NDPS Act – Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC / Section 430 BNSS – Commercial Quantity – Appellant convicted for possession of 25.086 kg ganja and sentenced to RI for 10 years with fine of ₹1,00,000 – Application for suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Held: Recovery of commercial quantity attracts rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Gravity of offence and societal impact weigh against grant of suspension [Paras 13–15, 22–23].

Evidence – Police Witnesses – Non-Joining of Public Witnesses – Credibility – Non-association of independent witnesses at recovery not fatal – Police testimony consistent and corroborated by seizure memo and FSL report – Reliance placed on State v. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652; Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 2 SCR 785 – Police witnesses competent and reliable in absence of motive to falsely implicate [Paras 14–15].

Evidence – Non-production of CCTV Footage – Chance Recovery – Effect – Omission to produce CCTV or videography does not vitiate seizure – Recovery occurred at 3 AM; documentation corroborated recovery – Non-production not fatal to prosecution [Para 16].

Parity – Bail to Co-Accused – Not a Ground Post Conviction – Co-accused Mukesh granted bail at pre-conviction stage – Parity argument inapplicable after conviction, as presumption of innocence no longer available [Para 17].

Criminal Procedure – Suspension of Sentence – Tests and Considerations – Suspension not a matter of right – Court to consider gravity of offence, period undergone, and prima facie chance of acquittal – Appellant has undergone only 3 years out of 10-year sentence (<50%) – Not eligible for suspension as per Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3182 and Saudan Singh v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259 [Paras 19–20].

Judicial Principle – Post-Conviction Presumption – After conviction, presumption of innocence stands erased – Suspension of sentence justified only where conviction appears palpably unsustainable – No such case made out here; no fair chance of acquittal shown [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Sentence not suspended – Application dismissed – Appeal to be heard in due course [Paras 23–25].

Succession Law – Proof of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Appellants/defendants challenged concurrent judgments declaring Will of Late Sh. Satpal Chopra illegal and void – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found Will shrouded by suspicious circumstances – Held: Although attesting witnesses were examined, the burden lies on the propounder to dispel all suspicion – Courts below rightly found anomalies in execution (pre-signed blank paper, uneven handwriting, smooth signature despite trembling hands) – No interference warranted in second appeal [Paras 9–11].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act – Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that under Section 41, unlike Section 100 CPC, framing of substantial questions of law is not mandatory – Reliance placed on Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 157; Kirodi v. Ram Parkash, (2019) 11 SCC 317; Satender v. Saroj, 2022 (12) Scale 92 [Para 8].

Inheritance – Declaration of Ownership and Joint Possession – Findings of lower Courts declaring respondents’ entitlement to 1/5th share in inheritance of Late Sh. Satpal Chopra upheld – Alleged Will and consequent mutations held null and void – Relief of permanent injunction denied but declaration sustained [Paras 1–6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of fact and law upheld – Will declared invalid – Respondents’ 1/5th share in inheritance confirmed – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Appeal Against Acquittal – Respondent accused of driving a tanker rashly and hitting a cyclist who died on the spot – Eyewitness accounts (PW5 and PW6) found inconsistent, contradictory, and uncorroborated by physical evidence – No mechanical inspection of the cycle conducted – Tanker inspection showed no fresh damage – No photographs or reliable scene reconstruction adduced – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal justified [Paras 2–6, 13–15, 20–21].

Evidence – Eyewitness Credibility – Contradictions – PW6 claimed to witness the accident from both inside and outside a bus – PW5 admitted he did not see the driver – Statements made under Section 161 CrPC by PW6 contradicted his court deposition – No proof of witness presence at scene through memos or photographs – Held: Testimonies unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 5, 13–14].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – Acquittal by Trial Court reinforces presumption of innocence – Appellate court must be cautious in overturning acquittals unless the trial court’s view is wholly unreasonable or perverse – Held: Trial Court’s view was a plausible one based on evidence – No grounds for interference [Paras 17–19].

IPC Section 304A – Requirement of Proof – Essential ingredients include rash or negligent act directly causing death – High speed alone not sufficient to infer rashness – Mere occurrence of accident not proof of negligence – Held: In absence of evidence on speed, traffic conditions, or manner of driving, conviction under Section 304A cannot be sustained [Paras 10–12, 16].

