Supreme Court to examine validity of Section 58 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 read with specific Rules

In The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Shankar Baranwal (2025), Supreme Court's bench of Chief Justice B.R.Gavai. Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria passed an order dated August 9, 2025. It issued notice as it is all set to to examine validity of Section 58 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 read with Rules 12 A and 12 B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021. Its order reads:"Until further orders, there shall be stay insofar as the direction issued by the High Court to make the payment by the valuer is concerned. The case arose out of impugned 7-pag long final judgment and order dated April 16, 2025 in Shankar Baranwal vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025) passed by the Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and S. B. Pd. Singh. 

The High Court's judgement was authored by Justice Bajanthri. The petitioner had prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated January 17, 2022 passed in Excise Revision Case No. 282/2021 by Additional Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the order dated September 10, 2021, passed in Excise Appeal Case No. 523/2021 by the Commissioner, Excise, Patna and order dated July 17, 2021, passed in Confiscation Case NO. 118/2021 by the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua, which arose out of Durgawati P.S. Case No. 74/2020 have been confirmed and Safari car bearing Registration No. UP-60V-0160 of the petitioner was confiscated and also for giving direction to release the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner. 

Justice Bajanthri observed: "It is to be noted not even reference to value of the vehicle purchased and depreciation year wise with reference to any policy or the Government or General Insurance Company. In the absence of assessment and randomly evaluation of vehicle in wholesale is highly deprecated. Irrespective of movable and immovable property cannot be valued with the naked eye by the bureaucrats of the State of Bihar and proceed to undertake auction and causing the state exchequer under loss and for the concerned person. In almost each and every case Motor Vehicle Inspectors are evaluating valuation of the vehicle in wholesale without there being individual assessment of the vehicle or property with reference to evaluation like date of purchase and value of what would be value as on the date of seizure of the vehicle and on the date of auction. 5. Having regard to the facts that one liter of liquor has been seized from the subject matter of vehicle, petitioner shall not be penalized in seizing vehicle and auctioning the vehicle at throw away price and realised amount remitting arbitrary and illegal." 

In the light of these observations, the High Court concluded: "the confiscation order, appellate authority order and revision authority order stands modified to the above extent, while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of constitution", in order to avoid further legal proceedings. 

Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad led bench sets aside hasty judgment of acquittal passed bhy Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, Bhagalpur

In Dulari Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey observed: "The judicial conscience of this Court is totally disturbed on finding the kind of insensitiveness on the part of the investigating agency and the Public Prosecutor who were involved in this case. The trial court seems to have acted in haste in closing the prosecution evidence without taking care of it’s own order dated 08.11.2023 by which an explanation was called from the I.O." The judgement was delivered May 9, 2025.

It underlined that the Court "had a duty to find out the truth and for this purpose the Presiding Officer of the trial court was required to exhaust all such procedures which were available to him in law to secure the presence of the witnesses. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment of acquittal in this case, having been passed in haste is liable to be set aside. 43. This Court, accordingly sets aside the impugned judgment. The trial court is directed to take steps to secure presence of the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur shall ensure presence of the police officers who are charge-sheet witnesses of this case on the dates fixed in the matter."

The seven other respondents are respectively: Shravan Yadav, Haldhar Yadav, Kanki Devi, Lalan Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Sushil Yadav and Reeta Devi.

The Court concluded:"Respondent nos. 2 to 8 shall surrender in the trial court within four weeks from today. Since the respondent nos. 3 to 8 were on bail during trial, the learned trial court shall allow them to continue on bail. Respondent No. 2 was in custody at the time of delivery of impugned judgment, therefore, he would be taken into custody. It will be open to respondent no.2 to pray for bail in the trial court." 

The Court drew on Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, IN RE vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 598, the Supreme Court has provided the Draft Criminal Rules on Practice, 2021. The Rules are to be made part of the rules governing the criminal trials. Directions in this regard have been issued to all the High Courts and the State Governments. It also referred to Draft Criminal Rules on Practice, 2021.

