Criminal Law - Confiscation of Vehicle – Lack of Hearing Opportunity – The petitioner, the owner of the confiscated vehicle, challenged the SDM's confiscation order, asserting that he was not granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as required by Section 17(2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 – Held: The SDM failed to comply with the statutory requirement of providing the vehicle owner an opportunity to present his case. The confiscation order was set aside on this ground [Paras 8, 10, 11].

Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts – Powers Under Section 482 CrPC – The petitioner directly approached the Sessions Court and the High Court instead of filing an appeal under Section 17(5) of the Act – Held: The Sessions Court and the High Court, exercising criminal jurisdiction under Sections 397, 401, and 482 CrPC, have the authority to review such orders if the competent authority failed to follow statutory procedures. The remedy under Section 17(5) does not bar the exercise of inherent powers of the criminal courts in such cases [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – The Court emphasized the duty of quasi-judicial authorities to follow statutory requirements, especially when confiscating property, and the failure to do so constitutes a violation of natural justice. The confiscation order was quashed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner [Paras 18, 19].

Decision: The petition is allowed, and the confiscation order dated 10.04.2024 is set aside. The petitioner’s vehicle is to be released upon furnishing an undertaking that it will be produced in court if required, and the petitioner is restrained from transferring the vehicle without prior permission from the competent authority [Paras 19, 20].

Taxation Law – Reassessment under Income Tax Act – Issuance of Notice to Deceased Person – Petitioner, the legal heir of late Sh. Vijay Shankar Goel, challenged the reassessment notice under Section 148A(b) and subsequent order under Section 148A(d) – Notices were issued in the name of the deceased assessee despite the department being informed about his death – Held: Notices issued in the name of a deceased person are invalid, as per established precedents, unless the legal heirs are brought on record – Reassessment proceedings initiated post-death, without revising the notice in the name of legal heirs, suffer from a fundamental jurisdictional error – Notice under Section 148 and the proceedings thereunder quashed [Paras 10-17].

Legal Principle – Notice to Dead Person – The court reiterated that issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to a deceased person is not merely a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional error – Cited precedents from Savita Kapila v. ACIT and Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT to emphasize that valid notice must be issued to the correct person, and a notice to a deceased person renders the entire proceedings invalid – Participation by legal heirs in such proceedings does not amount to waiver of this requirement [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Notices under Section 148A(b) and 148, and the subsequent order under Section 148A(d), all issued in the name of the deceased, set aside – Reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 quashed [Paras 17-18].

Service Law – Termination of Probationer – Stigma – Appellant University terminated the services of the respondent (Assistant Professor) during the extended probation period under Clause 5(a) of the University Ordinance – The respondent failed to fully disclose the nature of the criminal case pending against him at the time of appointment – Trial court found the termination punitive and stigmatic, setting aside the order – On appeal, it was held that the termination was a simplicitor act, not stigmatic – The court noted the University acted within its rights under the relevant ordinance without the need for a formal inquiry or notice – Held: The order of termination was legal and justified, and the appeal was allowed [Paras 1, 5, 6,]

Probationer Rights – Suppression of Material Facts – The respondent disclosed a pending criminal case but misrepresented its details as a "students' political issue," concealing the fact that the case involved allegations of outraging modesty – The respondent admitted this misrepresentation in court but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation – The court held that the suppression of material information justified the termination, even without an inquiry, as the University acted under Clause 5(a), which permits termination by simple notice during probation [Paras 5, 6, Conclusion].

Stigmatic Termination – Simplicitor Order – The respondent contended that the termination order was stigmatic due to adverse remarks made during the Executive Council meeting – The court rejected this argument, holding that general observations about a teacher's role as a model made by a member of the Executive Council did not constitute stigma – The termination was based on overall unsuitability, and no formal inquiry or finding of misconduct was required – The court cited precedents supporting the University's right to terminate a probationer without conducting an inquiry when complaints are the motive, not the foundation, for termination [Paras 5, 6, ].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the trial court set aside – Termination of respondent’s services upheld as lawful under the University Ordinance – The termination was found to be non-punitive, and the University was not required to conduct an inquiry or provide notice beyond the one-month salary compensation.

Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Appellant, a constable, was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry into charges of misconduct, including absence from duty and involvement in an obscene act – Criminal court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 294 IPC – Despite the acquittal, the disciplinary authority dismissed the appellant based on findings in the departmental proceedings – Trial court upheld the dismissal – On appeal, it was held that the charges in the departmental enquiry and criminal case were identical, and the acquittal was honorable – The court found the dismissal disproportionate to the charges – Held: Dismissal was unjustified, appellant entitled to reinstatement with 25% back wages [Paras 1, 5, 14, 38].

Honourable Acquittal – Effect on Departmental Proceedings – Appellant argued that the acquittal in the criminal case should have precluded dismissal in the departmental proceedings as the charges and evidence were the same – The court held that the acquittal was based on full consideration of the prosecution's evidence, and the prosecution had failed to prove the charges – Relying on precedents, the court concluded that honorable acquittal in criminal proceedings should impact departmental actions when both are based on identical facts [Paras 7, 14, 15, 39].

Punishment – Proportionality – Appellant was dismissed based on two charges: absence from duty for two days and alleged obscene conduct – The court noted that the absence was due to illness and the obscene conduct charge was based solely on the inconsistent testimony of one witness – The court emphasized that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the proven misconduct – Held: The dismissal was shockingly disproportionate, and the appellant is entitled to reinstatement [Paras 9, 11, 37].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Single Judge set aside – Termination of appellant’s services quashed – Appellant reinstated with 25% back wages and all other consequential benefits.

Civil Law – Review Petition – Principle of Res Judicata – Satyadhyan Ghosal Case Applied – The petitioners sought review of a judgment dismissing their second appeal, arguing that under Mohammadan law, adoption and execution of wills are not recognized – Held: The petitioners were estopped from raising these issues, as the findings regarding adoption and will had attained finality in the first round of litigation – The principle of res judicata applies, barring re-litigation of issues already settled [Paras 12-18].

Application of Shariat Act – Non-retroactive Effect – The petitioners further contended that the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 2007, which mandates inheritance as per Mohammadan law, should apply to the present case – Held: The Shariat Act is not applicable retroactively, as the dispute pertains to events before its enactment [Paras 19-22].

Decision: The review petition was dismissed – The court found no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review – The petitioners were precluded from re-agitating issues that had been settled in earlier proceedings.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought regular bail for being falsely implicated in the offense of possessing stolen mobile phones – Prosecution alleged that the petitioner was caught near an electricity pole with stolen mobile phones based on a secret informer’s tip – Held: The petitioner has been in custody for over 4 months, and no further recovery is pending – As per the principle of criminal jurisprudence, an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty – Bail granted in light of prolonged detention and unlikelihood of early trial conclusion [Paras 3, 4, 5].

Presumption of Innocence – Article 21 of the Constitution – Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right under Article 21 – Petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a significant period, and delaying bail would violate this constitutional right – Held: Bail should be the rule, and imprisonment the exception, unless there are compelling reasons to deny liberty [Paras 4, 5].

Previous Criminal Record – Relevance to Bail – The State opposed the bail on the ground that the petitioner was involved in nine other criminal cases – Held: Pendency of other cases cannot automatically preclude bail in the present case, as each case must be judged on its merits – The petitioner's criminal history will be considered during the trial, but it cannot be the sole ground to deny bail at this stage [Para 4].

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner to be released on regular bail upon furnishing requisite surety and bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – The trial court to ensure compliance with bail conditions – Nothing in this judgment should be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case [Para 5].

Bail under NDPS Act – No Direct Recovery – The petitioner sought regular bail on the ground that no recovery was made from him and that he was implicated solely based on a disclosure statement by a co-accused – Held: Given the lack of direct recovery and the fact that co-accused in similar circumstances were granted bail, the petitioner was entitled to bail, subject to conditions.

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – The trial has been pending since 2021, with only 6 out of 14 prosecution witnesses examined, and the petitioner has been in custody for over 3 years – Held: Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Court reiterated the principle that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.

Habitual Offender Allegation – The respondent opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s criminal record, including a prior conviction under the NDPS Act – Held: While criminal antecedents are relevant, they do not automatically disqualify the petitioner from bail, especially when no direct recovery is made, and the trial is delayed.

Decision: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner is granted regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner is directed to comply with all conditions imposed by the court.

Bail Application – Prolonged Custody – Delay in Trial – Bail Granted – The Applicant sought release on bail in a murder conspiracy case, citing his custody since January 2020 and the slow progress of the trial, with over 70 witnesses yet to be examined. The trial was proceeding slowly due to limited availability of the Sessions Judge and the complexity of the case – Held: Bail granted due to prolonged custody and violation of the Applicant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 17-20, 39].

Conspiracy and Financial Transactions – Circumstantial Evidence – The prosecution alleged that the Applicant played a role in the conspiracy, maintaining financial records and disbursing money to the families of the co-accused. However, the evidence presented was circumstantial, involving entries in diaries and the Applicant’s employment by the principal conspirator – Held: The circumstantial evidence does not conclusively implicate the Applicant in the conspiracy. The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to guilt, which remains to be proven during trial. Bail granted [Paras 23-28, 39].

Confessional Statement of Co-Accused – Inadmissibility under Section 30, Indian Evidence Act – The prosecution relied on a confessional statement by a co-accused, Rashid Murtaza, implicating the Applicant. As the co-accused had passed away, the statement could not be used under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits the use of a co-accused’s confession unless there is a joint trial – Held: Confessional statement inadmissible under Section 30. It cannot be considered against the Applicant, as there is no joint trial. Bail granted [Paras 29-37].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – The court underscored the Applicant’s right to a speedy trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Despite the seriousness of the crime, the prolonged pre-trial detention of the Applicant warranted his release on bail. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling that delays in trial cannot justify continued detention if it infringes the fundamental right to a speedy trial – Held: Bail granted, trial delay violates Article 21 [Paras 18-21].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act – Appellants allegedly shot the deceased during a herb-collection trip – Trial court sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment based on confessional statements and recoveries – On appeal, High Court found inconsistencies in witness testimony and procedural flaws in the investigation – Confessional statements were not corroborated, and forensic evidence was inconclusive – Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted [Paras 1-63].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of PW11 (eye-witness) – PW11, cousin of the deceased, reported the attack but failed to name the assailants initially – PW11’s conduct raised doubts as he informed a non-relative (Jhalu) instead of the deceased’s family or the police – Inconsistencies in his testimony, such as no injuries despite being beaten, further undermined credibility – Absence of corroborative testimony from key witness (Jhalu) and delay in reporting the incident to police weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 26-34].

Identification Parade – Test Identification Parade (TIP) – No TIP was conducted despite PW11’s initial claim of not knowing the assailants – High Court held that identification during the trial was unreliable, especially as there was no record to show the accused were kept muffled – Conviction based on such vague identification without a TIP is unsustainable [Paras 35-40].

Disclosure Statements – Alleged Recovery of Body – High Court questioned the credibility of disclosure statements leading to the recovery of the deceased’s body – Contradictory testimonies from witnesses (PW13, PW15) regarding the location and timing of the disclosures – Recovery of the body was not conclusively tied to the appellants, leading to doubt over the veracity of the prosecution’s case [Paras 41-53].

Forensic Evidence – Ballistics Report – The prosecution’s ballistic evidence was found inconclusive – Initial ballistic report did not definitively match the cartridges to the weapon recovered – Subsequent reports were also ambiguous, and the ballistic expert was not examined – High Court held that the trial court erred in relying on weak forensic evidence [Paras 73-75].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 307, and related IPC sections, along with Arms Act, set aside – Appellants acquitted – Appellants to be released immediately if not required in any other case [Paras 76-78].