Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, rejection of application U/S 311 of CRPC of Prosecution by Session Judge can be said to be legal and correct?

The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that in view of the provisions of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Chemical Analyser’s reports are admissible in evidence and can be read in evidence without formal examination of the Chemical Analyser. The reports being documents issued by a public servant in discharge of official duties carry a statutory presumption with regard to their authenticity. Therefore, there was no absolute necessity for the prosecution to examine the Chemical Analyser merely for proving the contents of the reports already exhibited on record.{Para 8}

9. The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the stage of the trial and the fact that the prosecution evidence had already been closed. The matter was thereafter fixed for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that no sufficient ground was made out for exercising powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. In my considered opinion, no error, illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the application preferred by the prosecution. The petitioner-State has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 569 OF 2026

The State Of Maharashtra Vs  Gokul Gotiram Jadhav

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATED : 28.04.2026

PER COURT :

Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:21268

Print Page

Calcutta HC: Mere Complaint Through MHA Cybercrime Portal Cannot Justify Freezing Of Bank Accounts

The bank has freezed the accounts of the petitioners on the instruction received through the portal. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for the Union of India, he has not received any instruction from the Union of India. In the case of Kartick Yogeshwar Chatur (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court relying upon the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Headstar Global Private Limited (supra) held that a police officer investigating a crime has to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 107 of BNSS to seek attachment of any property believed to be derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity or the commission of an offence. Subsequently, Courts will have to be adopted in terms of the order passed by the Magistrate. Support further clarified that while Section 106 speaks of seizure, Section 107 deals with attachment, forfeiture and restoration. Seizure under Section 106 can be carried out by a police officer and an ex post facto report submitted to the Magistrate. On the other hand, attachment under Section 107 can be effected only upon the orders of the Magistrate. The logic behind the distinction being that the purpose of seizure is more to secure the evidence during an investigation, whereas attachment is intended to secure the proceeds of crime by preventing its disposal and thus ensuring its availability for legal procedure such as forfeiture and distribution to the victim. Thus the judgment makes it clear that freezing account is not permissible under Section 106 of BNSS. {Para 7}

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

WPA 8453 of 2025

Xenixt Technologies Private Limited & Ors. Vs  Reserve Bank of India & Ors.

Dated: 06.05.2026.

Print Page

Bombay HC: What would be effect of lawful revocation of the original gift deed under Senior Citizen Act?

Insofar as the Petitioner’s contention that he has subsequently

transferred the subject property in favour of his wife is concerned, it

is evident that any such transfer is purely derivative of the petitioner’s title. Upon lawful revocation of the original gift deed under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the very basis of the petitioner’s title stands divested, and consequently, any transfer effected by him would not, prima facie, create an indefeasible or superior right in favour of the transferee. At the same time, since the petitioner’s wife is not a party to the present proceedings, this Court refrains from rendering any conclusive adjudication upon her rights, if any, and leaves it open for her to avail such remedies as may be permissible in law. {Para 26}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12120 OF 2025

Shri. Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre, Vs  Smt. Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre,

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 6th MAY 2026.

Citation: 2026:BHC-KOL:3563

Print Page

Repair Permissions From BMC Do Not Prove Legality Of Structure: Bombay High Court Refuses Relief Against Demolition

 In our view, the repair permissions granted by the BMC, would not by itself, conclusively prove that a structure existed prior to the datum line. Any permission/s granted by the BMC either for alteration or modification a structure, though it may carry a presumption regarding the existence of such structure, cannot conclusively establish that the structure existed prior to the datum line unless the same is independently substantiated by supporting documents. In our view, such a permission granted would only show the abysmal state of BMC affairs. The BMC could not have granted any such permission without ascertaining the legality of the said structure. {Para 16}

17) In our considered view, the concerned Officers who gave such permissions are responsible and the cause of these rampant illegalities in the State. It is imperative for the Officers of the BMC to check as to whether the structure is authorized before granting any such repair permission. The failure per se cannot inure to the benefit of the wrongdoer. A permission to repair a structure, given subsequent to the datum line, cannot prove either its existence prior to datum line or it being authorised. In our view, granting reliefs to the Petitioners would only encourage the public perception that one can construct illegally and regularise the same by obtaining such permissions subsequently. It would render the entire object of the legislature to have a planned development and having the Municipal Act nugatory and otiose resulting in illegalities being confirmed and ratified by subsequent repair permissions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.3448 OF 2023

 Siesta Industrial & Trading Corporation,  V/s. The Municipal Corporation of  Greater Mumbai, 

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 29th April, 2026.

Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-

Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:11078-DB

Print Page