Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Insufficient Proof of Conspiracy – The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 120B IPC for criminal conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India – The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient independent evidence proving a conspiracy beyond the accused's alleged association during imprisonment – The court ruled that the evidence based on the telephonic conversations and the accused’s jail meetings was not adequate to confirm the conspiracy [Paras 17-27].

Illegal Possession of Firearms – Section 25 & 26 Arms Act – Conviction Partly Upheld – The recovery of a 0.32 caliber revolver and ammunition from Accused No. 1 (Syed Abdul Rehaman) was confirmed, supporting the conviction under Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act – The High Court reduced the sentence under Section 25 from 7 years to 3 years, considering that the act fell under Section 25(1B) rather than the harsher penalties initially imposed [Paras 31-35].

Explosive Substances – Sections 4 & 5 Explosive Substances Act – Conviction Sustained – The High Court affirmed the conviction of Accused No. 1 for possession of explosive materials, including ammonium nitrate and gel explosives, recovered from a hidden location – The court concluded that the accused had control over the materials and intended to use them for unlawful purposes, justifying the conviction under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act [Paras 32-33].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Accused Nos. 2 and 3 Acquitted – The High Court found no credible evidence connecting Accused Nos. 2 and 3 to the conspiracy or possession of illegal arms or explosives – Their alleged involvement was based on inadmissible confessions and circumstantial evidence, which the court deemed insufficient for conviction – Both accused were acquitted of all charges [Paras 34-35].

Decision:

The appeal by Accused No. 1 (Syed Abdul Rehaman) was allowed in part – His conviction under Sections 120B and 122 of IPC, Sections 13, 17, 18, and 18B of UAPA, and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act was set aside – His conviction under Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was upheld with a reduced sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act – Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted of all charges and were ordered to be released – Accused No. 2, a Pakistani national, was ordered to be deported to Pakistan after his release [Paras 34-37].

Rape – Conviction and Sentence – Section 376 IPC – Appellant convicted and sentenced to 7 years R.I. – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced – The prosecutrix’s testimony was consistent and supported by other witnesses – Minor discrepancies in the statements did not discredit the prosecution’s case – The absence of injuries on the prosecutrix did not negate the occurrence of rape – Considering the age of the appellant, passage of time (27 years since the incident), and lack of criminal antecedents, the sentence was reduced from 7 years to 4 years R.I. [Paras 10-28].

Evidence of Prosecutrix – No Corroboration Required – Held: The testimony of the prosecutrix in rape cases is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even in the absence of corroboration, if it inspires confidence – The prosecutrix had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant – The minor contradictions in her statement did not affect the reliability of her testimony [Paras 19-23].

Enmity – Double-Edged Sword – The appellant’s plea of false implication due to enmity was rejected – The Court observed that enmity provides both motive for the crime and the possibility of false implication, but the evidence supported the prosecution’s case [Paras 14-15].

Sentencing – Reduction of Sentence – Adequate and Special Reasons – The Court exercised its discretion under the proviso to Section 376(1) of IPC to reduce the sentence, considering the long passage of time, age of the appellant, and lack of prior criminal record – Sentence reduced from 7 years to 4 years R.I. with an enhanced fine of Rs.50,000/- [Paras 26-28].

Decision: The conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC was upheld. However, the sentence was reduced from 7 years to 4 years R.I., with an enhanced fine of Rs.50,000/-. In case of default in payment of the fine, the appellant would undergo an additional 3 months of Simple Imprisonment.

Section 138 N.I. Act - Forensic Examination – Application for Further Examination Denied - The petitioner, accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, sought to send the disputed cheques for a second forensic examination by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory after receiving an unfavorable report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court upheld the Magistrate's decision, rejecting the request as an attempt to delay the trial. It was held that repeated requests for expert examination without justification could not be entertained [Paras 9-12].

Summoning Private Expert – Application Dismissed – Evidence Not Substantive - The petitioner also sought to summon a private handwriting expert to testify regarding the signature on the cheques. The Court ruled that the opinion of a private expert, especially when obtained without court intervention, is not substantive evidence and thus the Magistrate was justified in declining to issue summons to the private expert [Paras 13-14].

