Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) – Petitioner challenges the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing by the lower courts – Petitioner alleged to have borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the complainant and issued three cheques which were dishonored – Trial court convicted the petitioner, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment – Petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the lower courts' orders. [Paras 1-26]

Validity of Conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Analysis – Complainant proved the issuance of the cheques and their dishonor – Petitioner's defense was inconsistent and failed to disprove the allegations – Accused's contentions regarding loss of cheques lacked credibility – Accused's attempt to introduce new grounds in the revision petition not tenable – Accused's reliance on case law deemed inapplicable to the present case – Accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act. [Paras 10-17]

Consideration of Additional Grounds – Income Tax Act Violation – Accused's argument regarding the violation of the Income Tax Act by the complainant not tenable – Violation of Income Tax Act not a ground for acquitting the accused of the offense under N.I. Act – Accused's attempt to introduce new ground rejected. [Paras 20-22]

Sentence Imposed – Modification – Court finds the sentence of imprisonment for six months disproportionate considering the nature of the offense and circumstances of the case – Imposition of fine of Rs. 16,00,000/- considered justifiable – Sentence modified accordingly. [Paras 24-25]

Decision – Partial Allowance of Revision Petition – Conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act confirmed – Sentence of imprisonment set aside, and fine of Rs. 16,00,000/- imposed in default of payment – Forty-five days granted to deposit fine or undergo default sentence – Remaining operative portion of lower court's order confirmed. [Para 26]

Suspension of Conviction – Application under Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Applicant seeking suspension of order of conviction dated 06.10.2020 – Applicant convicted for offences under Sections 120B/409/420 of IPC and Section 13(1)©/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Applicant sentenced to undergo 3 years imprisonment – Grounds for suspension of conviction – Applicant intending to contest upcoming elections of Odisha Legislative Assembly, 2024 – Applicant aged 71 years with distinguished political career spanning over 35 years – Balance of convenience – Irreversible and irreparable loss if relief not granted – Applicant’s plea supported by legal precedents – Court empowered to suspend conviction if failure to do so leads to injustice or irreversible consequences – Examination of peculiarity of facts and circumstances – Irreversible damage criteria – Applicant’s conviction if not suspended would lead to irreversible consequence – Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 2 SCC 187 considered – Suspension of conviction granted during pendency of appeal – Application disposed of accordingly – Order not tantamount to acquittal but suspension of conviction in peculiar circumstances including applicant’s long political career and age – Each case to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances and background.

Decision: The application seeking suspension – allowed - conviction stayed during the pendency of  appeal - not amount to acquittal .

Interest on Compensation – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Examination of taxability of interest earned on compensation or enhanced compensation ordered under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Question of whether such interest falls under Income Tax Act, 1961 provisions [Paras 1, 18].

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Decision – Reversed by High Court – ITAT deleted addition made by Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(viii) for AY 2016-17 – High Court finds ITAT decision unsustainable, set aside ITAT order, affirmed AO and CIT(A) findings [Paras 2, 11, 30-31].

Assessing Officer’s (AO) Action – Taxation of Interest – AO treated interest as income chargeable to tax under Section 56(2)(viii), allowing statutory deduction of 50% under Section 57(iv) – High Court finds AO’s action aligned with law post-amendment [Paras 9, 29].

Relevance of Supreme Court Decisions – ITAT’s reliance on Ghanshyam (HUF) [(2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC)] found incorrect – Decision precedes critical 2010 amendment affecting taxability of interest on compensation [Paras 11, 30].

Legislative Amendment Impact – Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 – Amendment introduced Section 56(2)(viii) effective from 01.04.2010 – Changed landscape of taxability of interest on compensation, making it taxable under “income from other sources” [Paras 22, 29].

Decision: High Court reverses ITAT decision, upholds AO and CIT(A) findings – Interest on compensation post Land Acquisition is taxable under Income Tax Act, 1961, post 2010 amendment – ITAT’s reliance on pre-amendment Supreme Court decisions found incorrect – Appeal allowed. [Paras 30-31].

Right to Education Act – Admission of EWS/DG Students – Interpretation and Application – Petitioners, EWS/DG category children, sought admission to pre-primary and nursery classes in private unaided school – School sought reduction in EWS/DG seats citing inability to fill general category seats – Delhi High Court held that school bound to admit petitioners based on computerized draw of lots, having failed to challenge DOE’s seat allocation within stipulated time – Emphasized importance of DOE’s role in ensuring educational equity and complying with RTE Act provisions. [Paras 1-43]

Autonomy of Unaided Schools vs. Educational Rights of EWS/DG Children – Balancing Rights – Court recognized competing interests between autonomy of unaided schools and educational rights of EWS/DG children under RTE Act – Held that schools must adhere to DOE’s directives regarding admission of EWS/DG students unless specific exemption is granted – Stressed on the schools’ obligation to comply with RTE Act and DOE’s guidelines, reaffirming the commitment to educational access for all. [Paras 29.1-29.9, 31.1-31.3]

Doctrine of Carrying Forward Unfilled EWS/DG Seats – Application – Affirmed the doctrine allowing carry forward of unfilled EWS/DG seats to subsequent academic years – Applied principle in current cases, mandating respondent school to admit EWS/DG students as per DOE’s allocation – Underlined the role of DOE in ensuring adherence to RTE Act’s mandate and equitable education opportunities. [Paras 37.1-37.3]

