Constitutional Law – Local Body Elections – Appeals Dismissed – Article 243-U – Mandate for Timely Municipal Elections - The appeals challenged the learned Single Judge's direction for notifying elections, citing the incomplete "triple test formalities" for OBC reservation - The Court highlighted the inviolability of the constitutional mandate under Article 243-U, stating that elections should be conducted even if the "triple test formalities" are not completed - Held: The failure to conduct elections undermines the democratic setup envisaged by the 74th Constitutional Amendment – The "triple test formalities" cannot obstruct the constitutional duty to hold elections, ensuring the elected bodies are installed promptly [Paras 39, 44, 45, 49].

Municipal Law – Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 – Sections 16(4), 16(8), and 20 - The State had appointed administrators after the expiry of the elected bodies' tenure, citing Section 16(8) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 - The Court noted that this was a temporary arrangement, emphasizing the need for elections to uphold the "government by the people" principle - Held: The appointment of administrators should not become a permanent solution, and elections must be conducted to ensure democratic governance at the local level [Paras 46, 47].

Judicial Precedents – "Triple Test Formalities" and Democratic Mandate - The State relied on K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) v. Union of India and Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra to argue for the necessity of "triple test formalities" - The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Suresh Mahajan v. State of M.P., which held that the absence of "triple test formalities" cannot justify delaying elections - Held: Non-compliance with the "triple test" cannot defer the constitutional mandate for elections, as it would defeat the purpose of the 74th Amendment [Paras 48, 50].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The State is directed to notify elections for Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Nagar Panchayats in Jharkhand immediately – The court upholds the learned Single Judge's direction to ensure the democratic process of elections is not hindered, reiterating the inviolability of the constitutional mandate for timely elections [Paras 51, 52].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Bail Granted – The appellant, Manik Bhattacharya, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for allegedly receiving Rs. 7,00,000 from 44 candidates – Charged under Section 3, read with Section 70, and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 – His bail applications were denied twice by the trial court – Upon appeal, the High Court considered his prolonged detention, health issues, and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Noting the delay in framing charges and the unlikelihood of a trial conclusion soon, the High Court granted bail with stringent conditions – [Paras 24-25, 27-28]

Investigation and Witness Testimony – The ED alleged the appellant's involvement in illegal appointments in primary education – Evidence included statements from co-accused Tapas Kumar Mondal, who stated that Rs. 3.25 crores were collected to secure appointments for 325 candidates – The appellant argued these statements did not directly implicate him, and the ED failed to establish a money trail to him – Furthermore, no money was recovered from his possession, and he challenged the authenticity and completeness of the evidence – [Paras 6, 14]

Grounds for Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – The High Court referred to the principles established by the Supreme Court concerning the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty – Considering the appellant's nearly two-year detention without trial and the vast amount of documentary evidence, the Court found that further detention would breach his fundamental rights – The improbability of a near-future trial conclusion indicated that prolonged pre-trial detention would equate to punishment without trial – [Paras 22, 23, 29, 30]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Bail Granted – The High Court granted bail, subject to stringent conditions: surrendering the passport, restricted movement without court permission, and no tampering with evidence or witness intimidation – The appellant was released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties – It was clarified that the observations in this judgment were solely for the bail application and would not influence the trial court's assessment of the case's merits – [Paras 31-34]

Constitutional Law – Citizenship – Cessation of Citizenship – The appellant was disqualified from the post of Mukhiya on the ground of having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Nepal, resulting in the cessation of his Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – The appellant contended that the State Election Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter, which should have been referred to the Central Government under the Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Held: The Election Commission does not have the authority to adjudicate on the cessation of citizenship; such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government – The decision of the Election Commission was set aside, and the matter was directed to be referred to the Central Government [Paras 11-13, 15].

Election Law – Disqualification – Jurisdiction of State Election Commission – The State Election Commission disqualified the appellant for alleged foreign citizenship – Held: As per the Full Bench decision in Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission, the State Election Commission can consider disqualification issues based on unimpeachable materials, provided it is not purely an election dispute – However, contentious issues, especially those concerning citizenship cessation, should be decided by a competent court or the Central Government, not the Election Commission [Paras 14-20].

