Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation Enhancement – Age Determination – The claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the death of the deceased, aged 36, in a motor accident, challenging the Tribunal's findings regarding age, deductions for personal expenses, and the exclusion of future prospects – Held: The Tribunal wrongly drew an adverse inference regarding the deceased’s age as 40, ignoring the postmortem report which recorded the age as 36 – The correct multiplier for 36 years is 15, and personal expenses should have been deducted at 1/4th instead of 1/3rd – Future prospects at 50% of the income were awarded as per Pranay Sethi [Paras 25-32, 36-40]​.

Income Calculation and Future Prospects – The gross salary of the deceased was ₹23,403, and the deduction for professional tax was only ₹200 – Based on this, the total annual income was ₹2,78,436 – Future prospects were computed at 50% of the income, following National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi [Paras 28-31]​.

Interest Rate Enhancement – The interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% per annum was increased to 9% per annum in line with recent Supreme Court judgments – Held: Compensation awarded was enhanced to ₹49,76,907 with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition until the date of deposit [Paras 54-56]​.

Decision – Appeal by the claimants allowed, compensation enhanced – Appeal by the employer dismissed – Compensation awarded at ₹49,76,907 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition​.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Illegal Extraction of Minerals – The petitioner was charged under Sections 379, 411, and 414 of the IPC and under the Mines and Minerals Act for alleged illegal extraction of brick earth – Held: The FIR and the subsequent proceedings were quashed as the petitioner had paid all dues for royalty, land revenue, and cess as demanded by the authorities – The issuance of a ‘No Due Certificate’ demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements, rendering the charges baseless [Paras 7-12]​.

Abuse of Process of Law – Absence of Essential Ingredients for Theft – The Court found no prima facie case for theft or illegal extraction of minerals as there was no seizure of brick earth or minerals from the petitioner’s premises – The seizure of empty trucks and earth removers did not constitute evidence of theft or illegal mining – The continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 13-18]​.

Inherent Powers of Court – Quashing of Proceedings – The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, citing the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal to quash the proceedings – The criminal case was instituted with a mala fide intent, and the ingredients of the offences were not made out [Paras 20-22]​.

Decision – Petition allowed – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed – Case disposed of​.

Landlord-Tenant Law – Bonafide Requirement – Availability of Alternative Premises – The appellant challenged the eviction decree passed on the ground of bonafide requirement, asserting that the landlord’s daughter-in-law could conduct her business from another available room (Room No. 3) with commercial electricity, negating the need for eviction – Held: The plaintiff failed to prove bonafide requirement as the alternative premises were available and had been used for business earlier – The admission that refusal of eviction would not cause hardship further weakened the plaintiff’s case – The decree was set aside [Paras 12-25]​.

Comparative Hardship – Tenant’s Business and Hardship – The tenant proved that after the original tenant's death, the son continued to operate his laundry business from the suit premises – The Court found that the plaintiff’s claim of comparative hardship was baseless, particularly when the daughter-in-law had no significant difficulty in continuing her consultancy business from the existing premises [Paras 26-27]​.

Decision – Civil Revision Application allowed – Eviction decree set aside – No order as to costs​.

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted of murdering his elder brother based on circumstantial evidence – The prosecution failed to establish a continuous chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused – There were discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding the timeline and actions of the accused, which raised reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case – The appellant was acquitted due to failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 27-58]​.

Dying Declaration and Witness Testimonies – Reliability – Witness testimonies were inconsistent about the events leading up to the victim's death – Despite allegations that the victim had made a dying declaration implicating the appellant, there was no corroboration by neutral witnesses – The inconsistencies in key testimonies regarding the victim's condition and the actions of the accused weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 31-42]​.

Discovery of Weapons – Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – The recovery of a blood-stained iron pipe allegedly used in the crime was not forensically linked to the accused – The failure to establish a clear connection between the recovered weapon and the crime led the Court to dismiss the discovery as insufficient evidence for conviction under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act [Paras 47-55]​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in any other case [Para 58]​.

Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – The appellants were convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that the act of hitting the deceased on the head with a wooden reeper, even though fatal, did not indicate an intention to cause death – Held: The injuries inflicted, though serious, were likely to cause death but were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, the conviction was altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 11-12]​.

Evidence – Sole Testimony of Eyewitness – PW5’s Credibility – The Court accepted the sole testimony of PW5, the only eyewitness to the incident, as credible and reliable. His account of the appellants attacking the victim was corroborated by medical evidence, including the postmortem report. The absence of the murder weapon from trial was not considered fatal to the prosecution’s case [Paras 8-10]​.

