Seized Vehicles – Return Pending Trial – Petitioner, the registered owner of the vehicle No. WB 32J-4623, challenged the rejection of his request for the vehicle’s return, seized for allegedly transporting commercial quantities of ganja – High Court examined precedents and legal provisions regarding interim custody of seized vehicles – Held that seized vehicles may be returned to registered owners under specific conditions to ensure availability during trial and prevent misuse [Paras 1-14].

Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. – Applicability to NDPS Cases – Cited Supreme Court and High Court judgments affirming that provisions under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. apply to cases under the NDPS Act – Conditions for interim return of vehicles include furnishing a bond, ensuring non-alteration of the vehicle, and presenting it as required during trial [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Impugned order dated 12.12.2022 by the Special Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur set aside – Directed return of vehicle to petitioner upon furnishing bond with surety of Rs. 8,00,000/- and conditions ensuring vehicle’s presentation during trial – Connected applications disposed of, and interim orders vacated [Paras 13-19].

Land Encroachment – Possession Certificate Cancellation – Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their possession certificates for house sites granted by the government and the threat of demolition by state authorities – State respondents argued the certificates were invalid due to a prior civil court decree favoring a third party – High Court ruled cancellation without a hearing violated principles of natural justice – Decree execution should be sought through proper legal channels by the third party [Paras 1-21].

Procedural Fairness – Principles of Natural Justice – Cancellation of possession certificates without prior notice or hearing to the affected parties deemed unlawful – High Court emphasized the necessity of following due process before taking adverse actions impacting civil rights [Paras 20-21].

Interim Orders – Continuation of Status Quo – Interim relief granted to maintain status quo on house sites pending final adjudication – Petitioners allowed to retain possession until lawful eviction or cancellation procedures are followed [Paras 6-7, 19].

Decision: W.P. No. 199 of 2018: Allowed – State respondents directed not to demolish petitioners’ houses on their patta lands without following due process.

W.P. No. 23333 of 2018: Allowed – Notice cancelling possession certificate quashed – State respondents may issue fresh notice after giving opportunity of hearing.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner who was accused of quid pro quo investments and receiving undue benefits from government projects – The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC and the need for trial to determine the factual disputes and criminal liability [Paras 1-60].

Criminal Conspiracy and Corruption – Allegations of bribery through investments in companies linked to a political figure – The petitioner allegedly invested Rs. 854.50 crores in companies owned by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, resulting in allotment of the Vanpic Project – Allegations also include fraudulent acquisition of lands and control over the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) created for the project [Paras 12-36].

Judicial Findings – The High Court reiterated the principles for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, stressing that the power should be used sparingly and in exceptional cases – The Court found a prima facie case against the petitioner warranting a trial – Contentions regarding the bona fides of investments, procedural errors in cognizance, and allegations of mala fide prosecution were rejected [Paras 44-57].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Court dismissed the petition to quash the proceedings, allowing the trial to proceed – Petitioner granted liberty to file a discharge petition before the trial court [Paras 59-60].

Income Tax Law – Hybrid System of Accounting – Methodology Adopted by the Company – Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong challenged the company’s use of the hybrid system of accounting, arguing it was in contravention of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Tribunal had quashed the revisionary proceedings under Section 263, considering them erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue – Tribunal’s decision upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-13].

Revision of Orders – Section 263 of the Income Tax Act – Powers of Principal Commissioner – Principal Commissioner set aside the original assessment and ordered reassessment – Tribunal found that conditions for invoking Section 263 were not satisfied as the original order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue [Para 10].

Real vs. Hypothetical Income – Application of Judicial Pronouncements – Company’s adoption of cash basis for interest on debtors upheld by the Tribunal – Supported by precedent from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that hypothetical income should not be taxed [Paras 6-7].

Consistency in Accounting Practice – Tribunal’s Rationale – Tribunal noted consistent judicial approval of the company’s method in previous assessment years – Judicial precedents highlighted the necessity of adhering to consistent practices in the absence of material changes [Paras 7-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s order upheld – No costs [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Acquittal Reversed – Trial court acquitted the respondent (father) of charges of sexual assault on his minor daughters, finding the evidence insufficient – High Court re-evaluates evidence, including statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and testimonies of victims consistent with sexual assault allegations – High Court concludes trial court's appreciation of evidence was flawed and perverse – Acquittal set aside; respondent convicted under Section 354A(1)(i) and Section 506 IPC – High Court highlights importance of considering consistent victim testimonies and the protective purpose of the POCSO Act [Paras 1-19].

Section 222(2) Cr.P.C. – Conviction for Minor Offence – Respondent acquitted of major offences under POCSO Act due to lack of evidence on victims' ages – Convicted under minor offences of IPC using Section 222(2) Cr.P.C. – Clarifies that absence of specific charge for a minor offence does not preclude conviction if the accused had notice of the allegations [Para 20].

Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – High Court addresses the issue of delay in lodging FIR, acknowledging societal and psychological factors that delay reporting in cases of sexual assault, especially involving minors – Delay deemed non-fatal to prosecution case [Paras 15, 16].

Legal Principles – Appeal Against Acquittal – High Court discusses principles guiding interference in acquittal – Emphasizes that acquittal can be overturned if appreciation of evidence is flawed or perverse – Reinforces that protection under POCSO Act necessitates careful consideration of minor victims' consistent testimonies [Paras 10-14].

Decision- Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 354A(1)(i) and Section 506 of IPC – Matter posted for hearing on sentence.

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Section 16(1)(e) – Subletting and Transfer of Tenancy Rights – Civil Revision Application filed challenging the judgment and order by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court – Appellate Bench decreed the suit directing the termination of tenancy on the grounds of subletting and ordered an enquiry into mesne profits – Revision Application dismissed – High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Bench.

Tenancy – Subletting – Tenant alleged to have sublet the premises to his brother's wife and her children – Evidence showed tenant had vacated the premises and did not return after retirement – Mere legal possession not sufficient; factum of residence by tenant and occupants must be proved – Concurrent user of premises by tenant and family members not established – Subletting inferred from exclusive possession by third parties [Paras 1-40].

Adoption and Tenancy Rights – Tenant claimed to be the adopted son of original tenant – Severed relation with natural family – Attempted to pass tenancy rights to brother’s wife – High Court emphasized the need to end prolonged possession by extended family once original need ceased [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court upheld – Applicants to return possession to landlords – Temporary relief granted for 8 weeks to allow Applicants to seek alternative remedies [Paras 41-42].

Service Law – Enhancement of Age of Superannuation – Petitioner, a Veterinary Officer, claimed entitlement to the extension of retirement age from 60 to 62 years as granted to other Veterinary Officers under the Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service and those in Autonomous District Councils – High Court held that the petitioner is similarly situated and entitled to the same benefits – Respondents’ refusal deemed arbitrary and discriminatory – Writ petition allowed [Paras 1-14].

Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India – Equality Before Law – Principle of non-discrimination in granting privileges – Court emphasized the importance of treating similarly situated persons alike – Held respondents’ action violated the constitutional mandate of equality [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Age of superannuation of the petitioner shall stand extended to 62 years – Directions issued to the respondents to extend the benefit accordingly – No cost [Paras 14].

Partition – Family Property – Joint Family – Appeal against the trial court’s partial decree in partition suit – Appellant’s father managed joint family properties – Defendants contended partition occurred in 1952 with subsequent partition lists – Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of continued joint family properties – Trial court correctly relied on documentary and oral evidence supporting defendants’ claim of partition – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-30].

General Power of Attorney – Evidence – Trial court’s reliance on Power of Attorney holder’s testimony – Power of Attorney holder lacked personal knowledge of joint family properties – Supreme Court precedent states Power of Attorney holder cannot testify on principal’s behalf in matters requiring personal knowledge – Appellant’s failure to testify leads to presumption against their case [Paras 17-23].

Documentary Evidence – Partition Lists and Sale Deeds – Trial court accepted partition list (Ex.B-2) and sale deeds as proof of partition – Oral and documentary evidence demonstrated independent purchase and sale of properties by family members – Court upheld findings that several properties were not joint family properties but were self-acquired [Paras 24-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the trial court confirmed – Pending applications closed – Each party to bear their own costs [Para 30].

Hindu Marriage – Ceremonial Requirements – Appellant's suit for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 dismissed; respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights decreed – Appeal contends no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Trial court found documentary evidence reliable, but ignored inconsistencies and lack of proper ceremony – High Court finds no valid marriage solemnized as per Section 7 of the Act, 1955 – Certificates issued by Arya Samaj and Registrar not proof of valid marriage without customary rites [Paras 1-35, 40]. 

Fraud and Consent – Appellant alleges fraudulent registration of marriage – Evidence shows appellant and her family were under the respondent's influence – Appellant and her mother signed papers under false pretexts – No free consent for marriage [Paras 4-10, 17-19]. 

Burden of Proof – Respondent failed to prove valid solemnization of marriage – No evidence of required ceremonies – Witness testimonies and documents inadequate – Trial court's reliance on documents without corroborative evidence flawed [Paras 20-25, 35-39]. 

Marriage Registration – Mere registration under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 does not validate a marriage absent proper ceremonies – Supreme Court's guidance in similar cases highlighted – Registration certificates not sufficient proof of marriage [Paras 26-34]. 

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of trial court set aside – Suit of appellant under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 allowed – Respondent's suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 dismissed – Declared no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Certificates from Arya Samaj and Registrar deemed null and void [Paras 40-43].