and testimonies of witnesses to prove his presence elsewhere – Held: The defence proved the plea of alibi to the court’s satisfaction, and the trial court erred in discarding this evidence without cogent reasons [Paras 24-27].

Credibility of Defence Witnesses – Equal Weight to Defence Evidence – Defence witnesses, including public servants, corroborated the appellant’s alibi. Their testimony could not be discarded without valid reasons – Held: Defence evidence should be given equal treatment and weight as that of the prosecution if free from infirmities [Paras 28-29].

Conviction and Sentence – Doubts About Guilt – The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court erred in holding the appellant guilty without credible evidence – Held: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 449 IPC set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 30-32].

Employment Law – Back Wages – Gainful Employment Not Proved – Full Back Wages Granted – Respondent was suspended and dismissed from service on allegations of misconduct. The Co-operative Arbitration Court found the suspension and dismissal to be illegal, awarding full back wages for the period of suspension and dismissal. Appellants failed to prove that the respondent was gainfully employed during the said period. Held: A workman whose termination is found to be illegal is ordinarily entitled to full back wages unless the employer proves gainful employment during the period of dismissal – Award upheld; writ appeal dismissed [Paras 10-14].

Burden of Proof – Employer's Duty to Prove Gainful Employment – Respondent submitted evidence before the Arbitration Court affirming lack of employment during the period of suspension-dismissal. Appellants, despite being provided opportunities, failed to produce evidence to prove gainful employment. Held: The burden lies on the employer to establish that the dismissed employee was gainfully employed during the period of absence – No such evidence presented; award upheld [Paras 13-14].

Reinstatement with Back Wages – Precedents Applied – Citing Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees [(1979) 2 SCC 80] and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [(2013) 10 SCC 324], the Court held that reinstatement is ordinarily accompanied by full back wages unless the employer proves otherwise. The employer’s failure to substantiate claims of gainful employment entitles the employee to full back wages [Paras 10-11].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Limited Scope of Interference – High Court reiterated that the scope of appellate interference in writ matters is confined to jurisdictional errors or patent legal infirmities. Finding none in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal was dismissed [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Writ appeal dismissed – Award of Co-operative Arbitration Court granting full back wages and other monetary benefits upheld – Appellants failed to establish gainful employment of the respondent during the suspension-dismissal period [Paras 14-16].

Civil Law - Trust Property – Reversionary Rights of the Trust – Section 19(b) of the Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940 – Land granted by the Sansthan to Sangli State for running a public hospital – Public hospital shifted to an alternate location – Held: The Sansthan retained ownership of the land, and upon cessation of the public purpose, the land must revert to the Sansthan under Section 19(b) – Directions issued to the State to return the land or acquire it in accordance with law [Paras 13-16].

Pre-Constitutional Enactments – Continuance of Existing Laws – Article 372 of the Constitution – Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940, recognized as “law in force” – Held: The rights of the Sansthan under Section 19(b) are enforceable under Article 372, as the Act remains valid and binding [Paras 10-11].

Land Appropriation – Purpose of Appropriation Ceasing – Interpretation of Section 19(b) – Appropriation for a specific public purpose does not divest the grantor of ownership rights – Held: Once the original purpose ceases, the land reverts to the grantor unless acquired under law – Municipality or State cannot claim perpetual appropriation without formal acquisition [Paras 12-14].

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy – State argued that the petitioner could seek compensation or approach a civil court – Held: Availability of compensation or an alternative remedy does not bar the Sansthan’s right to seek reversion under Section 19(b) – Relief granted [Paras 6, 16].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Land from City Survey Nos. 4, 5, 5/1 to 5/18 directed to be returned to the Sansthan within three months – State permitted to acquire the land if required for a public purpose – Alternate accommodation to be arranged for hospital staff occupying part of the land [Paras 16-17].

Arbitration – Interim Relief – Security for Disputed Amount – Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Petitioner sought interim relief to secure Rs. 156.75 crores against Make-Up Gas owed under GSPA, alleging respondents’ inability to supply due to reduced gas production – Respondents claimed non-performance due to Force Majeure (FM) and expiration of GSPA and Production Sharing Contract (PSC) – Held: A strong prima facie case existed as GSPA’s restoration period was nearing expiration, and petitioner had paid Rs. 197.13 crores without full adjustment – Respondents directed to provide solvent security to secure the disputed amount [Paras 41-62].

