Administrative Law – Licensing – Revocation of Licence – Fair Price Shop Dealership – Respondent, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, was granted FPS licence despite being ineligible under the Vacancy Notification which permitted only individuals, co-operative societies, and certain other entities – Held: Licence was void ab initio and liable to be revoked – Licensing authority has inherent power to revoke a licence granted under mistake or misrepresentation, even in absence of express statutory provision – Power to revoke is distinct from post-licence cancellation under Clause 24 of the 2013 Control Order [Paras 31–45, 56–58]

Natural Justice – Show Cause Requirement – Respondent contended no proper notice or hearing was given before revocation – Held: Where licence is void from inception due to ineligibility, requirement of show cause does not override authority's inherent power to correct illegality – Revocation order sustained [Paras 15–18, 56–58]

Interpretation of Statutes – Eligibility Criteria – Registered Societies vs. Co-operative Societies – Eligibility clause in Vacancy Notification expressly included co-operative societies and excluded general registered societies – Held: Expression “individual” did not include juristic entities like registered societies – Mandatory eligibility criteria cannot be diluted by invoking absence of specific bar – Negative equality plea rejected [Paras 47–55]

Statutory Construction – No Retrospective Application – Subsequent 2025 amendment introducing revocation clause not applicable to 2013 Control Order – Cannot be used to interpret earlier vacancy notification retrospectively – Licensing authority's power stems from its original authority to issue licences, not the amended Control Order [Paras 42–45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 02/04/2025 in WPA No. 7296 of 2025 set aside – Revocation order dated 24/03/2025 by Sub-Divisional Controller (Licensing Authority) restored – Respondent's FPS licence held void ab initio – IA No. CAN 2 of 2025 disposed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Acquittal Upheld – Sole eyewitness was the mother of deceased who claimed to have witnessed the incident from close proximity – Trial Court disbelieved her version due to inconsistencies, absence of prompt statement, and lack of corroboration – High Court found no illegality or perversity in Trial Court’s reasoning – Held: Acquittal based on careful scrutiny of evidence and does not warrant interference [Paras 10–12, 31–34, 76–77].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Scope of Interference – Principles Reiterated – Court reiterated that appellate interference with acquittal is justified only in cases of manifest error, perversity, or material illegality – Mere alternative view not sufficient – In present case, Trial Court's findings were supported by evidence and reasonable view had been taken – Appeal dismissed [Paras 75–76].

Investigation – Serious Lapses – PCR Call Untraced – No PCR Officer Examined – Initial DD Entry pointed to different location (Parshu Ram Dharamshala), not linked to final site – No explanation offered as to how police reached house of eyewitness – Prosecution failed to clarify geographical link – Held: Gaps in investigation raised serious doubts over prosecution case [Paras 35–41].

Prosecution Witness – Sole Testimony of Mother – Delay in Statement – Contradictions and Implausibilities – PW-3 (Ved Mati), deceased’s mother, claimed to have witnessed shooting and taken her son to hospital – No record of her being at hospital – Police did not meet her until hours later – Statement allegedly made at 4–5 a.m. but not reflected in postmortem request – Site plan and photographs allegedly taken weeks later – Held: Her version unreliable and unsupported by record [Paras 44–48, 51–52, 56–57, 70–72].

Material Witness Withheld – Wife of Deceased Not Examined – Despite being first informant and person who admitted deceased to hospital, wife of deceased (Sushma) not cited or examined – DD entry suggested quarrel led to injury – Non-examination held to be serious lapse weakening prosecution case – Held: Withholding key witness was fatal [Paras 24, 62–64].

Crime Scene Evidence – Absence of Blood, Bullet, or Forensic Link – Crime team report not filed – No bullet, cartridge case, or blood stains recovered – Car used for transporting injured not examined for blood – No blood-stained clothing seized – Held: Forensic lapses rendered prosecution story doubtful [Paras 54–55, 61, 67–69].

Conduct of Other Witnesses – Behaviour Not Natural – PW-10 (Amrish Kumar) claimed to witness escape of assailants but left for village next day – Did not assist police or report incident – Conduct found unnatural and testimony disbelieved – Inconsistent statements on victim’s condition also noted [Paras 59, 66].