Presumption of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Inapplicability – Held: Principle applies only when circumstances unmistakably point to negligence – Not attracted merely because an accident occurred – Criminal negligence must be established through specific evidence, not inference [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279 and 304A IPC upheld – Court finds prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent act beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court’s judgment found reasonable, based on lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in prosecution case – Double presumption of innocence reinforced [Paras 20–21].

Income Tax – TDS Credit – Non-reflection in Form 26AS – Refund entitlement – Petitioner, a cooperative society exempt under Section 80P, sought refund of TDS deducted for A.Y. 2009–10 to 2015–16 – Department refused refund citing mismatch with Form 26AS – Held: Once assessee furnishes Form 16A evidencing deduction, Assessing Officer must verify and grant credit even if TDS is not reflected in Form 26AS – Assessee cannot be denied refund for fault of deductor [Paras 3–5, 8–9].

Tax Administration – CBDT Circular No. 05/2013 – Compliance – CBDT directed that when assessee produces TDS certificate, Assessing Officer must verify payment with deductor and grant due credit – High Court reiterates that AOs are bound to follow the circular and cannot compel taxpayers to suffer delays caused by third parties [Paras 7–8].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Refund of wrongly withheld TDS – Court follows Delhi High Court’s Court on Its Motion v. CIT and Allahabad High Court’s Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. UOI – Mandamus issued directing AO to verify petitioner’s documents and pass refund order within four weeks – Assessee entitled to rely on cited precedents and CBDT circular before AO [Paras 4, 6, 9–11].

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no.3 to verify Form 16A certificates and issue refund in accordance with law within four weeks.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Specific Performance – Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – Trial court rejected plaint on ground that suit filed beyond 3 years from expiry of stipulated period in agreement to sell – Appellate court held: rejection without trial improper where plaintiff pleaded extension of time and fraud – Cause of action based on date of knowledge creates triable issues – Rejection at threshold unsustainable [Paras 17, 22–24].

Limitation Act – Article 54 – Specific Performance – Starting Point of Limitation – Agreement to sell dated 13.06.2007 stipulated two years for performance – Plaintiff pleaded that he relied on defendants’ representation that one co-owner (Ramroop) had died and that mutation of legal heirs was pending – Plaintiff learnt of sale to third party only on 14.05.2013 and filed suit on 05.08.2013 – Held: In such cases, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, especially where fraud and continuing negotiations are pleaded [Paras 21–23].

Fraud – Pleading of Fraud and Date of Knowledge – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – Plaintiff specifically pleaded that fraud was committed by showing co-owner Ramroop as dead in revenue records and later executing sale deed while alive – Revenue entries showed mutation of legal heirs which was later cancelled – Held: Once date of knowledge is pleaded and relied upon for cause of action, court must permit evidence – Summary rejection of plaint is impermissible [Paras 20–23].

Contract Law – Extension of Time – Conduct-Based Extension – Need for Trial – Conduct of parties, including repeated assurances and negotiations, may constitute extension of performance period – Agreement need not be formally extended in writing – Whether time was extended is a factual issue to be decided at trial, not threshold stage [Paras 18, 23].

Judicial Discipline – Scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Averments in Plaint to be Taken as True – Rejection of plaint is a drastic power and must be exercised only where suit is clearly barred – Plaintiff’s assertions about readiness and fraud must be presumed true at threshold – Courts must avoid dissecting or compartmentalising plaint language to prematurely decide limitation [Paras 17, 22].

Appeal – Decree Reversed – Suit Restored – Opportunity to Lead Evidence Directed – Trial court’s order held perverse – Appeal allowed – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to decide the suit on merits within one year, without unnecessary adjournments [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017 set aside – Suit restored to original number – Trial court directed to decide on merits within one year – Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dismissed [Paras 25–27].

