Family Law – Stridhan – Recovery of Gold Ornaments – Marriage Register as Evidence – Entry in SNDP Yogam Marriage Register showing quantity of gold worn by bride – Correction duly countersigned and supported by testimony of Secretary – Genuineness of register not challenged by respondents – Photographic evidence corroborating entry – Held: Bride possessed 800 grams (100 sovereigns) of gold at the time of marriage – Finding of Family Court limiting gold to 600 grams erroneous [Paras 7–9].

Stridhan – Possession and Misappropriation – Appellant admittedly retained about 15 sovereigns – Respondents already directed to return 60 sovereigns – On evidence, respondents likely retained 85 sovereigns – Held: Respondents liable to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments [Para 10].

Recovery of Gold – Mode of Relief – Market Value – When court directs return of gold or its value, prevailing market value at time of realisation to be awarded – However, no enhancement warranted for 60 sovereigns already settled – For remaining 25 sovereigns, market value at time of recovery payable if gold not returned in specie [Para 11].

Recovery of Money – Burden of Proof – Alleged Entrustment by Parents – Claims for Rs.11 lakhs, chit fund amounts, fixed deposit withdrawal, and partnership contribution – Parents not examined – No documentary proof of availability or withdrawal of funds – Bank statements inconsistent with pleaded payments – Amendment raising FD claim introduced belatedly – Held: Monetary claims not proved – Dismissal by Family Court upheld [Paras 12–15].

Chit Fund Amounts – Locus Standi – Claim relating to chits subscribed by petitioner’s mother – Mother neither examined nor claimant – No proof of entrustment for petitioner’s benefit – Held: Petitioner not entitled to decree for amounts allegedly due to mother [Para 16].

Minor Child – Gold Ornaments – Proper Proceedings – Claim for recovery of gold belonging to minor daughter cannot be sought by mother in her personal petition – Remedy lies in instituting proceedings on behalf of minor – Clarified: Dismissal does not bar such future proceedings [Para 17].

Appeal – Remand – Filling Lacunae Impermissible – Prayer for remand to adduce further evidence rejected – Appeal cannot be remanded merely to fill evidentiary gaps or enable production of additional material – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Respondents directed to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month, failing which to pay market value at time of recovery – Rest of decree of Family Court upheld – No order as to costs.

Education – Government Employee – Permission to Pursue Higher Studies – Distance Education Mode – Petitioner appointed as Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant sought permission to enroll in B.A. through Distance Mode without availing study leave – Application rejected on ground of non-completion of three years’ regular service and probation status – Held: As per Government instructions dated 09.11.2022, condition of three years’ service applies only where studies are pursued in regular mode requiring physical attendance – For distance/online mode where no study leave is required, no such condition is prescribed – Rejection order unsustainable [Paras 4–5].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Education – Article 21 – Right to pursue education at any stage of life – Court reiterated that right to education is concomitant to right to life and personal liberty – Denial of permission to pursue educational qualification without statutory basis amounts to infringement of fundamental right – Right to education recognized as inalienable human right – State obligated to facilitate educational advancement [Paras 6–8].

Service Law – Model Employer – Encouragement of Higher Qualification – Court observed that enhancement of educational qualification of employees serves public interest by creating a competent workforce – State as a welfare State and model employer has constitutional duty to support professional growth of its employees – Arbitrary restrictions contrary to this objective liable to be set aside [Paras 9–10].

Administrative Instructions – Conflict between Clarificatory Instructions and Parent Instructions – Clarificatory instructions dated 28.08.2023 issued by Superintendent held contrary to executive instructions dated 09.11.2022 issued by competent authority – Clarification cannot override substantive policy decision – Rejection based on such clarification held illegal [Para 11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 02.07.2024 set aside – Respondents directed to grant permission to petitioner to enroll in B.A. through Distance Education Mode – Petitioner not entitled to study leave and to maintain required standard of work – Leave permissible only during examination period [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Murder – Political Rivalry – Conviction Set Aside – Deceased, a CPI(M) local leader, allegedly murdered by members of rival political organisation (NDF) – Trial Court convicted accused under Sections 302 r/w 149 IPC and allied offences – On appeal, High Court finds prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 9, 48].

Evidence – Injured Eye-Witnesses – Credibility – PW1 and PW2 projected as injured eye-witnesses – Serious doubt regarding their presence at scene of crime – Wound certificates prepared more than one month after incident and produced in court after inordinate delay – Hospital controlled by same political party as deceased – Nature of injuries trivial and possibly self-inflicted – Conduct of witnesses unnatural – Held: Unsafe to rely on testimony of PW1 and PW2 [Paras 14–21].

