Income Tax – Revision of Assessment – Appellant sought revision of assessments for 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 to treat losses on the sale of shares as business losses – Appellant contended for uniform treatment of income by the Department – Revision petitions dismissed for delay – High Court upheld the dismissal, noting statutory limitations and lack of timely action by the appellant [Paras 1-8].

Uniformity in Taxation – Assessment Years – Department treated similar income as business income for certain years and capital gains for others – Appellant argued for consistent treatment – Court found delay in seeking revision petitions, emphasizing statutory limitations preventreopening past assessments – Fairness requires timely action by both appellant and Department [Paras 3-7].

Judicial Review – Delay and Limitation – Revision petitions filed after appellate authority’s decision – Court held appellant's delay unjustifiable – Emphasized fairness in taxation must consider statutory limitations and timely actions by parties involved [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed. The court upheld the dismissal of the revision petitions, emphasizing the statutory limitations and the need for timely actions by the appellant to ensure fairness in taxation.

Evidentiary Value of School Admission Register –

Accused argued that Ex.P8, the extract of the school admission register, lacked evidentiary value as the author was not examined – Prosecution contended Ex.P8 is a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, and secondary evidence of a public document can be produced under Section 65€ – Court held that Ex.P8, issued by the headmaster (PW5), was admissible as secondary evidence, satisfying Section 63 of the Evidence Act – Argument that PW5 was not the headmaster when the admission was recorded rejected – Court found Ex.P8 credible and sufficient to prove the age of PW1 as below 18 years, invoking the provisions of the POCSO Act [Paras 1-24].

Applicability of Section 162 Cr.P.C. –

Defense claimed Ex.P8 was inadmissible under Section 162 Cr.P.C. – Court held that Section 162 applies to statements made during investigation by persons acquainted with the facts of the case – Ex.P8, being an extract of the admission register, was not a statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. – Court distinguished Ex.P8 from information relating to the crime, thus not attracting Section 162 Cr.P.C. – Defense arguments regarding Vinod Chaturvedi and Kali Ram cases rejected [Paras 25-27].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Examination –

Defense argued the conviction was vitiated as the age of the victim was not highlighted during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination – Court observed that the age of the victim alone is not incriminatory; the fact of sexual assault on a minor is – Court found the incriminating circumstances were adequately brought to the accused’s notice – Any lapse at Section 313 stage considered curable by appellate court [Paras 28-29].

Findings on DNA Report and Conviction –

Defense contested the DNA report (Ex.P17) for lack of examination of the scientific officer – Court noted Section 293 Cr.P.C. allows the use of expert reports as evidence without examining the expert unless necessary – DNA report confirmed the accused as the father of PW1’s child, corroborating the sexual assault – Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act upheld, but sentence modified due to lack of reasons for imposing life imprisonment – Accused sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine [Paras 30-31].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act confirmed – Accused acquitted of Section 506 IPC – Sentence modified to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- – Compensation ordered to be paid to PW1 from fine amount – Legal services committee to compensate amicus curiae [Para 31].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Conviction under Section 354B IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act – Appeal against conviction by the Trial Court – Accused argued lack of medical evidence of penetrative assault, investigation lapses including failure to seize mobile phone showing obscene images to the victim – Court upheld conviction, citing consistent testimony of the victim and corroborative evidence from other witnesses, despite investigative lapses [Paras 1-48].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Corroboration – Victim’s testimony found credible and consistent across statements to police, magistrate, and during trial – Court emphasized that a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice but a competent witness whose testimony need not be corroborated in material particulars if found credible [Paras 17-35].

Investigative Lapses – Impact on Prosecution Case – Investigating Officer’s failure to seize crucial evidence criticized – However, Court held that lapses do not necessarily discredit the prosecution’s case if witness testimony is found reliable – Directed departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer for negligence [Paras 47-48].

Sentence and Section 222(2) Cr.P.C. – Minor Offence Conviction – Conviction under Section 10 of POCSO Act sustained despite lack of specific charge, under the provision allowing conviction of a minor offence if major offence charge not proven – Sentencing deemed appropriate and within judicial discretion [Paras 36, 45].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Court directed the appellant to surrender to serve the sentence – Ordered departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer [Paras 50-51].

Administrative Law – Employment Termination – Challenge to cancellation of appointment – Petitioner appointed as Jeep Driver through Employment Exchange, later cancelled after 14 years of service due to alleged violation of communal reservation rules – Court finds cancellation unjustified, holding that petitioner was not at fault and appointment should not be nullified retroactively – Ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages [Paras 1-11].

Vicarious Liability – Government’s Responsibility – Court emphasizes the government’s vicarious liability for mistakes by its officers – Petitioner wrongfully penalized for error in appointment process conducted by authorities – Reinforces principle that employee should not suffer for administrative lapses [Paras 8-9].

