Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Forgery and Fraud – The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application by an accused (accused No. 3) in a case involving alleged forgery of documents, fraudulent land transactions, and tampering with revenue records (7/12 extracts) related to ancestral land. The transactions in question dated back to 2003-2011, while the FIR was lodged in 2025, raising significant questions about delay. The court examined the impact of registered documents, rectification deeds, statutory permissions granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and prior civil settlements on the bona fides of the delayed FIR. It also assessed the necessity of custodial interrogation given the applicant's cooperation and the release of co-accused on bail, and the relevance of the applicant's criminal antecedents. The court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's ruling in Pratibha Manchanda by noting that the documents here were registered and publicly accessible for years, unlike the concealed forged documents in Pratibha Manchanda. The court concluded that while the allegations of forgery were serious, the substantial delay, public nature of the transactions, and the applicant's cooperation weighed in favor of granting anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. [Paras 1, 30-34, 38-39, 44-47, 52-54, 56-57, 59-62, 65-66, 69]

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Delay in lodging FIR – The court noted a substantial delay of 12 to 15 years in lodging the FIR concerning transactions that were registered and part of public records since 2003-2011. This delay, coupled with the existence of registered instruments, statutory permissions granted after inquiry, and prior civil settlements involving the same property and parties, raised serious questions about the bona fides of the prosecution. The court emphasized that such prolonged inaction, especially when civil remedies were pursued, militates against the genuineness of the grievance and suggests the criminal law might be invoked to unsettle concluded civil matters. [Paras 35, 38-39, 44-47]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Public Records and Civil Adjudication – The court highlighted that the impugned transactions involved registered conveyance and rectification deeds, which were part of the public record for over a decade. Furthermore, statutory permission under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer after due inquiry, carrying a presumption of regularity. The existence of civil disputes, settlements, and confirming deeds related to the same property indicated that interested parties had acknowledged and acted upon these transactions. While civil adjudication does not entirely bar criminal prosecution for forgery, these factors are crucial in assessing the bona fides of a delayed FIR. [Paras 35-37, 45-46, 52]

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – The court reiterated that custodial interrogation is not a routine requirement and must be justified by the investigating agency demonstrating its indispensability for eliciting information not otherwise obtainable. In this case, the applicant had cooperated with the investigation, produced documents, and co-accused purchasers had already been granted bail. The prosecution failed to identify any specific recovery or circumstance that exclusively hinged on the applicant's custodial presence, leading the court to conclude that non-custodial measures with stringent conditions could adequately safeguard the investigation. [Paras 42-43, 58-62, 65-66, 69]

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Criminal History – The applicant had a chequered history with several registered cases. However, the court emphasized the need for a qualitative assessment rather than merely counting the number of cases. It noted that in many cases, the applicant had been acquitted, FIRs quashed, or summary reports filed, indicating that the antecedents did not conclusively establish an inclination to evade law or obstruct investigation. The court held that antecedents are a relevant factor but not an absolute bar to anticipatory bail, warranting suitable protective conditions instead of outright rejection. [Paras 18, 28, 63-64, 67-68]

Criminal Law – Precedent – Forgery and Delay – The court carefully considered the Supreme Court's judgment in Pratibha Manchanda, which held that delay in lodging an FIR is not material in cases of clear forgery involving public documents, especially when the complainant had no prior knowledge of collusive civil proceedings and clandestine transactions. However, the High Court distinguished the present case, noting that here, the impugned documents (conveyance, rectification deeds) were registered and publicly accessible for years, and civil suits had been instituted. Unlike Pratibha Manchanda where the forged document was concealed for decades, the transactions here were visible and engaged with by the family, thus making the substantial delay a significant factor. [Paras 26, 29, 50-54]

Decision: – Anticipatory bail granted – Subject to stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation, prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and restrict movement. The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Shyamsundar Radhyesham Agarwal, in connection with Crime Register No. 559 of 2025. The applicant is to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two local sureties of Rs. 50,000 each. Conditions include furnishing residential address, cooperating with the investigation, making himself available for questioning, producing all relevant documents, not inducing/threatening witnesses, not tampering with evidence, not leaving the trial court's jurisdiction without permission, reporting to the investigating officer weekly, and submitting his passport. The court also clarified that the order does not affect the civil rights of the parties. [Paras 69-73]

Taxation Law - Customs – Adjudication after Remand – Cross-Examination – Tribunal directed that all six relied-upon witnesses be made available for cross-examination – After remand, three witnesses appeared and were cross-examined, deposing in favour of petitioners – Three others failed to appear despite four opportunities – Adjudicating authority relied only on statements of non-appearing witnesses and ignored evidence of appearing witnesses – Held illegal and contrary to settled principles [Paras 1–2, 8].