Medical Evidence – Delay and Suspicion – Wound Certificates – Delay in preparation, issuance and production of Exts.P27 and P28 – Absence of treating doctor as witness – Lack of description of injuries – Medical evidence found unreliable and incapable of corroborating ocular testimony [Paras 17–21, 47].

Witness Testimony – Conduct Inconsistent with Normal Human Behaviour – PW1 and PW2 allegedly fled scene without attempting to rescue grievously injured deceased – Did not seek help from PW3 or others – Conduct held unnatural – Reliance placed on Nimai Ghosh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) [Para 31].

Interested and Partisan Witnesses – Political Affiliation – All material witnesses belonged to CPI(M), the party of the deceased – In politically charged cases, evidence of partisan witnesses requires strict scrutiny – Absence of independent corroboration fatal to prosecution case [Paras 45–46].

Contradictions and Improvements – Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. – PW1 and PW2 made several material improvements before Court regarding overt acts, weapons, and roles of accused – Omissions proved through Investigating Officers – Held: Improvements go to root of prosecution case when presence itself is doubtful [Paras 37–39].

FIR – Naming of Accused – Suspicion of Prior Consultation – FIR contained names and parentage of all 16 accused – PW1 admitted some names were supplied by others in hospital – Possibility of deliberation and false implication due to political rivalry cannot be ruled out [Paras 34–35].

Investigation – Serious Lapses – Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Alleged escape of assailants in a jeep – Owner and related witnesses not examined – Registration particulars not collected – Delay in recovery of weapons – Recovery witnesses politically affiliated – Held: Investigation lacked fairness and credibility [Paras 40–44].

Recovery Evidence – Doubtful – Delay of Several Months – Weapons allegedly recovered on disclosure after long delay – Attestors were partisan and residing far from place of recovery – Recovery evidence held unreliable [Paras 43–44].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof – While defective investigation alone not a ground for acquittal, where evidence itself is weak and unreliable, lapses assume significance – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 48–49].

Decision: Criminal Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences in S.C. No. 3 of 2012 set aside – Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 14 acquitted – Direction to release appellants forthwith

Conviction can be sustained only when circumstances are fully established, consistent solely with guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every hypothesis of innocence and form a complete chain – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 16-17].

Last Seen Theory – Hostile Witness – PW-15 Ramzan Khan turned hostile and denied seeing accused with deceased – No corroborative evidence – Held: Theory of last seen not proved [Paras 6, 17].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Memorandum – Authenticity – Memorandums (Ex. P/16 and P/17) allegedly recorded at Police Station at 8:30 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. – Scientific Officer’s report showed Investigating Officer present at scene of crime at same time – Star witness admitted signatures obtained on blank papers – Held: Memorandums fictitious and inadmissible – Recovery of skeleton not proved at instance of accused [Paras 9-11, 14].

Prosecution Fairness – Withholding Evidence – Scene of crime report not exhibited by prosecution though prepared at its instance – Accused entitled to rely upon such document – Prosecutor must act fairly and place all material before Court [Paras 7-8].

Motive – Illicit Relationship – Allegation not substantiated – No witness proved existence of illicit relationship – No evidence that deceased was aware of such relationship – Motive not established [Paras 4, 11-12].

Motive – Employment Application – Prosecution theory that accused lured deceased on pretext of job clearance – No official from Women and Child Development Department examined – Foundation of prosecution case not proved [Para 12].

Administration of Poison – Failure to Prove Nature of Substance – Alleged pesticide not scientifically established as odorless or capable of clandestine administration – No forensic linkage with cause of death – Theory incomplete [Para 13].

Electronic Evidence – Call Detail Records – Non-compliance with Section 65B Evidence Act – Certificate not issued by service provider – No tower location linking accused to scene – Held: CDR evidence unreliable and inadmissible [Para 15].

Faulty and Malicious Investigation – Fabrication of Documents – Court deprecated creation of fictitious memorandums – Liberty granted to Director General of Police to consider departmental enquiry against Investigating Officer – Conviction cannot rest on tainted investigation [Paras 14, 17, 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Copy of judgment directed to be circulated to police authorities for appropriate action [Paras 18-20].

Partition Suit – Execution of Final Decree – Stamp Duty on Instrument of Partition – Objection by Judgment Debtor that final decree was insufficiently stamped as stamp duty was paid only in respect of one share – Contention that decree could not be executed unless stamp duty for entire property was paid – Executing Court held that stamp duty paid by decree-holder was sufficient as all parties had equal shares and one equal share could be treated as separated share under Article 45, Schedule IA, Indian Stamp Act – Challenge thereto in revision [Paras 7–11].

