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].

Service Law – Disability Reservation – Retrospective Promotion – Visually impaired petitioner working as Mali in Forest Department since 1998 – Became eligible for promotion to Forest Guard in 2003 and Forester in 2013 – Promotions granted only in 2007 and 2021 after relaxation of rules – Government issued instructions in 2023 granting retrospective application of 3% reservation for persons with disabilities from 01.01.1996 to 18.04.2017 – Held: Petitioner entitled to notional promotion from 2003 and 2013 respectively under 1% quota for blindness/low vision – Delay in granting relaxation cannot defeat statutory right under 1995 and 2016 Acts – Denial violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 1–3, 6–12, 21–31]

Constitutional Law – Equality and Non-Discrimination – Right to be considered for promotion under disability quota – Right to equal opportunity includes right to be considered from due date when eligibility arose – Absence of formal exemption under Section 33 of 1995 Act from reservation renders justification of visual standards untenable – Bureaucratic delay cannot nullify substantive rights – Impugned order set aside for ignoring statutory mandate and binding government instructions [Paras 20–25, 28–30]

Administrative Law – Government Instructions – State instructions dated 11.07.2023 provided for retrospective reservation in promotions for persons with disabilities from 1996 to 2017 – Instructions binding on authorities – Held: Failure to apply instructions and reservation quota retrospectively to petitioner’s case renders the impugned rejection order legally unsustainable [Paras 24–27, 29]

Judicial Review – Quashing of Administrative Order – Order dated 16.04.2024 rejecting petitioner’s representation did not address statutory provisions or binding precedent – Held: Order arbitrary, in breach of Articles 14 and 16 – Quashed with direction to grant notional promotion and financial benefits with 6% interest [Paras 29–34]

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned Order dated 16.04.2024 set aside – Petitioner to be accorded notional promotion as Forest Guard from 2003 and Forester from 2013 with consequential benefits including pay fixation, arrears, and seniority – Financial dues to carry 6% interest per annum from due date till realisation – Compliance to be effected within 4 weeks [Paras 33–35]

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.

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].

Family Law – Custody and Visitation – Maintainability of Injunction Suit by One Parent Against the Other – Family Court Suit – Respondent-mother filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-father from contacting the child or school staff – Petitioner-father filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint – Family Court dismissed the application – High Court held that such a suit, though labeled as permanent injunction, essentially seeks custody-related reliefs which fall within Family Court jurisdiction under Section 7 of Family Courts Act – Mere use of “injunction” terminology does not oust Family Court’s jurisdiction [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Scope – Plaintiff’s pleadings alone to be considered – Defence or merits not to be weighed – High Court reiterated that so long as the plaint discloses a cause of action and falls within court jurisdiction, rejection under Order VII Rule 11 not warranted – Held: Family Court rightly refused to reject plaint [Paras 12–14].

Jurisdiction – Family Court – Custody and Visitation Rights – Even if framed as civil suit for injunction, underlying dispute concerns parental rights and child welfare – Such matters fall squarely within jurisdiction of Family Court under Section 7 of Family Courts Act – Held: Proper remedy is for father to seek visitation under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act or Guardians and Wards Act, not by resisting injunction suit as non-maintainable [Paras 11, 15–18].

Pleadings – Cause of Action – Sufficiency – Court reiterated that only averments in the plaint are relevant for examining maintainability under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff alleged threats, school disruption, and psychological impact on minor – These constitute cause of action for seeking relief – Held: Contentions of petitioner on truth or sufficiency of those facts not relevant at this stage [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – No interference with Family Court’s order – Petitioner permitted to pursue appropriate remedies under law for visitation or custody.

Criminal Appeal – Bail – Appeal against rejection of regular bail – Accused-appellant not named in FIR relating to murder and terrorist offences under IPC, Arms Act and UAPA – Bail application rejected by Additional Sessions Judge – Appeal preferred before High Court [Paras 1-2].

Bail Jurisprudence – Role of Accused – Confessional Statement of Co-Accused – Appellant nominated solely on basis of confessional statement of co-accused Sat Parkash alleging that appellant provided a SIM card – No direct role attributed in planning or execution of murder – Held: Confessional statement of co-accused by itself insufficient to deny bail at this stage [Paras 2, 5-6].

Criminal Law – Mens Rea – Knowledge of Use in Crime – Prosecution case did not establish that appellant had knowledge that SIM card allegedly provided by him would be used for committing murder or terrorist act – Mere act of handing over SIM from one person to another does not establish conscious involvement in offence [Paras 2, 6].

Investigation – Chain of Circumstances – SIM Card Trail – SIM allegedly passed through several hands before reaching actual assailants – Murder attributed to other accused persons – Appellant’s role remote and peripheral in chain of events – Custodial interrogation no longer required as challan already presented [Paras 4-6].

Custody – Length of Detention – Trial Pending – Appellant in custody since 30.07.2024 – Trial likely to take time – Continued incarceration not justified when role is limited and evidence largely documentary in nature [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 02.05.2025 rejecting bail set aside – Appellant Manish Kumar @ Lucky ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate – Observations confined to bail stage only.