Procedural Law – Referral to Central Government – The court directed the State Election Commission to refer the dispute to the Central Government to determine whether the appellant had acquired foreign citizenship voluntarily, which could lead to the cessation of Indian citizenship under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1955 [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The order of the State Election Commission and the judgment of the learned Single Judge were set aside – The State Election Commission was directed to refer the matter to the Central Government for determination – The appellant is entitled to continue in the post of Mukhiya until the Central Government's decision is made [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Conviction Upheld – Minor Victims – The appellant, a close relative of the complainant, was accused of sexually assaulting five minor girls aged 8 to 13 years over two years. The victims were residents of the same village as the appellant. The trial court convicted the appellant based on consistent and corroborative evidence from the survivors, an eyewitness (PW6), and medical reports. The High Court found no infirmity in the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Held: Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 1, 2, and concluding remarks].

Evidence – Medical Examination – Corroboration – The medical examination of the survivors indicated evidence of chronic and recent vaginal penetration, corroborating the testimonies of the victims. The appellant did not challenge the ages of the survivors, confirming they were minors at the relevant time. Held: Medical evidence corroborated the victims' accounts, substantiating the appellant's guilt [Paras 8].

Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) – Presumption Under Section 29 – Rebuttal – The appellant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The consistent testimonies of the victims and medical evidence sufficed to uphold the appellant's conviction. Held: The presumption under Section 29 was not rebutted, supporting the conviction [Concluding remarks].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence by the trial court upheld – The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 376(f) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and 2 years under Section 506 IPC. The appellant was directed to pay compensation to the survivors [Concluding remarks].

Real Estate – Redevelopment Permissions – CIRP Process and Developer's Rights – Whether redevelopment rights of a property fall under the moratorium of a developer undergoing CIRP – Held, the redevelopment rights do not form part of AA Estates' assets, as the Development Agreement was terminated. The Resolution Professional's letters to halt redevelopment permissions were illegal and not based on CIRP records. Petition allowed, granting redevelopment permissions – [Paras 20-45].

Housing Societies – Section 79A, MCSA – Society's Right to Appoint a New Developer – The Court upheld the society's right to appoint a new developer after the developer failed to perform its obligations. The previous developer’s failure to complete redevelopment does not inhibit the society's right to appoint a new developer – [Paras 30-35].

Decision: The Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), and (c), directing authorities to grant redevelopment permissions to the petitioner and recognize Tristar Development LLP as the new developer.

Criminal Law – Quashing -  Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – Whether the absence of a dead body (corpus delicti) nullifies the charges of dowry death – Held, the lack of recovery of a body does not invalidate the case, and sufficient circumstantial evidence, including the applicant's illicit relationship and the victim's harassment, supports a prima facie case – [Paras 40-70].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Charge-Sheet – Section 482 CrPC – Whether the charge sheet and summoning orders should be quashed due to lack of conclusive evidence of death – Held, the charge sheet cannot be quashed at this stage, as the evidence provided forms a prima facie case, and the applicants may raise their defenses during trial – [Paras 55-85].

Corpus Delicti – Necessity in Criminal Prosecutions – It is not essential to establish the recovery of the dead body in dowry death cases if there is strong circumstantial evidence pointing to the victim's death under unnatural circumstances – [Paras 75-80].

Decision: The application was rejected, and the court upheld the charge sheet, cognizance, and summoning orders. The applicants were directed to pursue their discharge applications before the trial court.

Criminal Law – Discharge - Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Whether sufficient prima facie evidence exists to proceed against the accused for abetment of suicide – Held, based on the viscera report indicating poisoning and evidence of the applicant's conduct before and after the death, there is more than a prima facie case to proceed under Section 306 IPC – [Paras 45-65].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Sections 227 and 239 CrPC – The applicant argued for discharge on the ground that the death was due to natural causes (heart attack) – Held, the evidence, including forensic reports, raises sufficient suspicion to justify trial, and the trial court was correct in rejecting the discharge application – [Paras 60-75].