Execution Proceedings – Order XXI CPC – Issuance of Writ of Delivery of Possession – Filing of application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Rejection of recall and stay applications under Section 151 CPC – Revisional challenge confined to executability of decree on ground of stamp duty [Paras 2–4, 9–10].

Stamp Duty – Instrument of Partition – Article 45, Schedule IA, Indian Stamp Act (West Bengal) – Meaning of “largest share remaining” – Where all co-sharers have equal shares, stamp duty equivalent to one such equal share may be treated as separated share – However, final decree in partition must ultimately be duly stamped to be fully executable [Paras 10, 16].

Final Decree – Nature and Executability – Reliance on Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande – Held, until a final decree is drawn up and engrossed on proper stamp papers, there is no executable decree – Mere direction to draw up final decree or partial stamping does not render decree executable in full [Paras 18–19].

Partition Proceedings – Preliminary and Final Decrees – Reference to Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan – Duty of courts to ensure drawing up of final decree after preliminary decree – Decree in partition suit may be partly preliminary and partly final – Suit concludes only upon drawing of final decree [Paras 14–15].

Equitable Relief – Undertaking by Decree Holder – Decree holder undertook before High Court to pay total stamp duty in respect of entire suit property with liberty to recover proportionate shares from other co-sharers – Held, such course would cure defect of executability – Revisional application disposed of granting such liberty [Paras 12–13, 17, 19].

Decision – Civil Revision disposed of – Liberty granted to decree holders to deposit total stamp duty for entire property – On such payment, executing court directed to proceed with execution and ensure full satisfaction of decree within one month – Interim orders vacated [Paras 19–24].

Service Law – Pension – Switching from CPF to Pension Scheme – Cut-off Date – Denial of Retrospective Pension – Validity – Retired employees of SIDBI challenged clauses of Circular dated 29.06.2022 granting pension only prospectively from 01.07.2022 to CPF optees and denying arrears prior thereto – Petitioners contended that SIDBI Pension Regulations, 2002 were the only valid regulations and no earlier effective option was given to them to opt for pension – Held: Fixation of cut-off date for grant of pension and refusal to grant pension retrospectively is neither arbitrary nor illegal nor discriminatory – Pension scheme being a policy decision, financial implications and sustainability are relevant considerations – Petitioners having opted for the scheme as a package cannot accept benefits and reject disadvantageous clauses [Paras 16–20].

Service Jurisprudence – Pension Scheme as a Package – Doctrine of “No Picking and Choosing” – Pension option extended as a final opportunity subject to specific terms – Petitioners exercised option to switch from CPF to pension – Held: Employees cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting benefits of scheme while challenging conditions forming integral part thereof – Once option exercised, scheme must be accepted in entirety [Paras 14, 17, 20].

Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Decision – RBI v. M.T. Mani – Clauses impugned were materially identical to clauses upheld by Supreme Court in RBI v. M.T. Mani – Supreme Court held that denial of retrospective pension prior to cut-off date does not violate Articles 14 or 16 – High Court bound by ratio and applied same to SIDBI pension scheme – Distinction sought on ground of lack of prior options rejected [Paras 16–19].

Policy Decision – Financial Burden – Judicial Restraint – SIDBI pension option resulted in financial burden of approx. ₹96 crores; retrospective arrears would impose additional burden of ₹19.67 crores for petitioners alone – Held: Courts should not interfere with economic and policy decisions taken after considering financial viability – Retrospective pension would lead to financially unsustainable consequences [Paras 17–18].

Delay and Double Benefit – CPF and Pension – Petitioners had enjoyed CPF benefits and income for several years – Grant of retrospective pension would amount to unjust enrichment and double benefit – Reliance placed on Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar – Held: No prejudice caused to petitioners by denial of retrospective pension [Paras 11, 21].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Clauses 3(VIII) and 4(IX) of Circular dated 29 June 2022 upheld – No order as to costs.

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession – Permissive Possession – Plaintiffs established title under registered sale deed (Ex.A1) and construction agreement (Ex.A2) – 2nd defendant admitted possession only by permission either from plaintiffs or 1st defendant – Held: Person in permissive possession cannot dispute title of true owner – Plaintiffs entitled to declaration and recovery of possession [Paras 14–18].

Title – Registered Sale Deed – Challenge by Third Party – Property purchased by plaintiffs under Ex.A1 in 2003 – Construction completed in 2005 – 1st defendant did not set up any independent title and remained ex parte – Contention that Managing Director purchased property in individual capacity not substantiated – No evidence to show valid transfer of possessory or proprietary rights in favour of 2nd defendant [Paras 15–17].