The prosecution case was based on the written application of the mother of the deceased (PW-2) addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur in which she has stated that she had got her daughter married to Shravan Yadav, resident of Bhagalpur in the year 2012 and out of the wedlock, her daughter has got two children. After marriage, her daughter’s husband Shravan Yadav, father-in-law Haldhar Yadav, mother-in-law Kanki Devi, devar Lalan Yadav and Sunil Yadav, Sushil Yadav and Reeta Devi were continuously torturing and beating her daughter for Rupees One Lakh and cow due to which her daughter used to come to her alleged that six months ago, upon compromise with the husband of her daughter and her in-laws showing good faith, the informant allowed her daughter to go to her sasural and also gave two cows worth Rs.60,000/-, but again the in-laws started assaulting her daughter and harassed her. On 22.07.2018, the informant came to know that her daughter has been murdered by her husband and in- laws, they have concealed the dead body and ran away after locking their house. The informant alleged that she gave written complaint in Goradih Police Station but no action was being taken. This written application was sent to the Officer Incharge of Goradih Police Station to ensure proper action as per law. On being receipt of this written application, a case dated August 2, 2018 was registered for the offences under Sections 304B/201/34 IPC at Jagdishpur (Goradih) Police Station. 

After investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet dated November 28, 2018 against Sushil Yadav (respondent no. 7) keeping investigation pending against other accused persons. After receiving this chargesheet, Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Sections 304(B)/201/120(B)/34 IPC vide order dated December 13, 2018. After commitment, Session Trial was registered on March 26, 2019 in which Yadav to which he denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly charges under Sections 304B/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 120B IPC was framed vide order dated April 30, 2019. Thereafter, police submitted supplementary chargesheet dated May 15, 2019 against Reeta Devi (Respondent no. 8) keeping investigation pending against other accused persons. After receiving this chargesheet, Magistrate finding prima-facie material against her for the offences under Sections 304(B)/201/120(B)/34 IPC vide order dated 21.05.2019 kept the case for supply of police paper. After commitment, Session Trial was registered on June 19, 2019 in which charges were explained to accused Reeta Devi to which she denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges under Sections 304B/120B/201/34 IPC was framed by order dated February 20, 2020. 

Thereafter, police submitted another supplementary chargesheet dated December 5, 2019 against Shravan Yadav (Respondent No. 2), Lalan Yadav (Respondent No. 5), Sunil Yadav (Respondent No. 6), Haldhar Yadav (Respondent No. 3), Kanki Devi (Respondent No. 4). After receiving this chargesheet, Magistrate finding prima-facie material against these accused persons for the offences under Sections 304(B)/201/120(B)/34 IPC vide order dated December 23, 2019 kept the case for supply of police paper. After commitment, Session Trial was registered on March 15, 2021 in which charges were explained to accused persons to which they denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges have been framed against Shravan Yadav, Haldhar Yadav, Lalan Yadav, Kanki Devi and Sunil Yadav vide order dated December 1, 2021 under Sections 304(B)/34, 201 and 120(B) IPC. Prio to September 21, 2022, PW-1 and PW-2 of Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2021 were already examined and discharged. In Session Trial No. 1191 of 2019, Ena Devi (PW-1) had been examined prior to passing of the order of amalgamation. Further, we find from the ordersheet of Sessions Trial No. 339 of 2019 that in the said trial Ena Devi has been examined on May 7, 2022, she has been described as PW-3 but there is no PW-1 and PW-2.

By order dated September 21, 2022, Sessions Trial No. 339 of 2019 and Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2021 were amalgamated with Session Trial No. 119 of 2019. Prior to September 21, 2022, PW-1 and PW-2 of Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2021 were already examined and discharged. In Sessions Trail No. 119 of 2019, Ena Devi (PW-1) had been examined prior to passing of the order of amalgamation. Further, we find from the ordersheet of Sessions Trial No. 339 of 2019 that in the said trial Ena Devi has been examined on May 7, 2022, she has been described as PW-3 but there is no PW-1 and PW-2.

After analysing the evidences available on the record, trial court found that in the written application, the informant alleged that her daughter was harassed by her in-laws for dowry due to which her daughter many times came to naiher but there is no evidence of any witness to corroborate this allegation. The trial court found that there is no application regarding beating for dowry on record reported to any authority. The trial court further found from the evidence of the defence witnesses that accused Reeta Devi was married and was living in her sasural with her husband and all the brothers of the husband of the deceased were also living separately. The trial court observed that it seems that the informant has tried to drag the entire family of in-laws of her daughter in the dowry case due to said unfortunate incident. The trial court found that the body of the deceased was recovered from river after seven days.The trial court found that PW-2 deposed that there was black mark on neck of her daughter but this fact has not been supported by her husband (PW-3). Learned trial court further found that Post mortem report shows that there was no external injury and it indicates the presence of Celphos in the visceral fluid of the deceased but it does not show that the said Celphos was forcefully administered to the deceased. 