Force Majeure – Validity and Invocation – Non-Compliance with Procedural Clauses – Respondents invoked FM under GSPA due to adverse reservoir behavior – Petitioner challenged FM citing lack of timely notice and failure to meet conditions under Clauses 7.5 and 7.7 of GSPA – Held: FM claim requires proof of adherence to procedural requirements, which is to be evaluated by the arbitral tribunal – Court refrained from delving into substantive merits at interim stage [Paras 54-56].

Attachment of Assets – Applicability of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Foreign Respondents – Risk of Enforcement Challenges – Court noted respondents’ assets were inadequately detailed and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were foreign entities – Risk of irrecoverable arbitral award recognized – Held: Ingredients of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC satisfied – Respondents directed to provide solvent security to prevent dissipation of assets [Paras 60-62].

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondent No. 1 directed to secure Rs. 157.75 crores through bank guarantee or unencumbered immovable assets within two weeks – Observations limited to interim relief without prejudice to arbitral tribunal’s findings [Paras 62-64].
 

Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 366A IPC – Assessment of Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Prosecution relied on inconsistent statements by witnesses and failed to present corroborative evidence from independent witnesses or reliable medical findings – Held: Inconsistencies in testimony of the victim (PW-1) and informant (PW-2) undermine the prosecution’s case. No injuries were reported on the victim’s body, and the victim's age was determined to be on the borderline of adulthood, further complicating the charge of procuration of a minor girl [Paras 17-19].

Credibility of Prosecution Case – Eyewitnesses Not Examined – The prosecution failed to examine critical eyewitnesses, including school staff and students, despite the alleged abduction occurring in broad daylight outside a school – Held: Non-examination of key witnesses raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case [Para 19].

Ante-Dated FIR and Informant's Knowledge – Question of Reliability – FIR appeared ante-dated as the informant (PW-2) claimed to file the report based on details shared by the victim the day after the alleged incident. Further, the informant admitted he did not know the accused personally before filing the complaint – Held: Such discrepancies render the prosecution’s case untrustworthy [Para 18].

Age Determination of the Victim – Borderline Case – The medical board opined the victim’s age to be between 17 and 18 years, with no evidence conclusively establishing her as a minor – Held: Lack of clarity on age undermines the applicability of Section 366A IPC [Paras 8, 19].

Outcome: Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges [Para 20].

Decision: Judgment and Sentence Set Aside. Conviction under Section 366A IPC quashed. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of ₹1,000/- annulled. Acquittal and Discharge of Bail Bonds. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. Appeal Allowed:
 

Matrimonial Law - Muslim Personal Law – Maintainability of Divorce Suit by Muslim Male – Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – Maintainable - The Family Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s suit for divorce, holding it as non-maintainable under Muslim personal law – Section 7 of the Family Courts Act empowers Family Courts to adjudicate suits for dissolution of marriage arising out of a marital relationship irrespective of caste or community – Rejection of the suit denied the appellant his right to access justice [Paras 9-12].

Dissolution of Marriage – Grounds under Shariat Act and Family Court Rules – Right of Muslim Male Recognized - Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Family Court Rules, 1988 explicitly includes suits under the Shariat Act and Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 – Muslim males can pursue judicial remedies for divorce under these provisions, establishing a valid legal framework for such suits [Paras 11-12].

Constitutional Morality – Denial of Access to Justice – Remedy to Muslim Male Secured - Denial of judicial forum for Muslim males to seek divorce under personal law would violate the constitutional mandate ensuring access to justice – Such an interpretation would contravene constitutional morality and the principles of justice [Paras 13-14].

Remand for Adjudication – Family Court Judgment Set Aside – Directions for Reconsideration - The High Court quashed the Family Court’s decision and remanded the matter for adjudication – Parties directed to appear before the Family Court for further proceedings, including the possibility of settlement [Paras 15-17].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Family Court is set aside. The case is remanded for adjudication by the Family Court with liberty granted to the parties to pursue settlement if desired. The Registrar General is directed to circulate the judgment to all Civil/Family Courts in Madhya Pradesh.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Dereliction of Duty – Theft of Overhead Electric Wires – Petitioner charged with dereliction of duty after criminals stole 150 meters of overhead electric wires from a 3 KM stretch under his watch – Disciplinary Authority found petitioner guilty and imposed a penalty of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect – Orders confirmed by Appellate and Revisional Authorities – Court held that findings of fact by disciplinary authorities were well-reasoned and supported by evidence – Petition dismissed, findings upheld. [Paras 1-10].