Section 138-B, Customs Act – Relevancy of Statements – Clause (b) mandates cross-examination before statement can be used – Clause (a) applies only where non-availability is proved (death, inability, being kept out of the way, unreasonable delay, etc.) – Adjudicating authority must record a specific finding of impossibility of securing witness – Further, assessee must be confronted with such statement with opportunity to rebut – Held: Mandatory procedure not followed; reliance on untested statements impermissible [Paras 9–11].

Natural Justice – Denial of Cross-Examination – Statements of witnesses who were never tested through cross-examination cannot be used to fasten liability without satisfying strict conditions of Section 138-B(1)(a) – Absence of reasons, absence of findings on non-availability, and non-confrontation render the order unsustainable – Ignoring cross-examined witnesses’ testimony held violative of fair play [Paras 10–12].

Tribunal’s Remand Directions – Compliance – Tribunal remanded matter solely to permit cross-examination of all six witnesses – Post-remand proceedings had to evaluate both categories of witnesses: (i) three produced and cross-examined, and (ii) three unproduced – Adjudicating authority failed to apply correct approach as laid down in Section 138-B – Held: Directions not properly understood or applied [Paras 6–12].

Judicial Review – Scope – High Court clarifies correct legal approach under Section 138-B – Adjudicating authority must first attempt to secure presence of witness; if presence cannot be secured, must record finding; next, must confront assessee with statement; then must evaluate statement with corroboration – None of these steps were followed – Impugned order quashed [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 18.03.2025 set aside – Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication strictly in accordance with law and Court’s directions – To be completed within 12 weeks – All issues kept open [Para 13].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 5 – Provisional Attachment – Limitation of 180 Days – Impact of COVID-19 Period – Orders of Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 – Applicability – Held: The limitation extensions granted in SMWP orders were intended to benefit litigants for filing suits/applications/proceedings and do not apply to administrative or provisional actions such as attachment orders under Section 5 of PMLA – PAO issued on 27.11.2020 deemed to have lapsed on expiry of 180 days i.e., on 26.05.2021 – ED’s reliance on SMWP and Delhi High Court’s contrary view not accepted – Calcutta High Court view affirmed – Respondents restrained from acting upon impugned PAO – Adjudication proceedings under Section 8(3) PMLA unaffected and allowed to continue [Paras 7–71].

Constitution of India – Article 300A and Article 21 – Right to Property and Liberty – Provisional attachment of property without adherence to statutorily prescribed timelines under PMLA violates constitutional safeguards – Right to property is both a constitutional and human right – Court reiterates need for strict adherence to statutory timelines in fiscal and penal legislation [Paras 23–25, 50–52].

Interpretation of Supreme Court’s Orders – Scope of SMWP Directions – Clarified: Orders in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 pertain to extension of limitation for filing judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings, not administrative actions or executive measures like PAO – Rejection of ED’s interim application for clarification in SMWP considered relevant – Attempt to secure benefit of exclusion indirectly through High Court impermissible [Paras 40–46, 55–59].

Judicial Precedent – Preference for Calcutta High Court View – Delhi High Court’s contrary interpretation inapplicable – Calcutta decision correctly holds that SMWP orders do not extend PMLA timelines – Delhi High Court failed to consider earlier Calcutta judgment – Binding principles from S. Kasi (Supra) and Supreme Court’s own interpretation in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary followed [Paras 18–22, 49, 65].

ED Powers Not Affected – Adjudication Proceedings – Provisional Attachment Lapsed – However, adjudication proceedings under Section 8(3) PMLA may proceed – Supreme Court in Kaushalya Infrastructure clarified lapsing of PAO does not nullify adjudication – ED retains powers under Section 17 PMLA to re-attach property if transferred [Paras 67–69].

Decision: Impugned PAO dated 27.11.2020 declared to have lapsed with effect from 26.05.2021 – Respondents restrained from acting upon lapsed attachment – Writ issued accordingly – Stay on adjudication proceedings vacated – Adjudication proceedings may continue in accordance with law – Petition and interim application disposed of with no order as to costs.

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Adopted Son – Rejection of Claim – Petitioner sought compassionate appointment under U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 as the adopted son of a deceased Class IV municipal employee – Appointment denied by Municipal Commissioner on the ground that petitioner was 18 years old on date of adoption, rendering adoption invalid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Held: Registered adoption deed carries statutory presumption under Section 16 – Administrative authority has no jurisdiction to question its validity unless set aside by a competent civil court – Rejection order quashed [Paras 2, 6–7, 12–13].

Hindu Law – Validity of Adoption – Registered Deed – Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Court reiterated legal presumption of validity for registered adoption deeds – Adoption once formalized and registered is presumed valid unless disproved before a civil court – Administrative officials cannot assess the legality of adoption deed in their executive capacity [Paras 8–10, 12].