Request for Document Production – Dismissed Due to Irrelevance - The petitioner requested the production of certain documents related to chit transactions. The Court held that the documents were irrelevant to the defense of discharge since the petitioner had already admitted to receiving the chit amount. The Magistrate's decision to deny the production request was upheld [Paras 15-16].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Delay Tactics Not Permitted - The High Court dismissed the petitions, noting that the petitioner’s actions were aimed at delaying the trial. The trial court was directed to expedite the disposal of the case without further delays [Paras 17-19].
 

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Rejection – Accused, Gurendra @ Golu, sought discharge on the grounds of alibi, claiming presence at the High Court Photo Identification Centre, Allahabad, on the day of the incident – Trial court rejected the discharge application, which was challenged through revision – Held: Trial court’s decision was justified as the accused failed to provide the photograph to the investigating officer during the investigation, and the allegations of manipulation in the photo verification process require independent inquiry [Paras 3, 12].

Criminal Law – Plea of Alibi – Accused contended he was at the High Court Photo Identification Centre, Allahabad, 700 kilometers away from the crime scene at the time of the incident – Complainant alleged that the photo was manipulated, citing involvement of persons at the Identification Centre who could alter dates for a fee – Held: Given the seriousness of the allegations, the Court directed an independent inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to determine the authenticity of the documents and the validity of the alibi claim [Paras 4, 12, 13].

Judicial Inquiry – Manipulation of Evidence – Allegations of backdated photo verification at the High Court Photo Identification Centre – Complainant claimed involvement of a gang that manipulated verification dates for money – Held: CBI directed to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of manipulation and report back to the Court before the next hearing [Paras 5, 12, 13].

Decision: Inquiry ordered – CBI to conduct an investigation into the accused’s plea of alibi and the complainant’s allegations of manipulated photo verification – The case is listed for further hearing on 04/11/2024 – Interim order dated 15/04/2024 is not extended [Paras 13-19].

Service Law - Employment Eligibility – Criminal Charges and Moral Turpitude – Circular dated 04.12.2019 – The petitioner, who was selected for a post in the Rajasthan State Services based on his merit, was denied appointment due to pending criminal charges related to matrimonial disputes – Held: The respondents erred in mechanically applying the circular without considering whether the criminal case involves moral turpitude or would affect the petitioner’s character in performing his duties – The Court emphasized that each case must be individually examined to assess the nature of the charges, and a decision should be made only after a reasoned order is passed, in line with the guidelines – The petitioner’s case was remanded to the respondent authorities for reconsideration within four weeks, with directions to issue the appointment if no moral turpitude is found in the charges – The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to reconsider the case and issue a speaking order [Paras 8-15].

Civil Law – Probate of Will – Two competing Wills – Probate granted in favor of respondent based on 1993 Will – Trial court dismissed claim on 1995 Will – Appellants challenged the genuineness of the 1993 Will, alleging suspicious circumstances, including mention of deceased wife who was alive at the time of the Will's execution – Held: The 1993 Will was suspicious due to discrepancies, and the probate granted in favor of the respondent is set aside – Appellants’ claim regarding the 1995 Will was also rejected for lack of credibility [Paras 1-4, 35-56].

Proof of Will – Execution and Attestation – Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Respondent proved the execution of the 1993 Will through attesting witnesses – However, the court found suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, including false statements about the wife’s death, leading to doubts about the testator’s true intention – A mere compliance with legal requirements is insufficient where suspicion exists – The court must be satisfied that the Will truly reflects the testator's intentions [Paras 22-31, 57].

Suspicious Circumstances – Mention of Wife’s Death – The 1993 Will stated that the testator’s wife was dead, although she was alive at the time of its execution – No provisions were made for the wife in the Will – This inconsistency raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the Will – The court held that such unexplained abnormalities indicated that the Will was not a genuine document, even though it was attested by witnesses [Paras 34-37, 52-55].

Revocation of Earlier Will – 1995 Will – Appellant’s claim of a 1995 Will revoking the 1993 Will was rejected by the trial court – Evidence provided by the appellants, including testimonies and documents, failed to substantiate the revocation or cancellation of the earlier Will – The court agreed with the trial court’s decision that the 1995 Will was not credible, pointing out discrepancies in the signatures and overwriting in the document [Paras 9, 39-47].

