Writ Law - Habeas Corpus - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Maintainability of writ petition for an absconding accused - Petitioner mother filed a habeas corpus writ petition alleging that her son was in the illegal detention of his wife and her relatives - State opposed the petition submitting that a matrimonial dispute existed and the wife had lodged an FIR against the corpus and his relatives for dowry demand mental and physical harassment and sexual assault - Investigating Officer had concluded the investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner and the corpus while obtaining non bailable warrants against the absconding corpus - High Court observed that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when the detenu is not in illegal detention but is absconding to evade arrest in criminal proceedings - Held - no ground made out for entertaining the habeas corpus writ petition as the corpus is accused of committing offences and is deliberately evading the process of law - petition dismissed - [Paras 1 to 11].

Writ Law - Habeas Corpus - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Precedents on illegal detention - Scope and limitations - A writ of habeas corpus can only be issued when the detention or confinement of a person is without the authority of law - The applicant must show a prima facie case of unlawful detention as a sine qua non - When an accused is charge sheeted or absconding from the process of law in connection with a registered crime the remedy of habeas corpus is not meant for such purpose and amounts to an abuse of the process of law - Held - corpus is an accused evading arrest and cannot be considered illegally detained by the private respondents - [Paras 4 to 10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed.

Criminal Law - Sexual Offences Against Children - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 6 - Appeal against conviction and sentence of twenty years rigorous imprisonment - Appellant aged about eighty years accused of luring a four year old child and committing penetrative sexual assault - Trial court convicted appellant relying on child victim testimony and discarding defence of alibi - High Court noted five day unexplained and inconsistently explained delay in lodging FIR - Initial FIR lacked any allegation of penetrative assault and invoked only lesser offences - Material contradictions found in informant testimony regarding time of incident and presence during recording of victim statement - Section 164 CrPC statement of victim contained discrepancies regarding identity of accused and time of occurrence - Description of the alleged act remained unclarified and uncorroborated by medical and forensic evidence - Defence produced cogent documentary and oral evidence proving appellant was undergoing eye treatment at a hospital one hundred and fifty kilometers away - Prosecution failed to rebut defence of alibi - Held - Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction and sentence set aside - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-29].

Evidence Law - Defence of Alibi - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 313 - Standard of proof for defence evidence - Appellant claimed presence at an eye hospital in Chitrakoot during the alleged incident - Defence examined village head and produced hospital out patient registration records - Prosecution led no evidence in rebuttal - Trial court ignored documentary evidence of defence - Held - Defence evidence cannot be viewed with suspicion or treated as inherently inferior - Cogent and reliable defence evidence must be weighed on same footing as prosecution evidence - Unrebutted alibi renders prosecution version doubtful - [Paras 7-20].

Evidence Law - Child Witness - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 164 - Reliability and tutoring - Victim examined at age four and later at age six - Mother remained in constant company raising real possibility of tutoring - Victim could not clarify the exact nature of the act - Contradictions present between Section 164 CrPC statement and oral testimony regarding identity of assailant - Held - Testimony of a minor victim must be of sterling quality to sustain a grave conviction - Sympathy for child victim cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt - Benefit of unresolved contradictions must enure to the accused - [Paras 17-23].

Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 154 - Evidentiary value - Delay of five days in lodging FIR - Explanations offered by prosecution were internally inconsistent - Original FIR lacked penetrative assault allegations which were added later during investigation - Held - Delay not satisfactorily explained and materially affects the truthfulness of the prosecution version - [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court set aside - Appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith - Fine if deposited to be refunded.

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 - Section 14A - Maintainability of quashing petition - Petitioner filed petition under Section 482 CrPC corresponding to Section 528 BNSS to quash FIR and the Trial Court order framing charges against him for offences under IPC IT Act and SC/ST Act - FIR was lodged by Chairperson of Womens Commission Tripura an ST woman alleging sexually coloured and derogatory remarks made by the petitioner on social media - State raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability citing the availability of statutory appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act - Petitioner contended that no prima facie case was made out under the special statute and inherent powers must be invoked to prevent abuse of process - High Court observed that the order framing charge is an intermediate order and not an interlocutory order - Thus an appeal clearly lies under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act against such an order - High Court held that when a specific statutory remedy of appeal is provided the petitioner cannot bypass it to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC - The petition was dismissed as not maintainable - Held - Section 482 CrPC petition is barred when an alternative remedy under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act is available - petition dismissed - [Paras 8-11].