Administrative Law – Powers of Administrative Authority – Limitations – Municipal Commissioner acted beyond his authority in declaring a registered adoption deed as invalid – Role limited to verifying genuineness of registration, not content validity – Decision rejecting petitioner’s appointment on basis of adoption validity is without legal foundation [Paras 7, 12–13].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 02/09/2023 quashed – Municipal Corporation directed to reconsider petitioner’s claim for appointment under the 1974 Rules within two months, in accordance with observations made in this judgment [Paras 15–17].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance – Trap Case – Acquittal Upheld – Accused government servant alleged to have demanded ₹2000 as bribe for effecting mutation entry – Complainant approached ACB, trap laid, and accused caught with tainted money – Trial court acquitted the accused on ground that demand was not proved – Held: Mere inquiry “whether the money is brought” does not constitute demand in law – Initial demand alleged by PW-1 not found in his police statement and proved to be a material omission by PW-5 (Investigating Officer) – Evidence of PW-2 (Panch) and PW-3 (complainant’s son) also suffered from contradictions and omissions – Presence of all three key witnesses at the spot found doubtful – Acquittal justified [Paras 11–14].

Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Valid Sanction Mandatory – Sanction order (Exh. 56) issued by PW-4 (Sanctioning Authority) found to be based on a pre-drafted proforma sent by ACB – No independent evaluation of documents or service records – Held: Sanction was granted without application of mind – Invalid sanction vitiates prosecution under Section 19 of PC Act – Acquittal cannot be interfered where foundational legal requirement not met [Paras 15–17].

Suppression of Material Evidence – Non-filing of Accused’s Post-Trap Explanation – Adverse Inference – Though accused’s statement was recorded immediately after trap, prosecution did not place it on record or include it in charge-sheet – Held: Suppression of post-trap statement violates fair trial principles – Court entitled to presume that withheld evidence was adverse to prosecution – Material defect fatal to case [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Scope – Interference Only if Findings Perverse – Reaffirmation of principles from P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291 – Appellate court must respect double presumption of innocence in acquittal cases – Reversal only warranted where trial court’s view is manifestly illegal or unjust – Held: Trial court’s view was a possible and plausible one based on evidence and omissions – No interference warranted [Paras 6, 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Accused exonerated of all charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Railway Accident Claim – Compensation – Untoward Incident – Circumstantial Evidence – Deceased, a 17-year-old boy, died after falling from a local train due to crowd rush while on his way to visit Lalbaugcha Raja – Incident not reported to railway officials but immediate statements given to police at hospital and documented in inquest panchnama and postmortem report – Held: Circumstantial evidence consistent and credible – Failure to report to Station Master not fatal to claim – Rejection of claim by Tribunal set aside [Paras 4–10, 13, 15]

Beneficial Legislation – Railways Act – Interpretation – Circumstantial Evidence – Court held that being a welfare legislation, Railways Act allows reliance on circumstantial evidence to determine whether untoward incident occurred – Principle similar to criminal law accepted – First available statements at hospital given probative value – No evidence of fraud or fabrication found [Paras 11–12, 14]

Bonafide Passenger – Proof of Ticket – Witness Testimony – Friend accompanying deceased testified they had all purchased train tickets – No challenge to this in cross-examination – Court relied on testimony and applied ratio from Union of India vs. Rina Devi – Held: Physical ticket not required when journey and purpose proven through credible evidence [Para 16]

Appeal Allowed – Tribunal's order set aside – Appellants held entitled to Rs. 4 lakhs compensation with 6% interest from date of incident – Upper cap of Rs. 8 lakhs imposed as per norms – Payment to be made within 8 weeks upon furnishing of bank details [Para 17]

Prevention of Money Laundering – Search and Seizure – Applicability of Section 17 PMLA – Complaint Against Co-Accused – Search Valid – ED conducted search under Section 17 PMLA at respondent’s premises on 09.02.2016 recovering ₹26.30 lakhs, laptop and other devices – Respondent not named in original 2011 prosecution complaint but allegedly facilitated main accused Hassan Ali Khan in obtaining forged passport and opening foreign account – Tribunal wrongly held search invalid for want of complaint against respondent – Held: Section 17 only requires prior institution of complaint or report under Section 157 CrPC, not necessarily against the same person whose premises is searched – Search based on “reason to believe” and linked to ongoing proceedings against co-accused held valid [Paras 19, 29, 34–38, 41].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Applicability of Retention and Attachment Provisions – Sections 5 vs. 17 PMLA – Retention was under Section 17(4) PMLA, not under Section 5 – Distinction clarified: Section 5 applies when ED believes person possesses proceeds of crime and may conceal it, requiring prior complaint/report under Section 173 CrPC – Section 17 applies to broader categories including possession of related records and allows search based on report under Section 157 CrPC – Tribunal erred in applying incorrect legal standard [Paras 24–30, 37].