Decision: Appeal F.A. No. 185 of 2015 allowed – Probate granted in favor of the respondent for the 1993 Will is set aside due to suspicious circumstances – Appeal F.A.T. No. 302 of 2015 dismissed – 1995 Will also held not genuine – Appellants’ applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC rejected – Trial court judgments modified accordingly [Paras 58-59].

Civil Law - Specific Performance of Contract – Validity of Agreement – The appellant challenged the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell, claiming the agreement was fraudulent and executed to secure a loan – Held: The plaintiff proved the execution of the agreement to sell, including receipt of earnest money. The appellant’s defence of fraud and forgery was not substantiated by evidence, and the Courts below correctly decreed specific performance [Paras 4, 6].

Additional Evidence in Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – The appellant sought to introduce additional evidence in the second appeal, claiming the need to examine his son as a witness – Held: The application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was dismissed as the evidence was available during the trial, and the appellant deliberately withheld it. The Court found no justification to allow additional evidence at the appellate stage [Paras 7, 8].

Readiness and Willingness – Performance of Contract – The plaintiff demonstrated his readiness and willingness to perform the contract by proving the payment of earnest money and his presence at the Sub-Registrar’s office on the appointed date. The Courts below rightly found in favour of the plaintiff on this issue [Para 8].

Decision: The second appeal and the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are dismissed. The decree of specific performance passed by the Courts below is upheld [Paras 9, 10].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Upheld - Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Evidentiary Value – The conviction was primarily based on the dying declaration of the deceased, Munish Kumar, implicating the appellant for stabbing him. The appellant questioned the reliability of the dying declaration on the grounds that the doctor who declared the deceased fit to make a statement was not examined – Held: The Investigating Officer's testimony and the circumstances surrounding the declaration confirmed its validity. The dying declaration was corroborated by other evidence and was held to be credible and admissible [Paras 15-19].

Recovery of Weapon – Corroboration of Guilt – The appellant's conviction was further supported by the recovery of the weapon (knife) used in the crime, which was recovered pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statement – Held: The recovery was made in accordance with the law, and no evidence suggested that the recovery was planted or fabricated. The recovery of the weapon corroborated the dying declaration and medical evidence [Paras 20-24].

Medical Evidence – Consistency with Injuries – The post-mortem report and the medical examination of the deceased revealed injuries consistent with the use of a knife. The Court noted that the injuries matched those described in the dying declaration and confirmed by the recovered weapon – Held: The medical evidence strongly supported the prosecution's case and linked the appellant to the crime [Paras 40-43].

Appeal Dismissed – The appellant's contentions regarding false implication and misappreciation of evidence were rejected. The Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court – Held: The life sentence awarded under Section 302 IPC was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed [Paras 47].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and life sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court are upheld.

Professional Misconduct – Chartered Accountants – Referral to Disciplinary Committee – The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, challenged the Board of Discipline’s decision to refer a matter for further inquiry regarding alleged misconduct related to auditing companies without proper compliance with RBI regulations – The High Court held that the Board was within its powers under Section 21A of the Chartered Accountants Act to disagree with the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) and refer the matter for a detailed inquiry – The petition was dismissed as the Board’s decision was found to be in accordance with law [Paras 3, 10-12, 18].

Power of the Board of Discipline – Rule 9(3)(b) of the Chartered Accountants Rules – The petitioner argued that the Board did not have the authority to refer the case without further investigation by the Director (Discipline) – The court rejected this argument, citing Rule 9(3)(b) and Section 21A, which empower the Board to refer a case for inquiry even without further investigation if it disagrees with the Director’s findings – The referral for disciplinary action was valid [Paras 15-17].

Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings – The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that courts do not act as appellate authorities over the findings of the Board of Discipline – The review is confined to checking for compliance with natural justice, statutory rules, and the reasonableness of the decision – The Board’s decision did not suffer from any illegality or procedural irregularity, and thus, the petition was dismissed [Paras 19-21].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed – The High Court upheld the decision of the Board of Discipline to refer the petitioner’s case to the Disciplinary Committee for further inquiry under the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and the Rules, 2007 [Paras 22-24].