Criminal Law - Intermediate Order - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 - Section 14A - Appeal against framing of charge - The Trial Court framed charges against the accused which is not an interlocutory order rather it is an intermediate order - The High Court noted that Section 14A provides that an appeal shall lie from any judgment sentence or order not being an interlocutory order of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law - Since there is an appropriate statutory provision for seeking redress by filing an appeal under Section 14A the present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable in law - Held - The appropriate remedy for the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances is an appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act and not a quashing petition - [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Petitioner granted liberty to move an appropriate application in accordance with law including challenging the order of framing of charge.

Writ Law - Intellectual Property Rights - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 25 - Notice of expiration of trademark - Petitioners challenged the likely removal of their trademark due to non-renewal - The original proprietor assigned the mark to the second petitioner over five years after the registration expired - Petitioners contended that the mandatory notice prior to removal was never served - Registrar produced outward dispatch records establishing that the notice was sent via speed post to the registered agent on the prescribed date - High Court examined the statutory scheme balancing the duty of the Registrar to notify against the obligation of the proprietor to maintain registration - Held - Proof of dispatch to the correct address triggers a statutory presumption of service - The inability to retrieve online postal tracking details after six years does not rebut the presumption of valid service - The respondent fulfilled its statutory obligations - Writ Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-18].

Writ Law - Service of Notice - Trade Marks Rules 2017 - Rules 18 and 58 - Presumption of service - The rules mandate only the sending of the notice to the address for service - Rule 18 explicitly provides that a letter properly addressed and put into post is sufficient to prove service - Read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897 a rebuttable presumption of service arises upon proper dispatch - Petitioners failed to produce cogent evidence to displace this presumption - The outward dispatch register confirmed the sending of notices to the same agent for multiple clients who successfully renewed their marks - Held - The failure to find tracking details online is not attributable to the Registrar and does not vitiate the service of notice - [Paras 9-17].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Review Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 - Scope of review power - Petitioners working as Cooks claimed financial upgradation under the ACP and MACP Schemes to the pay scale of Bosun - Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the application finding that the post of Bosun was not in the promotional hierarchy and the petitioners lacked required educational qualifications - High Court originally affirmed the rejection relying on precedent that educational qualification is a prerequisite for financial upgradation - Petitioners filed review petition relying on a subsequent Apex Court judgment holding that educational qualification for promotional post is not required for ACP benefits - High Court observed that the said Apex Court judgment was not placed before it during the original hearing and petitioners are seeking a rehearing of the entire lis - Review power can be exercised only for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view or as an appeal in disguise - Subsequent judgment not cited during hearing cannot be a ground for review - Held - No justification for entertaining the review petition - Review petition dismissed - [Paras 1-10].

Decision: Review petition dismissed.

Civil Law - Compensation - Railways Act 1989 - Section 124A - Untoward incident - Claimants appealed against Railway Claims Tribunal order dismissing compensation claim for death of deceased who fell from running train - Tribunal held deceased was not a bona fide passenger due to two day gap between alleged date of incident and recovery of body alongside a mismatch of ticket class - High Court noted valid ticket was seized by police and copy placed on record - High Court observed that railway compensation is a welfare legislation requiring liberal and purposive interpretation - Initial burden shifts to railways once affidavit is filed by claimants - Railways failed to prove suicide or self inflicted injury - DRM report and post mortem confirmed deceased fell under train - High Court held technical lapses in procedure or mere delay in finding body are insufficient to reject plea of bona fide passenger - Held - Claimants successfully established deceased was bona fide passenger - Impugned Tribunal order quashed - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Railways Act 1989 - Section 124A - Bona fide passenger - Initial burden on claimants discharged by filing affidavit and producing copy of ticket seized during police investigation - Burden shifted to railway administration to disprove bona fide passenger status - Railway administration failed to lead evidence of suicide or criminal act to bring case within exceptions - Held - Preponderance of probabilities governs standard of proof in compensation claims - Burden rests on railways to disprove bona fide passenger status which it failed to discharge - [Paras 9-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in OA No.0600003 is quashed and set aside – Claim petition allowed – Claimants entitled to receive claim of Rs 4 lakh with 9 percent interest from the date of filing till realization or a flat Rs 8 lakh whichever is higher – Registry directed to return the records forthwith.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Maintainability of application by proclaimed absconder - Applicants accused of dishonestly misappropriating twenty eight crore rupees from bank accounts and transferring funds to multiple beneficiaries including their own accounts - Applicants left India for United Arab Emirates avoiding investigation and failed to appear before Trial Court despite issuance of non-bailable warrants - Investigating Officer initiated proceedings and applicants were declared proclaimed absconders - Present application filed through sister of principal accused seeking quashing of charge sheet and summoning order - Opposite party raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of petition by absconders - High Court observed that applicants deliberately flouted the process of law and evaded arrest knowing about the first information report - Accused declared as proclaimed offender cannot seek leave for quashing of proceedings without surrendering - Court will not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of individuals intentionally evading legal process - Held - Application filed by proclaimed absconders is not maintainable - Application dismissed - [Paras 29-37].