Proportionality of Punishment – Judicial Review – On challenge to the quantum of punishment, Court observed that petitioner’s previous conduct was considered by the Appellate Authority, including a prior penalty imposed for similar dereliction of duty just three months earlier – Appellate Authority reduced the penalty to a two-stage pay reduction for three years with cumulative effect – Held: Punishment proportionate to misconduct and not unconscionable – Judicial interference unwarranted. [Paras 11-15].

Authority’s Discretion – Scope of Court’s Intervention – Court reiterated its limited role in reviewing disciplinary actions, emphasizing that it is not an appellate forum – Findings of guilt and punishment by authorities are to be respected unless proven arbitrary, perverse, or disproportionate. [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Findings and punishment upheld with modifications introduced by the Appellate Authority. [Paras 14-16].
 

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – Assessment of Husband's Financial Capacity – The husband challenged the trial court's award of ₹10 lakhs to the wife and ₹5 lakhs to the minor daughter as permanent alimony, while the wife sought enhancement of the amount – Evidence established that the husband had adequate financial means, including agricultural land, a petrol pump, and business income – Held: Husband is liable to pay the awarded alimony – Appeal by the husband dismissed, and no enhancement granted to the wife as no infirmity was found in the trial court's judgment.

Husband's Financial Status – Evidence Supporting Adequate Means – The trial court relied on documentary evidence, including LIC policies, partnership deeds, and land ownership records, to conclude that the husband had sufficient financial resources – Held: The husband's bare denial without contradictory evidence is insufficient – The family court’s finding of adequate means is affirmed.

Wife's Dependency and Custody of Minor Child – The wife, living with her mother and caring for the minor daughter, was found to be unemployed and dependent – Husband’s assertion that the wife ran a coaching center and owned a four-wheeler was unsupported by evidence – Held: Permanent alimony awarded to wife and daughter upheld as reasonable and just.

Procedural Fairness – No Fresh Opportunity to Lead Evidence – Husband’s failure to lead evidence during the trial cannot justify granting another opportunity at the appellate stage – Held: Family court proceedings were fair, and the trial court's decision was based on cogent evidence – No procedural infirmity found.

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – The husband's appeal challenging the family court’s order fails, and the wife’s appeal for enhancement of alimony is also rejected – Permanent alimony of ₹10 lakhs to the wife and ₹5 lakhs to the minor daughter upheld as reasonable.
 

Bail - Money Laundering – Double Jeopardy – Applicant contended that he cannot be prosecuted in India after conviction in the United States—Held: Prosecution in India is permissible if the offences are distinct—Foreign conviction does not create an absolute bar on domestic prosecution—Bail denied [Paras 7, 20].

Money Laundering – Admissibility of Foreign Conviction – US authorities prosecuted the applicant for laundering proceeds from drug trafficking—He surrendered Bitcoin holdings in a plea agreement—Held: Indian courts may recognize foreign convictions but are not bound by them—Effect of foreign conviction must be determined based on case-specific factors—Prosecution in India stands independently [Paras 16-21].

Confessional Statements – Section 50 of PMLA – Applicant alleged coercion in recording his statement under Section 50—Held: Such statements are not substantive evidence unless corroborated—Merely retracting a statement does not invalidate it—Evidentiary value to be determined at trial—Bail denied [Paras 8, 22].

Possession of Proceeds of Crime – Burden of Proof under Section 23 of PMLA – Applicant argued that he is not in possession of unaccounted Bitcoin—Held: PMLA presumes that unexplained foreign transactions related to illicit activities are proceeds of crime—Burden is on the applicant to prove otherwise—Bail denied [Paras 24-25].

Jurisdiction of Indian Courts – Cryptocurrency and Money Laundering – Applicant transferred Bitcoin proceeds from his illegal activities—Held: Cryptocurrency transactions fall under territorial jurisdiction where the owner is domiciled—Indian authorities have jurisdiction if Bitcoin holdings are linked to the applicant—Bail denied [Para 11].

Bail Considerations – Section 45 of PMLA – Severity of Allegations – Applicant accused of laundering proceeds from international drug trade—Held: Bail to be denied if reasonable grounds exist for believing in prima facie guilt—Given the gravity of charges and potential risk of tampering with evidence, bail rejected [Paras 9-10, 26].

Decision: Bail application rejected—Applicant’s prosecution in India deemed valid despite foreign conviction—Indian authorities directed to continue investigation into unaccounted Bitcoin holdings—Case to proceed to trial.