The trial court observed that even if for the argument sake, it is presumed that Celphos was forcefully administered to the deceased and the body was thrown in the river then also there is not a single eye witness to depose from the prosecution side that they have seen the accused persons throwing the dead body in the river. The trial court after considering all the materials found that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the deceased was harassed soon before her death for demand of dowry and due to non-fullfilment of said demand, the deceased was killed by the accused. The trial court found that the prosecution is unable to prove the charges under Sections 304B/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 120B IPC, hence, acquitted the accused persons-respondent nos. 2 to 8. 

The appellant's counsel submitted that the trial court has erroneously closed the evidence without examining the four charge-sheet witnesses including the Investigating Officer of this case and the Officer-in-Charge of Sanhaula Police Station. He submitted that there were ample materials before the trial court to held the respondent nos. 2 to 8 guilty but has erroneously acquitted them from the charges levelled against them without examining all the chargesheet witnesses.

The State defended the impugned judgment but agreed that the trial court closed the evidence without examining the four chargesheet witnesses. 

The Court referred to the discussion on Section 311 CrPC in the case of V.N. Patil vs. K. Niranjan Kumar reported in (2021) 3 SCC 661.The judgment reads: “14. The object underlying Section 311 CrPC is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code”. It is, however, to be borne in mind that the discretionary power conferred under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said “wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion”. 15. The principles related to the exercise of the power under Section 311 CrPC have been well settled by this Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.2: (SCC p. 141, para 17). “17. Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of the Code and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Before directing the learned Special Judge to examine Smt Ruchi Saxena as a court witness, the High Court did not examine the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge as to why it was not necessary to examine her as a court witness and has given the impugned direction without assigning any reason.”

The case of V.N. Patil was under Sections 304B and 302 IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the said case Public Prosecutor had filed an application under Section 173(5) read with Section 311 CrPC which was allowed by the learned trial court. The High Court upset the order of the trial court summoning the witnesses but the Supreme Court upheld the order of the trial court.

In its judgement, the High Court observed that in the Dulari Devi case, "the Public Prosecutor who conducted the case at Bhagalpur was not acting with due diligence and care. The records speak for themselves. No summon was issued to the other prosecution witnesses, no explanation came from the two police personnel who were charge-sheet witnesses, even Senior Superintendent of Police did not act on receipt of the letter from the court. In fact the FIR itself was registered after the informant made a complaint to the Dy.SP." The judgement was authored by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad.

Notably, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad is one of the five members of the High Court's Committee to consider Draft Criminal Court Rules. The other members are: Justices Bibek Chaudhuri, Rajiv Roy, Sunil Dutta Mishra and Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh. It is one ofthe 43 committees of the High Court. 
 

 

Can Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 prevail over Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?

In Union of India through the Secretary, Home vs. Alok Arya (2025), Patna High Court's division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Partha Sarthy concluded:"The respondent is not entitled for any pension because of his resignation in view of Section 26 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021." 

The division bench set aside the judgement of Justice Purnendu Singh of single judge bench in Alok Arya vs. Union of India through the Secretary, Home (2023) C.W.J.C. No. 1379 of 2023, which had ordered on May 3, 2023 that "the respondent be given the benefit of gratuity in view of Section 7 (3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also interest on it, after calculating the same within a period of six weeks."  This judgment was challenged by the Union of India on the sole ground that if a person resigns from service, his past service is forfeited.

In his order, Justice Singh had recorded the submission of petitioner in light of order dated January 13, 2021 passed in CWJC No. 11188 of 2018 and in light of ‘Annexures- 7 and 8’, communication made by the petitioner for providing him benefits of gratuity and HPL encashment and subsequently, he had sent a reminder to the Director General, B.S.F., Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India. 

He considered the law as on date in terms of Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the decision of Supreme Court in case of D.D. Tiwari (dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. &Ors. Reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 to direct the respondent no. 2- the Director General, B.S.F. CGO Complex, New Delhi "to give equal treatment to the petitioner to abide by the law laid down by the Apex Court and the provision of Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by calculating interest on delayed payment of gratuity within a period of six weeks." 

Section 26 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 clearly provides that resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. Sub-Clause (2) of Section 26 the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 further clarifies, by way of an exception, that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service, if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where the service qualifies.

The respondent resigned without indicating to his employer that such resignation was for the purposes of taking up another appointment with the Government where he qualified. Thus, his entire past service was forfeited making him ineligible for being paid pension. Pension also includes gratuity. 

The provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would not apply to an employee of the Central Government, if he is governed by other Rules.