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Evidentiary Value of Charge Sheet – Accident occurred when claimant’s motorcycle (KL-31E-1713) collided with another motorcycle (KL-04V-4339) insured with appellant – Tribunal fixed contributory negligence at 50:50 and awarded ₹1,12,110/- with 8% interest – Held: Ext.B1 charge sheet showed claimant as accused for rash and negligent driving – AMVI report confirmed rear-side impact to insured vehicle – No evidence led by claimant to prove negligence of other rider – Charge sheet is prima facie proof of negligence under New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KHC 595] – Tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence without valid reasoning [Paras 5–8].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Burden of Proof – Claimant must establish negligence of the offending vehicle – In absence of oral or documentary evidence supporting negligence of the insured rider, claim cannot be sustained against insurer – Tribunal’s reliance on conjecture that vehicle ahead lacked indication light insufficient to fix contributory negligence [Paras 7–8].

Appeal – Interference with Tribunal’s Finding – Appellate Court held that findings of contributory negligence unsupported by evidence are liable to be set aside – Insurer absolved of liability as entire negligence lay with claimant who was charge-sheeted as tortfeasor [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Tribunal’s finding of 50% contributory negligence on rider of insured vehicle set aside – Insurer not liable to pay compensation to claimant [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Denial – Petitioner, former TUDA Chairman and Accused No.39 in ₹3200 crore liquor scam, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS – Allegations include misuse of government vehicle for transporting unaccounted cash during 2024 General Elections – Held: Prima facie material including toll data and witness statements support prosecution's case – Offences involve public funds and serious conspiracy – Anticipatory bail rightly refused [Paras 2, 8–13].

Economic Offences – Prima Facie Case – Bail Denied – Statement of L.W.162 (gunman) confirmed Petitioner provided TUDA vehicle for cash transport – Toll records contradict TUDA’s logbooks, indicating vehicle misuse – Cash seizure of ₹8.36 crores from vehicle linked to Petitioner – Court held this constitutes prima facie involvement – Petition dismissed [Paras 9–10].

Anticipatory Bail – Suppression of Antecedents – Failure to Disclose FIRs – Petitioner failed to disclose four prior FIRs in bail petition – Held: Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents relevant ground to deny anticipatory bail – Reliance placed on SC’s judgment in Muneesh v. State of U.P. [Paras 8–9].

BNSS – Section 179 – Non-appearance after Summons – Petitioner failed to appear despite multiple summons under Section 179 BNSS – Court rejected argument that non-cooperation alone should not bar bail – Held: Continued evasion reinforces need for custodial interrogation [Paras 5, 12].

Judicial Discretion – Scope of Anticipatory Bail – Economic Fraud – Court cited multiple SC precedents emphasizing cautious use of anticipatory bail in serious financial crimes – Discretion to be exercised sparingly, especially in cases involving public interest and systemic fraud – Petition not fit for relief [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No grounds for pre-arrest bail – Custodial interrogation found necessary – Gravity and economic implications outweigh claims of political vendetta.

Criminal Law – Cheating – Criminal Breach of Trust – Prevention of Corruption – Recruitment fraud in TRC-ICMR – A1 (Administrative Officer) manipulated recruitment process to secure appointment of his son (A2) – Suppressed A2’s ineligibility, leaked question paper, and altered recruitment procedure – Trial Court convicted A1 and A2 under IPC and PC Act; State sought conviction under conspiracy – Held: A1 misused official position for personal gain; A2 knowingly participated in deception – Offence of cheating (S.420 IPC) proved against both; Criminal breach of trust (S.409 IPC) and offences under S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act established against A1 – Criminal conspiracy (S.120-B) proved only to the extent of S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC – Sentences modified to simple imprisonment; institutional corrective directions issued to ICMR [Paras 5, 5.2–5.16, 7].

Recruitment Fraud – Misrepresentation and Suppression – A2 possessed M.A. (Public Administration) obtained through open university system, without basic degree or prescribed subjects – Falsely declared “M.A.” and claimed proficiency in Telugu – A1, being Administrative Officer, deliberately suppressed A2’s specialization during scrutiny and presentation before the Selection Committee – Held: Concealment and false representation were deliberate and material – Offence of cheating made out beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5.3, 5.4, 5.9].