Juvenile Co-Accused – Already Acquitted – Proceedings against third accused (juvenile Bhura @ Sahid) were separated and resulted in acquittal – No appeal filed – Held: Finality of juvenile’s acquittal also relevant in assessing credibility of main prosecution witness [Para 74].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No perversity or illegality found in Trial Court’s acquittal of respondents – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court's findings held plausible and legally sustainable [Para 77].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Unlawful Assembly – Assault – Cross-FIR – Evidence of complainant and injured witnesses found to be partisan, contradictory, and inconsistent with their police statements which admitted mutual fight and injuries on opposite side – Suppression of fatal injuries on accused’s father (deceased Ganpatsinh) in cross-case held fatal – Trial court’s view held a “possible view” warranting no interference [Paras 6–12, 15].

Witness Credibility – Interested/Injured Witnesses – PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7 admitted during cross-examination that police statements recorded a mutual fight and blows inflicted by prosecution side – Court notes material improvements, suppression of crucial facts, inconsistency regarding weapon use (bhala vs. chappu), and contradictions with Investigating Officer (PW-9) – Held: Testimony unreliable and unsafe for conviction in absence of independent corroboration [Paras 7–10].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Medical certificates (Exhs. 32–37, 41, 43) show only simple abrasions and lacerated wounds – No injury consistent with alleged knife blow to chest – Absence of grievous injuries inconsistent with prosecution’s claim of severe attack with lethal weapons – Held: Medical evidence does not support ocular version [Paras 8–10].

Forensic Evidence – Weapon Recovery – FSL Report (Exh. 66) inconclusive – No tamancha recovered to support allegation under Section 506(2) IPC – Panchnama witnesses formal; no link between recovered weapons and injuries – Held: Recovery does not corroborate prosecution case [Paras 8–10].

Independent Witnesses – Non-examination – Incident occurred in village with 60–70 houses; FIR itself mentions interveners (Somabhai Fulabhai, Mangal @ Yogibhai, etc.) – None examined – Held: Failure to examine independent witnesses severely undermines prosecution case, especially in cross-case scenario [Paras 7–10].

Cross-Cases – Mutual Fight – Complainant and injured witnesses were themselves accused in cross-FIR (C.R. I-170/1993) for death of accused’s father – Suppression of mutual injuries and one-sided narration held deliberate and fatal to prosecution – Strong motive to falsely implicate accused established – Benefit of doubt justified [Paras 7–12].

Appellate Interference – Principles – Applying Chandrappa principles and Supreme Court rulings in Rajesh Prasad (2022) 3 SCC 471 and H.D. Sundara (2023) 9 SCC 581 – Court reiterates double presumption of innocence and limits on interference in acquittal appeals – Trial court’s view is a plausible, legally sustainable view – No ground to reverse acquittal [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of all accused upheld – Records and proceedings to be remitted [Paras 15].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Allegations of cruelty by wife not established – Appellant-husband alleged wife refused to cook, misbehaved, and pressured him to live separately from parents – Trial Court found no credible evidence of cruelty – Held: No perversity in Family Court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1–9, 22, 54–56]

Family Law – Cruelty – Legal Standard – Reiterated: Cruelty includes physical and mental suffering causing reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful to live with the spouse – Mere marital discord or incompatibility does not amount to cruelty – Allegations must be grave and substantiated. [Paras 26–34]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Desertion implies intentional abandonment without reasonable cause and without consent – Requires factum of separation and animus deserendi – Respondent-wife was ousted from matrimonial home – No voluntary desertion – No ground made out. [Paras 35–46, 50–52]

Family Law – Appreciation of Evidence – No perversity – Evidence of both parties considered by Family Court – Allegations of cruelty and desertion found unproved – Court also considered wife’s willingness to resume matrimonial life – Held: No interference warranted in appeal – Appellate Court not to re-appreciate evidence without perversity or legal error. [Paras 18–23, 47–53]

Family Law – Pending Proceedings – Fact that respondent-wife had filed criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC – Does not per se constitute cruelty – Needs to be established that such proceedings were false and malicious. [Paras 16, 49]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Impugned judgment of Family Court upheld. No element of perversity found. Pending applications also disposed of. [Paras 55–57]

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Self-Immolation by Wife – Evidence of Neighbours – Deceased committed suicide by self-immolation following intense quarrel with husband – Neighbours (PWs 2, 3, 6 & 7) consistently deposed that appellant abused and humiliated deceased by calling her caste name shortly before the incident – Such conduct held to be immediate and proximate cause for suicide – Medical evidence confirmed death due to burn injuries – Conviction under Section 306 IPC upheld, but sentence reduced from ten years to five years considering subsequent conduct of appellant [Paras 16–20].

Cruelty to Wife – Section 498-A IPC – Matrimonial Harassment – Evidence of Continuous Cruelty – Prosecution proved that appellant subjected deceased to cruelty and harassment, both mental and physical – Evidence of neighbours corroborated allegations of abuse on the fateful day – Deceased also informed her parents about cruelty during treatment period – Held: Ingredients of Section 498-A IPC clearly made out – Conviction and sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment affirmed [Paras 21].