The division bench observed:"the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in the eyes of law for not having considered the import of Section 26 (1) and (2) of the Central Civil Services Pension) Rules, 2021, which applies to the case of the respondent. "

The division bench drew on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Braj Nandan Singh : (2005) 8 SCC 325,wherein it has been explained that Section 26 (2) has to be read in conjunction with Section 26(1) and 26(2) only carves an exception under certain circumstances.: 

“Rule 26, as the heading itself shows, relates to forfeiture of service on resignation. In clear terms, it provides that resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. The language is couched in mandatory terms. However, sub-rule (2) is in the nature of an exception. It provides that resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. Admittedly this is not the case of the Respondent. Rule 5 on which great emphasis was laid down by the learned counsel for the respondent deals with regulation of claims to pension or family pension. Qualifying service is dealt with in Chapter III. The conditions subject to which service qualifies are provided in Rule 14. Chapter V deals with classes of pensions and conditions governing their grant. The effect of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) cannot be lost sight of while deciding the question of entitlement to pension. The High Court was not justified in its conclusion that the rule was being torn out of context. After the past service is forfeited the same has to be excluded from the period of qualifying service. The language of Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) is very clear and unambiguous. It is trite law that all the provisions of a statute have to be read together and no particular provision should be treated as superfluous. That being the position after the acceptance of resignation, in terms of Rule 26 sub-rule (1) the past service stands forfeited. That being so, it has to be held that for the purpose of deciding question of entitlement to pension the respondent did not have the qualifying period of service. There is no substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that Rule 26 sub-rules (1) and (2) has limited operation and does not wipe out entitlement to pension as quantified in Rule 49. The said rule deals with amount of pension and not with entitlement.”

The Supreme Court has concluded that it is a well-settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision, which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature and the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent.

The division bench found that "the resignation was simpliciter and not for the purposes of taking up appointment, for which no permission also was taken, the services of the respondent stood forfeited and less than ten years in service would not have otherwise also qualified the appellant for being paid pension."

Notably, Justice Singh of single judge bench has referred to High Court's decision of 2021 and Supreme Court's decision of 2014. Justice Kumar of division bench has referred to Supreme Court's decision of 2005.

Has the case concerning murder of Judge Uttam Anand been solved?

On March 14, 2024, CBI informed the Jharkhand High Court that no significant information has been derived from the WhatsApp chats of two people convicted in the murder of Judge Uttam Anand in Dhanbad. 

Uttam Anand, an Additional District Judge, was knocked off by the auto-rickshaw near Randhir Verma Chowk, Dhanbad. The incident was captured on CCTV. He was killed while he was out for a morning walk on July 28, 2021. The incident happened at 5 am. Jharkhand High Court's division bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Ananda Sen was heard a public interest litigation initiated suo moto after the murder. 

Justice N V Ramana, the then Chief Justice of India had spoken to the then Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court. The Court had started monitoring the investigation which was initially started by the Dhanbad police. When the the investigation did not yield quick results, the case was handed over to the CBI. The CBI picked up two persons -- Lakhan Verma and Rahul Verma, the driver and conductor of the auto-rickshaw that hit Judge Anand. The CBI had re-registered the case and filed the charge sheet in October 2021. CBI had registered a case on August 4, 2021 in the matter of the murder of Uttam Anand, Additional District Judge, Dhanbad on the request of Jharkhand Government and on further Notification from Government of India. 

Jharkhand High Court had directed the CBI to take over the probe into the death case of Dhanbad district judget. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad gave this direction after accepting the recommendation made by the Jharkhand Government in August 2021.

Prior to that a case was registered by State police on a complaint from wife of deceased vide FIR No.300/2021 dated July 28, 2021 at Police Station Dhanbad under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC against an unknown auto driver. Two persons were arrested by local police. Supreme Court of India had taken suo-motu cognizance in the matter. It had passed directions for regular monitoring of the case by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. After taking over the investigation of the said case, CBI constituted a Special Investigation Team. After thorough investigation, covering all the possible aspects, CBI filed a chargesheet on October 20, 2021 against these two accused before the Court at Dhanbad.  As many as 58 prosecution witnesses were examined.  The trial was completed in a record time of almost six months. The entire investigation and trial was completed within one year from the incident. The Trial Court had found both the accused guilty and convicted them on July 28, 2022.

The sessions court of Dhanbad had framed charges on February 2, 2022. Dhanbad's Additional District and Sessions Judge-8 convicted both of offences under sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and under 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court pronounced the quantum of the sentence on August 6, 2022. A fine of Rs 30,000 was also imposed on both convicts.

The CBI had issued a statement when the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) sentenced Lakhan Kumar Verma and Rahul Kumar Verma on August 6, 2022. Both have to undergo Life Imprisonment for remainder of Natural Life without any remission  in a case related to murder of Uttam Anand, then Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad.