Anticipatory Bail – Criminal History – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of collecting money on behalf of jail officials through illegal means – State opposed bail citing petitioner’s prior criminal history, including a case under Section 302 IPC – Court observed that despite the availability of evidence, the petitioner had not been arrested earlier, suggesting a lack of intent by the police to arrest – Similarly placed co-accused already granted bail – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-6].

Role of Criminal History in Bail Decisions – Court emphasized the importance of a reasoned approach in considering criminal history – Distinguished between cases resulting in conviction and those pending or acquitted – Stressed the need for a balanced judgment between individual liberty and public safety [Paras 7-10].

Conditions for Bail – Court imposed stringent conditions to ensure petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses – Petitioner required to furnish a personal bond and surety, or provide a fixed deposit in favor of the Chief Judicial Magistrate [Paras 11-18].

Final Opportunity for Reformation – Court noted that the petitioner was given a final opportunity to correct his behavior, warning that future offenses would impact the assessment in subsequent bail applications [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Bail granted under strict conditions with a warning of severe consequences for any future criminal behavior.

Criminal Procedure – Testimony of Accused – Petition under Section 315 Cr.P.C. seeking permission for the accused to testify as a witness and present electronic evidence in defense – Trial court dismissed the petitions on grounds of irrelevance and non-production of evidence prior to the accused’s testimony – High Court held that denying the accused the opportunity to present defense evidence merely due to procedural timings is contrary to law – Importance of not prejudging the facts emphasized – Orders set aside [Paras 1-10].

Electronic Evidence – Relevance and Admissibility – Accused sought to introduce electronic evidence (WhatsApp screenshots, call recordings, etc.) to support his defense – Trial court rejected on grounds of irrelevance to the issue of consent in child abuse cases under POCSO – High Court ruled that such evidence should not be precluded and must be considered in the context of defense evidence [Paras 7-9].

Defense Rights – Presumption of Innocence – High Court emphasized the necessity for the trial courts to allow the accused to fully exercise his right to present evidence in his defense, particularly under laws with reverse onus clauses, like POCSO – Miscarriage of justice found due to the lower court’s approach [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Held – Trial court’s order dated 27.05.2024 dismissing the petitions under Crl.M.P.Nos.910, 911, and 912 of 2023 is set aside – Accused permitted to testify and present electronic evidence – Directions to expedite defense evidence [Para 10].

Acquisition of Land – Public Interest and Compensation – Notification under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act issued for laying a petroleum pipeline. Landowners’ objections raised regarding the use of horticultural land and public interest considerations. Competent Authority failed to address objections adequately. High Court directed a reassessment of objections and compensation based on current market value [Paras 1-18].

Procedure for Objections – Necessity of Objective Consideration – Competent Authority’s duty to consider objections objectively and pass reasoned orders. Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. High Court emphasized the importance of transparency and adherence to statutory requirements in land acquisition processes [Paras 12-14].

Judicial Review and Equitable Relief – High Court acknowledged the national importance of the pipeline project but balanced it with the rights of landowners. Directed prompt reconsideration of objections by the Competent Authority while ensuring project continuation without significant delays [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Writ appeal allowed. Judgment and order dated 09.05.2024, modified to direct the Competent Authority to reconsider objections and pass speaking orders promptly. Appellants entitled to compensation based on current market value of the land. No order as to costs [Paras 18-19].

Income Tax – Charitable Purpose – Educational Activities – Assessee, NIIT Foundation, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and granted registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, engaged in educational and skill development activities for underprivileged youth – Revenue challenged tax-exempt status, claiming activities were commercial – Tribunal set aside CIT€’s order under Section 263 – Delhi High Court upheld Tribunal’s decision – Emphasized systematic instruction and training as “education” under Section 2(15) – Activities aligned with the charitable purpose of education – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Application of Section 263 – Scope and Validity – High Court found that CIT€ exceeded jurisdiction under Section 263 – Original assessment order by AO after thorough scrutiny justified – CIT€’s conclusion of activities being commercial based on TDS and service tax deductions was flawed – Revenue’s failure to demonstrate any specific error or prejudice in AO’s assessment [Paras 21-35].

Procedural Compliance – Enquiry and Verification – AO had conducted detailed verification of NIIT Foundation’s activities, compliance with regulatory requirements, and documentation of charitable educational programs – High Court emphasized importance of procedural fairness and adequate enquiry by CIT€ under Section 263 [Paras 36-48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s order upheld – NIIT Foundation’s activities recognized as charitable educational activities under Section 2(15) – Directions for Revenue to grant exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act [Para 49].
 