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Applicability of Amendment – Retrospective Operation – Section 3(2)(va) inserted by Amendment Ordinance, 2014 – Offence committed in 2013 prior to coming into force of amendment on 04.03.2014 – Held: Conviction under Section 3(2)(va) unsustainable – However, facts disclose offence under pre-existing Section 3(1)(x) of the Act – Conviction altered accordingly and sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed [Paras 22].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Absence of Formal Dying Declaration – Though no formal dying declaration recorded, consistent and independent testimony of neighbours coupled with medical evidence sufficient to establish prosecution case – Failure to record dying declaration not fatal in facts of the case [Paras 15–18].

Sentence – Modification – Concurrent Sentences – Considering appellant’s act of taking deceased to hospital, absence of prior complaints, and present conduct, sentence under Section 306 IPC modified – All sentences directed to run concurrently [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Criminal Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 306 IPC and 498-A IPC affirmed – Sentence under Section 306 IPC reduced to five years – Conviction under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Amendment Ordinance, 2014 set aside and substituted with conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989 – Sentences to run concurrently – Appellant directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Appeal disposed of.

Criminal Law - FEMA – Summons – Section 37 FEMA – Applicability of Section 160 CrPC – Petitioner, a woman, challenged personal summons under Section 37 FEMA, citing protection under Section 160(1) CrPC exempting women from appearing outside their residence – Held: Section 160 CrPC not applicable to proceedings under Section 37 FEMA, which are civil-regulatory in nature and governed by procedural powers under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act – Personal appearance before ED office is validly required [Paras 27–30, 36–43].

FEMA – Nature of Proceedings – Civil vs Criminal – Court clarified that FEMA proceedings are civil and administrative, unlike PMLA which involves criminal prosecution – Section 37 FEMA does not invoke CrPC safeguards for criminal inquiries but provides powers analogous to civil procedure under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act – Held: No violation of Article 21 or procedural rights by issuance of summons under FEMA [Paras 31–41].

Code of Civil Procedure – Applicability under FEMA – Section 131 of the IT Act incorporated by Section 37 FEMA vests ED officials with powers akin to civil courts for enforcing attendance and document production – Held: Proceedings are governed by CPC, not CrPC – No right to demand recording of statement at residence under CPC analogous to Section 160 CrPC [Paras 33–38].

PMLA vs FEMA – Distinction in Legal Framework – Court distinguished FEMA from PMLA – PMLA involves criminal prosecution and special powers under Section 50 overriding CrPC protections, whereas FEMA is civil-regulatory – Held: Reliance on PMLA jurisprudence misplaced in FEMA context [Paras 41–42].

Right to Fair Investigation – Articles 20 & 21 – Petitioner argued denial of documents and summons infringed constitutional rights – Held: Mere issuance of summons does not violate rights under Articles 20 or 21 – ED not required to provide entire material at preliminary stage under FEMA – Petitioner free to cooperate and present documents in person [Paras 19–21, 43].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Summons issued under Section 37 FEMA are valid – Section 160 CrPC not applicable to civil-regulatory proceedings under FEMA – Petitioner required to appear personally as directed – No violation of constitutional or procedural safeguards found [Paras 44–45].

Criminal Law – Murder – Reliability of Evidence – Conviction Based Solely on Injured Eye-Witnesses – Trial Court convicted appellants relying exclusively on P.W.4 and P.W.5, while disbelieving presence of P.W.6 – High Court held that contradictions, omissions, prior enmity, and delayed complaint raised possibility of false implication, making sole reliance on two injured witnesses unsafe for conviction – Serious doubt arising from prosecution’s own discredited eyewitness P.W.6 [Paras 56–57].

Eyewitness Testimony – Contradictions & Omissions – Eye-witness accounts of P.W.4 & P.W.5 inconsistent with each other and with medical/postmortem evidence; their version about presence of P.W.6 contradicted prosecution case itself – Trial Court’s partial reliance held erroneous – Evidence not of sterling quality to sustain conviction for murder [Paras 46–55].

Medical & Forensic Evidence – Weapons Not Proved – Prosecution failed to prove recovery of weapons (choppers, knife, pistol) – Ballistic report negative – No forensic link connecting accused to firearm injury suffered by deceased; absence of scientific corroboration weakened prosecution case [Paras 30–33].