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Scope of interference at pre-trial stage - Applicants contended that no offence is made out and dispute involves factual controversies regarding authority to operate bank accounts - High Court noted that allegations in the first information report prima facie constitute a cognizable offence supported by independent witnesses and documentary evidence of money transfers - Court cannot conduct a mini trial or appreciate evidence at the stage of quashing - Probable defence of the accused cannot be examined to stifle prosecution - Disputed questions of fact regarding the transfer of public money must be examined during the trial - Held - No exceptional case made out to quash proceedings at the threshold - [Paras 38-43].

Decision: Application dismissed – Prayer for quashing of entire proceeding, charge sheet and cognizance order is refused.

Criminal Law - Framing of Charge - Essential Commodities Act 1955 - Section 7 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 239 - Discharge without reasons - Petitioner proprietor trading in raw jute was booked under Essential Commodities Act and Indian Penal Code for storing excess jute without registration - Police submitted charge sheet under Sections 379 and 411 IPC along with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act - Magistrate framed charge only under Sections 379 and 411 IPC discharging the petitioner from the offence under the Essential Commodities Act via a cryptic order dated 01.03.2024 - High Court observed that Section 239 CrPC mandates recording of reasons for discharging an accused - Magistrate failed to disclose any discussion or satisfaction for such discharge rendering the order perverse and mechanical - Held - Impugned order set aside - Matter remanded to the court below for hearing the charge afresh and passing a reasoned order - [Paras 8-16].

Criminal Law - Discharge of Accused - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 239 - Requirement of reasoned order - Magistrate passed a cryptic order framing charges under IPC but implicitly discharging accused under the Essential Commodities Act without stating reasons - Word groundless in Section 239 postulates that no reasonable person can come to the conclusion that there is any ground whatsoever to sustain the charge against the petitioner - Held - Magistrate is required to record reasons for discharging the accused if he forms the opinion that there is no ground for presuming the accused has committed the offence - Order passed mechanically without application of judicial mind suffers from perversity and impropriety - [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Impugned order dated 01.03.2024 set aside – Court below directed to hear the charge afresh within 30 days and pass a reasoned order in case of discharge without being influenced by the observations of the High Court.

Labour Law - Equal pay for equal work - Maharashtra Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules 1971 - Rule 25 - Liability of principal employer to pay equal wages to contract workers - Petitioner electricity distribution company engaged contract workers through agencies due to a state government ban on new recruitment - Respondent union raised a demand for equal wages which the Industrial Tribunal allowed directing payment of wages at the minimum of the pay scale of permanent employees along with arrears - Petitioner challenged the awards arguing lack of employer employee relationship and relying on Supreme Court precedents denying such relief to contract workers - High Court observed that the Tribunal correctly established similarity of work based on evidence - High Court held that Rule 25 imposes a statutory duty on the contractor to pay wages equal to regular employees of the principal employer if both perform the same kind of work - High Court held that under Section 21 of the Contract Labour Act the principal employer becomes liable if the contractor fails to pay - High Court distinguished contrary precedents as they dealt with regularization and did not consider the specific statutory mandate of the contract labour rules - Held - Awards upheld regarding entitlement to minimum pay scale but modified to restrict arrears only from the date of respective references to the Tribunal to avoid undue financial burden - Petitions partly allowed - [Paras 1-29].

Labour Law - Payment of arrears - Limitation - Modification of back wages period - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 - Section 21 - Industrial Tribunal granted arrears from the date of demand notice in 2016 - High Court noted that References to the Tribunal were made after considerable delay in 2018 and 2020 - High Court held that though payment of less salary is a continuous cause of action limitation applies to the relief of payment of arrears - Held - Directing payment of difference in wages from 2016 would put substantial financial burden on the petitioner - Arrears restricted from the date on which References were made to the Industrial Tribunal - [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Petitions partly allowed – Impugned awards upheld to the extent of declaration for payment of wages in the minimum of the pay scale of permanent employees – Direction for payment of arrears modified to be payable from the dates of respective References in 2018 and 2020.