Evidence – Question Paper Leakage – Circumstantial and Technical Proof – Question papers and answer keys stored in floppy entrusted to A1 with strict confidentiality; metadata revealed unauthorized modifications on 17 & 19 July 2005; corroborated by approver (PW-15); only A2 and approver’s son scored full marks (25/25) – Defence plea of “easy paper” rejected – Held: Leakage established; breach of trust and cheating proved against A1; active participation of A2 inferred from exclusive benefit gained [Paras 5.6–5.8].

Service Law – Manipulated Circular – A1 issued internal circular for Technician post in deviation from amended recruitment rules – Omitted public advertisement and reversed “essential” and “desirable” qualifications to fit A2’s eligibility – Held: Fraud on recruitment process; vitiated selection of A2; acts amounted to misuse of official authority for personal benefit [Paras 5.10–5.15].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Court reiterates that every irregular appointment does not amount to criminal misconduct unless dishonest intention and unlawful gain are proved – In present case, cumulative circumstances and technical evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Mere suspicion insufficient, but prosecution evidence met legal standard [Para 5].

Conspiracy – Scope and Limitation – Evidence showed A1 and A2 acted in concert to cheat organisation by dishonest concealment and manipulation – However, no wider conspiracy involving other officials proved – Held: Guilt under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC sustained; conspiracy for other substantive offences not established [Para 5.18].

Sentence – Modification – A1: Convictions under S.420 IPC, S.409 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act confirmed; sentence modified to one year’s Simple Imprisonment on each count, with fine maintained; three months’ SI under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC added – A2: Conviction under S.420 IPC confirmed; sentence reduced to three months’ SI; additional three months’ SI under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC – All sentences to run concurrently; eight weeks to surrender; medical direction issued for A1 – “Being mentioned” order dated 15-10-2025 corrected A1’s age to 76 and imposed additional fine of Rs 1,000 [Para 7; Corrigendum 15-10-2025].

Institutional Accountability – Systemic Failures – Court expressed concern over ethical decline in recruitment integrity – Directed ICMR to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against A1 (including post-retirement, if permissible) and to conduct discreet audit of employee-kin appointments – Directed forwarding of judgment to DG, ICMR and Secretary, MoHFW for systemic corrective action [Para 6].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Convictions of A1 under S.420 & S.409 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act confirmed with modified sentence of Simple Imprisonment – Conviction of A2 under S.420 IPC maintained with reduced term – State appeal partly allowed by including S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC against both – Sentences to run concurrently – Medical and procedural directions affirmed [Paras 7; Corrigendum 15-10-2025].

Criminal Law – House Trespass – Assault with Firearm – Conviction – Appellant convicted under Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii) IPC for unlawfully entering complainant’s residence at night and threatening with a country-made pistol – Prosecution established recovery of firearm, live and fired cartridges – Eyewitness accounts by daughter (PW-2) and complainant (PW-10) corroborated by police witnesses – FSL report confirmed the firearm and ammunition fell under Arms Act – Held: Trial Court rightly convicted appellant based on reliable and consistent evidence [Paras 2–11]

Witness Testimony – Identification of Accused – PW-2 positively identified the appellant and detailed sequence of events – PW-10 (complainant) unable to identify appellant in court due to passage of time, but had identified him at the time of incident – Police witnesses confirmed arrest and recovery – Held: Prosecution not discredited merely because one witness could not identify the accused after long delay – Conviction sustainable on basis of other credible witnesses [Para 9]

Sentencing – Probation – Reformative Justice – Long Pendency – Appellant was 18–19 years old at the time of incident and has no prior record – Trial concluded after 22 years and appeal pending for 20+ years – Appellant married with six children and sole breadwinner – Supreme Court jurisprudence (Mohammad Giasuddin, Pramod Kumar Mishra, K. Pounammal) emphasizes reformative approach in long-pending matters – Held: While conviction upheld, sentence modified – Appellant released on probation of good conduct for one year under bond of ₹10,000 with one surety [Paras 12–15]

Decision:  Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii) IPC upheld – Sentence modified – Appellant released on probation of good conduct for one year – All pending applications disposed of