Delay & Possibility of False Implication – FIR recorded after considerable time gap though police reached hospital immediately; presence of longstanding personal enmity acknowledged – High Court observed that delay coupled with animosity creates strong suspicion of embellishment and naming of rivals after deliberation [Paras 52–55].

Benefit of Doubt – Cross-Case Background – Existence of cross-FIR regarding father of accused having died in related incident suggested possibility of retaliatory accusations – Cumulative deficiencies warranted giving benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 51–55].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under judgment dated 10.11.2020 set aside – Appellants acquitted – All appellants in custody directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Each appellant to execute P.R. bond of ₹25,000 under Section 481 BNSS (corresponding to Section 437A CrPC) before release [Paras 58–59].

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Interference – Award upholding investor’s claim for indemnity from CDSL under Section 16 of Depositories Act – Tribunal held DP (BRH) acted negligently and fraudulently while transferring and pledging investor’s shares – Court held findings plausible, reasoned, and not perverse – Petition under Section 34 dismissed [Paras 1, 75–78].

Depository Liability – Negligence by DP – BRH, acting as DP of CDSL, fraudulently transferred investor’s shares using Power of Attorney and pledged them to HDFC Bank – Held: Since BRH acted at least partly as DP, CDSL liable to indemnify under Section 16 – CDSL cannot escape liability by attributing acts solely to role of broker [Paras 20–24, 36–47].

Power of Attorney Misuse – Composite Fraud – No underlying trades justified share transfers – Transfers effected solely to engineer fraudulent pledge – Tribunal found Petitioner liable for permitting DP to transfer and pledge shares of 9493 clients – Held: Entire transaction was composite fraud facilitated by CDSL’s DP, attracting vicarious liability [Paras 40–44, 48–50].

Investor Protection – SEBI Regulatory Framework – SEBI Circulars (pre- and post-incident) required adequate monitoring, early warning mechanisms, and supervisory oversight – CDSL failed to prevent DP’s misuse of POA – Court held that investor compensation is independent of specific regulatory violations; Section 16 creates strict liability on depository for DP’s negligent acts [Paras 53–62].

SEBI Circular of 25.07.2023 – No Bar to Depository’s Liability – Circular cannot override statutory liability under Section 16 – Tribunal correctly held that responsibility for DP’s misconduct lies with CDSL and not with NSE – Attempt to shift burden to NSE rejected [Paras 63–70].

Equity Jurisdiction – Tribunal Not Acting as Amiable Compositeur – Though Tribunal used terms like ‘ends of justice’, award was based on findings of statutory negligence – Tribunal did not invoke equity jurisdiction under Section 28(2) of Arbitration Act – No illegality found [Paras 73–74].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award upheld – CDSL held liable to indemnify Respondent No.1 for value of lost shares (Rs. 86,02,768/-) – No costs awarded – Interim Application also disposed of [Paras 75–79].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based Solely on Injured Eye-Witnesses – Reversal – Appellants convicted under Section 302 IPC based on testimonies of injured witnesses (P.W.4 and P.W.5) – Trial court disbelieved recovery of weapons and ballistic evidence – No independent or forensic corroboration – Court held conduct of eye-witnesses unnatural as they failed to name assailants to police or hospital staff despite being fit to speak – Held: Sole reliance on testimonies of interested and tainted witnesses in absence of corroboration is unsafe – Conviction reversed [Paras 31–57].

Witness Testimony – Interested Witness – Credibility – P.W.4 and P.W.5 were found to have prior enmity with accused and were involved in counter cases – Their silence till FIR registration and contradictions with medical and other evidence raised doubts – Court applied test of “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable” – Held: In absence of corroboration, such testimony cannot form sole basis of conviction [Paras 32–54].

Evidence – Recovery and Forensics – Failure of Prosecution – Trial court disbelieved recovery of weapons allegedly used in crime – Ballistic report was negative – No independent witness examined – CCTV footage not seized – Panch witnesses were friends of deceased – Held: Multiple procedural lapses and evidentiary gaps undermine prosecution case [Paras 33–50].

Delay in FIR – Impact – FIR lodged 6.5 hours after incident despite eye-witnesses being medically fit to speak – Court held delay used for possible false implication – Supported by inconsistent medical and police testimonies – Held: Delay not satisfactorily explained, creates doubt about genuineness of prosecution version [Paras 41–45].

False Implication – Previous Enmity – Double-Edged Sword – Evidence showed prior criminal cases between witnesses and accused – Assault alleged to have occurred at spot of earlier crime involving deceased – Court held prior enmity increased possibility of false implication in absence of corroboration [Paras 32, 45, 54].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 307 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directed to be released if not required in any other case.