Decision – Admission of EWS/DG Students Regularized – Court directed the respondent school to regularize the admission of petitioners as per DOE’s allocation under RTE Act – Held school accountable for complying with statutory and regulatory provisions in education, ensuring equitable access to quality education for EWS/DG children. [Paras 32-34, 38-41]

Bail Application – Murder Case – Consideration of Regular Bail – Petitioner charged under Section 302 IPC – Allegation of petitioner causing death of his infant child – Complainant, wife of the petitioner, turns hostile – Landlord, another prosecution witness, also turns hostile – Prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Prosecution's failure to discharge burden – Bail granted – Conditions imposed for petitioner's release. [Paras 1-27]

Burden of Proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Prosecution's failure to discharge burden – Effect on Bail Application – Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve prosecution of its burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Burden shifts to accused only after prosecution establishes guilt – Prosecution witnesses turning hostile weakens prosecution case – Court inclined to grant bail due to lack of evidence against petitioner – Trial court to assess evidentiary value of witnesses' testimonies during trial – Bail granted to petitioner. [Paras 14-18]

Anticipatory Bail Application – Allegation of sexual assault on a minor – Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Prosecution alleges offenses under Sections 363, 370(4), 376(1) of IPC and Section 4 read with Section 3 of the POCSO Act – Allegation is that petitioner sexually assaulted a minor girl, promising marriage – Petitioner contends innocence, stating he believed the victim was of legal age and deviated from marriage upon discovering her actual age – Allegation of extortion by a third party also raised – Court considers opposing arguments, including timing of complaint and events surrounding the marriage proposal – Emphasizes the need for effective investigation to ascertain truth – Grants anticipatory bail, directing petitioner to cooperate with investigation and appear for interrogation and medical test – Bail granted on conditions including bond and prohibition from contacting the victim or interfering with witnesses.

Petitioners Challenge to Trial Court Order – Dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling petitioner as witness in complaints under Section 138 NI Act – Petitioner sought to introduce previous court pleadings and documents related to the accused – Application dismissed by Trial Court [Paras 1, 12-13, 31].

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the Trial Court’s order dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the petitioner as a witness – Complaints filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Allegation of seeking to place on record documents from earlier petitions filed by respondents under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Earlier application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. withdrawn by petitioner – Delay in filing present application – Exercise of discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Scope of the provision – Principles governing recall of witnesses – Essentiality of evidence to the just decision of the case – Discretionary power to be exercised judicially – Dismissal of application for lack of justification for delay and no change in circumstances – Right of accused to expeditious conclusion of trial – Proceedings in complaint cases under Section 138 of NI Act to be conducted as summary trial – Nature of offence under Section 138 of NI Act – Application dismissed. [Paras 1-38]

Decision – Petitions dismissed for lack of merit, with no interference in the Trial Court’s order – Right to use certified copy of court’s previous order acknowledged [Paras 36-38].

Taxation Law - Jurisdiction and Authority of Central Excise Officers – Service Tax Assessment - The High Court of Kerala, in W.P.(C) Nos. 30147/2022 and 3611/2024, examined the issue of jurisdiction and authority of officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence to issue show cause notices under Section 73 of the Finance Act 1994. The petitioner contended that the notices issued were without jurisdiction as they were not from the Central Excise Officer under whose jurisdiction the petitioner falls. The court held that officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence are duly empowered to issue such notices, as per Notifications and Circulars under the Finance Act, thus rejecting the petitioner’s contention of jurisdictional error. [Paras 28-28.8]

Scope of Writ against Show Cause Notices – Service Tax - The court considered the maintainability of a writ petition against show cause notices concerning service tax under the Finance Act. It was held that writ jurisdiction should not interfere with the show cause notice unless it is without jurisdiction, violates the law, or the vires of an Act is challenged. In the present cases, the court found no such infirmities in the show cause notices and emphasized that the matters, which are at an initial inquiry stage, should be allowed to proceed. The petitions challenging the show cause notices were therefore dismissed. [Paras 29-31]

Writ Petition Dismissal – Show Cause Notices by Directorate General of GST Intelligence - The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petitions filed by Asianet Digital Network Private Ltd. The petitions, challenging the show cause notices issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence for alleged service tax discrepancies, were found to be premature. The court emphasized that the petitioner should pursue the remedies provided under the Finance Act before approaching the High Court. [Para 31]

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Criminal Complaint No.67 of 2014 for alleged misbranding under the Insecticides Act – Involvement of M/s Syngenta India Ltd. As the marketing company, not the manufacturer – [Para 1].

Facts of the Case – Inspection of Paramjit Kaur’s premises (sole proprietor of M/s Jagjit Singh & Sons) – Discovery of misbranded Clodinofop-Propargyl 15% WP – Analysis report deeming it misbranded due to lower active ingredient percentage than labeled – [Paras 2].

Petitioner’s Contention – Liability rests with the manufacturer, not the marketing company – Citing Section 30 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and prior similar judgments – Reference to already quashed proceedings against the dealer and manufacturer – [Para 3].

State’s Response – Acknowledgment of factual position but insistence on liability for all accused – [Para 4].

Legal Analysis – Examination of Section 30 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 – Director/responsible persons for misbranding of insecticide – Samples taken from sealed packings – Petitioners not responsible for manufacturing or quality control – Liability, if any, lies with the manufacturer – Proceedings against dealer and one of the Directors/responsible persons of the manufacturing company already quashed [Paras 5-7].

Conclusion and Decision – Petitioners, as marketing company and its directors, not responsible for manufacturing or quality control – Quashing of Criminal Complaint No.67 of 2014 and subsequent proceedings – [Paras 8-9].