Criminal Law – Remand Extension – Illegality – Petitioners were remanded in NDPS case and their remand was extended to 300 days by Special Judge – Accused not produced physically or virtually before court on date of extension – Held: Mandatory procedural safeguard violated – Such failure is not a mere irregularity but a gross illegality violating Article 21 of the Constitution – Order extending remand set aside – Petitioners entitled to default bail [Paras 5–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Failure to secure accused’s presence during remand extension hearing deprives them of fair procedure – Reference made to SC judgment in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 973 – Held: Extension of time without informing or producing the accused nullifies their right to seek default bail and infringes fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 6–8].

Bail – Conditions for Release – Petitioners granted bail in view of illegal remand – Conditions imposed include regular police attendance, restriction on travel, non-tampering with evidence, cooperation with investigation, and surrender of passports – Held: Petitioners shall comply with all directions until cognizance is taken [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Cases allowed – Impugned remand extension order dated 13.11.2025 set aside – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 granted bail on specified conditions – Trial court failed to follow due process by not producing or informing accused during remand extension hearing – No costs.

Criminal Revision – Discharge – Scope under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. – Limited Interference – Petitioners sought discharge from offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 341, 294, 509 read with Sections 34 and 109 IPC – Revisional jurisdiction invoked against order of JMFC refusing discharge – Held: Revisional power is limited and meant to correct patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – No ground made out for interference at the stage of framing of charge [Paras 1, 10–12, 15].

Discharge – Stage of Framing of Charge – Test to be Applied – At the stage of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., court is only to see whether charge is groundless – Strong suspicion sufficient to proceed to trial – Appreciation of evidence, truthfulness or probable defence of accused impermissible at this stage [Paras 8, 11–12].

Revisional Jurisdiction vs Inherent Powers – Distinction Reiterated – Scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C. narrower than inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of evidence or determine likelihood of conviction – Interference warranted only in cases of palpable error, arbitrariness or abuse of process [Paras 10–11].

Matrimonial Dispute – Criminal Allegations – Civil and Criminal Liability – Mere existence of matrimonial discord and multiple litigations between parties does not bar criminal prosecution – Allegations in FIR and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose prima facie ingredients of offences alleged – Background facts to be tested at trial, not at discharge stage [Paras 3–4, 14].

Allegations of Cruelty, Harassment and Insult to Modesty – Prima Facie Case – FIR and witness statements disclose that complainant was wrongfully restrained from entering matrimonial home by locking first floor and made to stand on road at night causing humiliation – Statements of on-duty police personnel corroborate allegations – Ingredients of offences prima facie attracted [Paras 5, 13–14].

Defence Plea – Not Considerable at Discharge Stage – Explanation offered by Petitioner No.1 regarding locking of premises amounts to rebuttal evidence – Such defence cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge or in revision against refusal of discharge [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order refusing discharge affirmed – Trial court rightly found sufficient ground to proceed – Petitioners to face trial in accordance with law.

Railways Act – Compensation for Untoward Incident – Death of Bona Fide Passenger – Presumption of Travel – Sections 123(c)(2) and 124A – Deceased died after accidentally falling from a moving train between Gopalapatnam and Duvvada – Inquest report, post-mortem report, police records all confirmed accidental fall – Held: Deceased was a bona fide passenger and the death was due to an untoward incident – Tribunal rightly awarded ₹8,00,000 as compensation under revised Schedule w.e.f. 01.01.2017 [Paras 2, 7–9, 17–20, 22].

Compensation – Interest on Award – Claim for Pendente Lite Interest Rejected – Tribunal’s Decision Upheld – Appellants argued that interest should be granted from date of claim filing – Tribunal awarded interest only from the effective date of revised compensation Schedule (01.01.2017) – Held: No illegality found in denying pendente lite interest where claim amount originally sought was lower than final award under revised Schedule – Award upheld [Paras 3(iii), 21].

Burden of Proof – Bona Fide Passengership – Presumption and Rebuttal – Liberal Interpretation – Recovery of journey ticket and consistent contemporaneous documentary evidence (inquest, police, medical reports) created strong presumption of lawful travel – No rebuttal by Railways – Legal presumption under Union of India v. Rina Devi and Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar applied – Liberal interpretation of "untoward incident" favoured in compensation cases [Paras 13–19].

Evidence Law – Probative Value of Departmental Reports vs Police Records – Court held DRM’s departmental report had limited probative value due to lack of contemporaneity – Police and medical records found more credible – DRM report cannot override conclusive public documents [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Tribunal’s finding that death was caused by an untoward incident upheld – Deceased declared a bona fide passenger entitled to compensation under Section 124A – Award of ₹8,00,000 affirmed – No interference warranted with Tribunal’s decision not to grant interest from date of claim application – Tribunal directed to release 50% of compensation to appellants; remainder to be kept in fixed deposit for five years or until further order [Paras 22–25].