Due Process – Tribunal’s Reasoning Based on Unraised Grounds – Procedural Impropriety – Remand Ordered – Tribunal allowed appeal on ground that no complaint was filed against respondent, though such contention was not raised before it – Respondent’s actual plea was that seizure had no nexus with any proceeds of crime and that ED failed to rebut his explanation of legitimate income – Held: Tribunal misdirected itself by deciding on an unargued issue – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication with liberty to respondent to raise all contentions [Paras 19, 23, 33, 43–45].

Supplementary Complaint – Effect of Respondent’s Death – No Impact on Validity of Search – Respondent died during pendency of appeal; his legal heir impleaded – Though ED failed to mention this fact in supplementary complaint filed later, Court held it has no bearing on legality of search conducted prior to his death or on retention proceedings under challenge [Paras 16, 20, 42].

Decision: Impugned order of Appellate Tribunal dated 21.05.2019 set aside – Appeal remanded for fresh decision by Tribunal in accordance with law – Parties granted opportunity to raise all relevant contentions – Appeal disposed accordingly [Paras 45–46].

Hindu Law – Maintenance – Unmarried Daughter – Statutory Obligation of Father – Appellant (father), a government teacher earning ₹44,642 per month, challenged decree granting ₹2,500 per month as maintenance and ₹5,00,000 towards marriage expenses to his unmarried 25-year-old daughter – Held: Under Sections 3(b)(ii) and 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a father’s obligation to maintain his unmarried daughter includes reasonable expenses for her marriage – Obligation is both moral and legal and continues till her marriage even if she has attained majority [Paras 10–15].

Maintenance – Definition and Scope – Section 3(b)(ii), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Maintenance includes provision for food, clothing, residence, education, medical treatment, and in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of and incidental to her marriage – The inclusive definition is broad and covers both subsistence and matrimonial preparation expenses [Paras 10–11].

Family Law – Right of Unmarried Major Daughter – Enforcement – Supreme Court in Abhilasha v. Parkash (2021) 13 SCC 99 held that unmarried daughters unable to maintain themselves have an absolute statutory right to claim maintenance from their fathers until marriage – Right enforceable under personal law independent of Section 125 Cr.P.C. [Para 13].

Social and Moral Duty of Father – Hindu Law Principles – Court reaffirmed that a Hindu father cannot abdicate his responsibility to maintain and provide for the marriage of his daughters – Obligation arises from the relationship itself and is legal and absolute in character – “Kanyadaan is a solemn and pious obligation of a Hindu father, from which he cannot renege” (Poonam Sethi v. Sanjay Sethi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 69) [Para 2].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Family Court justified in granting ₹2,500 monthly maintenance till marriage or self-sufficiency and ₹5,00,000 towards marriage expenses – Father directed to deposit ₹5,00,000 within three months and pay maintenance regularly [Paras 15–17].

Labour Law – Gratuity – Forfeiture – Post-Employment Conduct – Petitioner-company forfeited gratuity under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act citing breach of post-resignation confidentiality and non-compete clauses – Allegation that respondents joined rival firm and misused trade secrets – Held: Even assuming misconduct, alleged acts occurred after cessation of employment – Section 4(6)(b)(ii) applies only to offences involving moral turpitude committed during the course of employment – Forfeiture not legally sustainable [Paras 1, 4, 8–10, 14–15].

Natural Justice – No Prior Notice – Petitioner did not issue any show cause notice to employees before forfeiting gratuity – Held: Violation of natural justice renders action unsustainable – Forfeiture of property-like entitlement (gratuity) cannot be done arbitrarily – Reliance on State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210, affirmed [Paras 11, 14–15].

Industrial Disputes – Forfeiture Requires Statutory Compliance – Petitioner’s reliance on Western Coal Fields Ltd. v. Manohar Govinda Fulzele and Ramchandra Joshi v. Bank of Baroda misplaced – Forfeiture under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) must be preceded by valid termination for an act committed in course of employment – No such termination or allegation existed at relevant time [Paras 5, 12–13].

Civil Litigation – No Prejudice in Pending Civil Suit – Court clarified that its findings or those of authorities under Gratuity Act will not prejudice petitioner’s ongoing civil suits seeking damages against respondents – Petitioner free to prove its claims independently therein [Paras 6, 16, 18].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Concurrent findings of Labour and Industrial Courts upheld – Forfeiture of gratuity invalid as alleged misconduct occurred post-employment and without notice – Observations not to prejudice petitioner’s pending civil suits.