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Appellants challenged the rejection of their applications for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – Contention that the Additional Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to grant extension for filing charge-sheet – High Court dismissed appeals, holding that the Order dated 2^nd September 2018, which extended time for filing charge-sheet, was upheld by the Supreme Court, rendering the applications for default bail infructuous – Emphasized that judicial impropriety would result from re-evaluating the Supreme Court’s decision [Paras 1-21].

Jurisdiction – Competence of Additional Sessions Judge – Examined the competence of the Additional Sessions Judge in granting extensions and handling remand – Held that with the restoration of the Order dated 2^nd September 2018 by the Supreme Court, the applications for default bail became infructuous [Paras 1-21].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Validity of the Order dated 2^nd September 2018 upheld by the Supreme Court – Appellants not entitled to default bail – Applications at Exhibits 48 and 49 declared infructuous [Para 21].

Octroi Duty – Valuation Methodology – Petitioner challenges the levy of octroi based on MRP less ad hoc deductions as per Rule 2(7)(b) of Octroi Rules, 1965 – Argument that determination should be based on invoice value under Rule 2(7)(a) – Court finds Petitioner's protest against levy from 2001 and subsequent Small Causes Court appeals favoring Petitioner’s contentions – However, Petitioner's failure to protest from 1995 to 2001 without any reservation weakens the claim for retrospective relief – Relief sought for refund considered unjust enrichment due to burden likely passed to consumers – Petition dismissed but leaves open issues of law for future determinations [Paras 1-42].

Unjust Enrichment – Equity Considerations – Constitutional Bench precedents cited against refund of taxes or duties passed on to consumers – Principle applied to deny refund to Petitioner despite possible misapplication of valuation rules – Court emphasizes that equity prevents recovery of such refunds when it leads to unjust enrichment of the claimant [Paras 32-39].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Issues of law regarding valuation under clauses (a) or (b) of Rule 2(7) kept open for case-by-case determination – Interim relief vacated due to GST subsumption of octroi – No order as to costs [Paras 40-42].

Revenue Law – Mutation and Partition – Petitioner challenged the orders directing Patwari to propose partition and restore status quo ante regarding mutation – High Court quashed orders of Tahsildar and Additional Collector, Narmadapuram for exceeding jurisdiction and acting contrary to a compromise decree – Directed reopening of original mutation file and proper adjudication per High Court’s directions [Paras 1-33].

Judicial Conduct – Extraneous Considerations – Allegations against revenue officers of acting on extraneous considerations – High Court found prima facie evidence of misconduct – Ordered disciplinary actions and training for the officers involved [Paras 34-38, 54-55].

Administrative Law – Direct Communication with Court – Criticism of Collector, Narmadapuram for writing a letter directly to the Court seeking exemption from appearance – High Court condemned act and directed Chief Secretary to take appropriate action [Paras 39-47].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Orders by Tahsildar and Additional Collector set aside – Directed reopening of original mutation case for fresh decision per court’s guidelines.

Disciplinary actions ordered against revenue officers for misconduct.

Collector, Narmadapuram reprimanded for inappropriate direct communication with Court.

Costs of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on respondents No.1 to 4.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Petition for quashing FIR on grounds of false implication and counterblast to another FIR lodged by the petitioners – Petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated to counter FIR No. 60 lodged by them – Held, allegations in FIR prima facie constituted offenses under IPC – High Court emphasized that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be sparing and only to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice [Paras 1-22].

Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Scope and limitations – High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial to assess the truthfulness of allegations – FIR cannot be quashed solely based on petitioners’ claim of false implication – FIR and investigation disclosed prima facie commission of cognizable offenses – Petition dismissed [Paras 12-20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR No. 61 of 2020 and related proceedings upheld – High Court directs petitioners to seek remedy through trial process – Observations made during disposal of the petition to not affect the merits of the case.
 

Service Law – Regularization and Seniority – Petitioners’ initial appointments on a contractual basis – Claimed regularization from the date of initial appointment and counting of contract service period towards seniority – High Court held that initial appointments were valid, and petitioners were entitled to have their contract service counted towards seniority and other benefits – Orders rejecting such claims were quashed [Paras 1-50].

Recruitment Rules – Statutory Interpretation – 1997 Rules did not bar contract appointments and did not specify the Public Service Commission as the recruiting agency – Regularization under 2004 Rules valid – Petitioners’ continuous service entitled them to seniority from initial appointments [Paras 27-38].

Doctrine of Acquiescence – State’s regularization of petitioners under 2004 Rules deemed acceptance of valid initial appointments – Petitioners not estopped from claiming seniority and other service benefits [Para 34].

Necessary Parties – Non-joinder – Petition maintained despite non-joinder of all affected parties – Private respondents adequately represented interests of others in the cadre – Procedural objections overruled [Paras 41-45].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Directed to consider contract service period for seniority and related benefits – Arrears to be paid within eight weeks [Paras 49-50].