Sentence Reduction – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – The Court reduced the appellants' sentence from life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellants were also ordered to pay a fine of ₹10,000 each, with a default sentence of three months' simple imprisonment [Para 13]​.

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment​.

Money Laundering – Discharge Application – Prima Facie Case Established – The petitioner, a trustee of the All India Overseas Bank Employees Union Trust, sought discharge from a money laundering case under the PMLA, contending no involvement in the administration of the trust's funds. The Court held that the allegations, including siphoning of funds from union members and projecting proceeds of crime as untainted, prima facie implicated the petitioner. The discharge application was rightfully rejected [Paras 7-12, 44].

Trustees' Liability – Section 3 of PMLA – Possession of Proceeds of Crime – The petitioner argued that he had resigned from the trust and was not involved in any illegal activities. The Court rejected this contention, stating that mere resignation did not absolve the petitioner from the liability, and his role as a trustee during the period of alleged offenses was sufficient to invoke Section 3 of the PMLA. The trust, being an association under Section 2(s) of PMLA, was involved in laundering proceeds of crime, implicating the petitioner [Paras 14-16, 48].

Burden of Proof – Section 24 of PMLA – Presumption of Money Laundering – The Court emphasized that under Section 24 of the PMLA, the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove innocence once the presumption of money laundering is raised by the authorities. In this case, the prosecution's evidence, including statements and financial records, established a prima facie case, and the petitioner failed to disprove the allegations [Paras 18-20, 51-54].

Decision:

Criminal revision case dismissed – Order of the Principal Sessions Court rejecting the discharge petition is upheld – No costs.

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR Registration – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after being accused of theft under Section 380 IPC. The Court observed that there was an inordinate delay in registering the FIR, which was explained by the de-facto complainant on the grounds that the petitioner’s mother had promised to return the stolen ATM card and money – Held: The delay did not affect the credibility of the FIR as the explanation was prima facie satisfactory [Paras 6-7]​.

Pre-Arrest Bail – Exceptional Circumstances Required – Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only in exceptional cases where the applicant demonstrates clear misuse of the process of law – The petitioner’s custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for recovering the stolen items, and thus, anticipatory bail was denied [Paras 10-12]​.

Decision – Bail application dismissed – Custodial interrogation and recovery needed for proper investigation​.

Refund of Stamp Duty – Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Refusal of Refund Upheld - The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 65,37,500 paid as stamp duty and transfer duty for a sale deed that was refused registration. The High Court held that once the stamp duty has been utilized for a presented document, it cannot be refunded merely because the registration was refused for non-compliance with the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner, having voluntarily withdrawn the registration proposal, could not seek a refund under Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which allows refunds only in limited situations, none of which applied in this case [Paras 12-13, 18-19].

Utilization of Stamp Duty – No Refund Upon Document Execution - The Court emphasized that once a document is executed and stamp duty is paid, the intended purpose of the stamp duty is considered served, even if registration is subsequently refused. As such, the petitioner’s claim for a refund was denied, and the Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the refund [Paras 17-18].

Distinction Between Stamp Duty and Registration Fee - The Court noted the distinction between stamp duty and registration fees under the Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908, holding that while registration fees may be refunded if registration is refused, stamp duty paid for an executed document cannot be refunded once the duty has been utilized [Paras 13-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the District Registrar's order refusing the refund of stamp duty. The petitioner’s arguments based on judgments from other cases were found inapplicable to the present facts [Paras 19-20].

Constitutional Law – Writ Petition Against Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) – Availability of Statutory Remedies – The petitioner filed a writ petition against the PAO issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the expiration of the 30-day statutory period for raising objections before the Adjudicating Authority – Held: The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies available under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, which provide adequate safeguards and opportunities to challenge the attachment – Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to approach the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 1.1, 3.1, 3.6].

Provisional Attachment Under PMLA – Judicial Review – The petitioner’s challenge to the PAO, asserting a lack of connection with the proceeds of crime, was found unsustainable – The PAO is subject to review and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority within 180 days as per Section 5(5) of the PMLA – The court found that statutory remedies must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 929 to emphasize procedural safeguards provided under the Act [Paras 3.1, 3.6].

Exceptions to Exhaustion of Remedies – When Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked – The petitioner failed to establish that the PAO was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or amounted to an abuse of process, which are the grounds for bypassing statutory remedies – Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 regarding the limited exceptions to the rule of exhausting remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 3.2, 3.6].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to avail statutory remedy by approaching the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA – No observation on the merits of the case made – The Adjudicating Authority is directed to expedite the matter [Paras 4.1-4.2].