Criminal Law – Alteration of Charges – Section 216 CrPC – Whether the charges should be altered from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC and Section 328 IPC – Held, the trial court has the liberty to alter the charges during the course of the trial if the material on record justifies it, but no alteration was ordered at this stage – [Paras 75-85].

Decision: The application for discharge (U/S 482 No. 6045 of 2020) was rejected, affirming the trial court's decision to proceed with the charges under Section 306 IPC. The application for challenging the framing of charges (U/S 482 No. 8645 of 2021) was also dismissed. The application to alter charges (U/S 482 No. 16035 of 2021) was disposed of, granting the trial court liberty to consider charge alteration if further material supports it.

Insolvency Proceedings – Effect of Resolution Plan on Statutory Dues – The petitioner company underwent insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and a resolution plan was approved by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench – The plan provided for payment of all dues of creditors, including state dues – The petitioner contended that the resolution plan extinguished all previous liabilities, including those under the AP VAT Act and GST Act – Held: The Supreme Court’s decision in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company held that once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished – The court ruled that the petitioner’s liability under the AP VAT Act and GST Act stood extinguished to the extent of its liability up to 04.09.2019 [Paras 6-12].

Binding Nature of NCLT Orders – Non-issuance of Notice to the State – The State argued that the NCLT’s order was not binding as no notice was issued to the State during the insolvency proceedings – Held: Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides a non-obstante clause overriding other laws – The court held that the NCLT’s order is binding on the State despite the lack of notice, and the remedy for the State was to seek setting aside of the order, not to contend its non-binding nature in subsequent proceedings [Paras 13-15].

Demand-cum-Adjudication Orders – Validity Post-Resolution Plan – The tax authorities issued demand-cum-adjudication orders for the period before and after the resolution plan’s approval – Held: The orders for the period prior to the resolution plan’s approval were set aside as they were covered by the plan – However, the period from 05.09.2019 to 31.03.2020 was not affected by the NCLT’s order, and the authorities were allowed to issue fresh notices to quantify taxes and dues for this period [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed in Part – The writ petitions were allowed to the extent that the demand-cum-adjudication orders dated 03.06.2023 and 25.11.2023 were set aside – The tax authorities were permitted to reassess and issue fresh notices for dues from 05.09.2019 to 31.03.2020 in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal Upheld – Eyewitness Testimonies – The prosecution’s case relied on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, PW 11 Sudip Mukhopadhyay and PW 12 Abdul Rashid, along with circumstantial evidence – PW 11 initially claimed to have seen the respondent firing the shots but contradicted himself during cross-examination, stating that he only saw the respondent being caught by others while attempting to cock his rifle – PW 12’s testimony conflicted with the site plan and contained discrepancies regarding the number of shots fired – Both testimonies lacked corroborative evidence, rendering them unreliable – Held: The trial court’s decision to acquit the respondent was upheld due to these inconsistencies and the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – [Paras 33-37, 40].

Evidence – Seizure of Weapon – Procedural Inconsistencies – The prosecution alleged that the respondent was apprehended with his service rifle used in the crime – Conflicting testimonies from witnesses regarding the seizure of the rifle and its condition raised doubts about the prosecution’s claims – Additionally, the investigation officer’s account did not align with the evidence presented, diminishing the significance of the seized weapon – Held: The inconsistencies in the seizure process weakened the prosecution’s case – [Paras 38, 39].

Delay in FIR Forwarding – Impact on Prosecution’s Case – The copy of the FIR was sent to the Magistrate two days after the occurrence, with no valid explanation for the delay – This delay undermined the transparency of the investigation and raised questions about the possibility of false implication – Held: The delay was detrimental to the prosecution’s case, as it questioned the authenticity of the investigation process – [Paras 42-44].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The High Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the trial court’s judgment acquitting the respondent – The evidence presented was insufficient to prove the respondent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – [Para 51].