Possession – Claim as Security for Loan – 2nd defendant contended that she was inducted into possession as security for loan advanced by her father to 1st defendant – Alleged loan and permissive occupation not proved – Evidence in earlier suit (Ex.B18) shows 1st defendant denied borrowing loan or permitting occupation as security – Defence rejected [Para 17].

Limitation – Suit for Possession Based on Title – 2nd defendant admitted occupation from 2006 – Suit filed within 12 years – Within period prescribed under Limitation Act – Decree not barred by limitation [Para 18].

Mesne Profits / Interim Deposit – During pendency of appeal, appellant directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- per month – Respondents permitted to withdraw amount on proper application before trial Court [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 28.04.2022 in O.S.No.4226 of 2020 confirming declaration of title and recovery of possession upheld – Eight weeks’ time granted to appellant to vacate and hand over vacant possession – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Execution of cheque and receipt of statutory legal notice admitted by accused – Cheque dishonoured with remark “Account Closed” – Statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 attracted – Burden shifted on accused to rebut presumption by raising probable defence – Held: Mere denial or bald assertions insufficient to rebut statutory presumption [Paras 13–15].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Failure to Lead Evidence – Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence – Defence rested solely on statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleging cheque was stolen and absence of liability – No cogent material produced to probabilise defence – Held: Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 remained unrebutted [Paras 15, 23].

Privity of Contract – Cheque Issued on Behalf of Third Party – Contention that MoU was between complainant and accused’s brother and not accused – Evidence showed accused issued cheque voluntarily towards discharge of liability arising from joint transaction – Cheque admittedly handed over by accused – Held: Issuance of cheque by accused on behalf of brother towards legally enforceable liability sufficient to attract Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–17].

Limitation – Relevant Date under Section 138 NI Act – Argument that underlying MoU dated 2009 rendered claim time-barred rejected – Limitation for Section 138 complaint to be computed from date of issuance and dishonour of cheque, not from date of underlying transaction – Held: Complaint within limitation [Paras 18–19].

Proprietorship of Complainant Firm – Proof Not Mandatory – Cheque issued in favour of proprietary concern – Once cheque drawn in name of firm, complainant not required to separately prove proprietorship in absence of specific dispute affecting issuance – Held: Objection does not go to root of maintainability [Para 20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate court – Interference permissible only in cases of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court well reasoned and based on evidence – Held: No ground for interference under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act and sentence upheld – No perversity or illegality found in concurrent judgments – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Alleged Derogatory Remarks on Assamese Women – Statement in YouTube interview alleging existence of a village in Assam where girls practice black magic and convert men into animals – FIR registered under Sections 196(1), 197(1), 353(2) BNS read with Section 67 IT Act and Section 4 of Assam Witch Hunting Act – Investigation culminated in charge-sheet – Held: Taking the statement at face value, essential ingredients of the alleged offences not made out – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 18, 28-30].

Promoting Enmity – Requirement of Two Groups – Section 196 BNS – Mere controversial or objectionable remarks not sufficient – Prosecution must show promotion of enmity between two or more religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups – Statement did not refer to two distinct communities nor promote disharmony between them – Mens rea absent – No offence under Section 196 BNS made out [Paras 20-22].

Imputations Prejudicial to National Integration – Section 197 BNS – No allegation that any class of persons cannot bear allegiance to Constitution or be denied citizenship rights – No assertion affecting sovereignty, unity or integrity of India – Ingredients of Section 197 BNS not attracted [Paras 19-20].

Statements Conducing to Public Mischief – Section 353(2) BNS – Requirement of false information with intent to promote enmity or hatred between groups – Impugned statement, though controversial, did not satisfy statutory threshold – No material showing likelihood of promoting hatred between communities [Paras 20-22, 28].

Obscenity – Section 67 IT Act – Publishing obscene material in electronic form – Mere reference to alleged tantric practices and sexual conduct, in context of narration, does not ipso facto amount to obscenity – Ingredients of Section 67 not satisfied [Para 23].

Assam Witch Hunting Act – Identification or Stigmatization as Witch – Section 4 read with Section 2(g) – Offence requires identifying or defaming a person as “witch” implying power to harm society – Statement did not label any individual as witch nor attribute power to harm society at large – Essential element missing – Provision not attracted [Paras 24-27].

Inherent Powers – Scope After Filing of Charge-sheet – High Court empowered to examine FIR, charge-sheet and accompanying materials even after filing of charge-sheet – If allegations taken at face value do not constitute offence, proceedings liable to be quashed – Reliance placed on Bhajan Lal principles and subsequent precedents [Paras 15-17, 28-29].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 01/2025 and Charge-sheet No. 01/2025 dated 08.09.2025 (corresponding Sessions Case No. 180/2025) quashed – Proceedings set aside.