Procedure – Appointment Validity – Clarification on temporary vs. permanent status – Despite initial temporary status, petitioner held under CPS, indicating regular appointment – Respondents’ claim of temporary status rejected due to regular vacancy and time scale of pay [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Impugned order cancelling appointment set aside – Respondents directed to reinstate petitioner with all attendant benefits – Period out of service to be treated as continuity of service with back wages – Option to regularize petitioner’s position or create supernumerary post if necessary [Para 11].

Police Clearance Certificate – Issuance for Overseas Employment – Petition for the issuance of PCC in light of an opportunity for employment in Brazil – Petitioner’s criminal case history cited as reason for delay in issuance – Trial court’s No Objection Certificate considered – Directed authorities to issue PCC if no adverse information beyond the mentioned criminal case is found – Undertaking required from petitioner to ensure availability during trial [Paras 1-7].

Writ Petition – Mandamus – Petitioner, a B.Tech graduate, faced delay in obtaining PCC due to pending criminal case – High Court acknowledged petitioner’s right to travel for employment – Ordered Superintendent of Police to issue PCC within a week, subject to conditions – Petitioner must assure presence at trial [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Superintendent of Police directed to consider and issue PCC if no adverse information is found other than the stated criminal case – Petitioner to provide an undertaking for availability during trial – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed [Paras 7-8].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Suit for specific performance based on a sale agreement dated 02.08.2007 – Plaintiff alleged continuous readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract – Defendants contended plaintiff's financial inability to pay the balance consideration in time – Trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff – High Court found plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness – Plaintiff's conduct of depositing balance consideration only after trial arguments questioned – Appeal allowed, trial court judgment set aside [Paras 1-44].

Plaint as Proof – Power of Attorney Evidence – Plaintiff's readiness and willingness must be personally proven – Plaintiff’s power of attorney holder, her son, failed to establish plaintiff's financial capacity at the relevant time – Evidence of readiness through third-party financial arrangement deemed inadequate – Appellate court emphasized the need for plaintiff's personal testimony when asserting readiness and willingness [Paras 18-34].

Market Value Consideration – Time of Essence – Trial court failed to appreciate significant rise in property value over years – Appellate court noted economic changes and price increases as factors making specific performance inequitable – Original contract price no longer just due to property appreciation – Appeal allowed, refund of earnest money with interest granted instead [Paras 37-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree set aside – Plaintiff entitled to refund of earnest money with interest at 12% p.a. from date of payment – Appellants to pay any balance interest on deposit made by plaintiff [Paras 44-46].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault Conviction – Appellant, a teacher, convicted for sexually assaulting minor students – Convictions under Sections 354, 354-A IPC and Sections 7, 8, 9©(m)(o), 10, 11, 12 POCSO Act upheld – Trial Court’s judgment based on consistent and corroborative testimonies of minor victims and supporting witnesses [Paras 1-16].

Delay in FIR – Appellant contended that FIR was lodged 15 days post-incident – Court held delay was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution – Delay attributed to the initial hesitation of victims’ families and subsequent realization of the seriousness of the offenses [Paras 12, 17-18].

Reliability of Minor Witnesses – Defense argued minor witnesses were tutored – Court found minor victims’ testimonies credible, consistent, and corroborated by other evidence – Defense’s claim of false implication due to animosity was unsupported by cross-examination or Section 313 statements [Paras 14, 18, 30].

Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act – Court noted no substantial cross-examination to discredit minor witnesses – Minor inconsistencies deemed immaterial – Court emphasized proper examination of minors before accepting their testimonies [Paras 19, 22].

Defendant’s Presence and Conduct – Accused’s presence at school on the day of the incident and his role as a teacher not denied – Defense’s narrative of animosity insufficient to counteract credible accusations by multiple victims [Paras 27, 30-31].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Convictions and sentences affirmed – Court found no perversity in Trial Court’s judgment – All pending interim applications disposed of [Para 32-33].

Joint Trial – Family Court Proceedings – Petitioner sought joint trial for efficiency and consistency in cases involving related issues of maintenance and return of articles – Family Court dismissed application citing different procedures for summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – High Court emphasized objective of speedy justice in family disputes – Joint trial ordered to save judicial time and ensure comprehensive resolution [Paras 1-9].

Legal Interpretation – Family Court’s Power – Division Bench referenced precedents allowing joint trials in family matters for integrated justice – Interpreted Family Court Act to support joint trials despite different procedural rules for related cases – Emphasized interpretation aligning with objectives of efficient and expedited family justice [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Family Court’s dismissal of joint trial application set aside – Joint trial of OP No. 2174/2020 and MC No. 86/2021 directed for unified adjudication of maintenance and related claims [Para 9].

Condonation of Delay – Matrimonial Appeal – Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 122 days delay in filing appeal against ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage – COVID-19 and family responsibilities cited as reasons for delay – Respondent remarried after expiry of appeal period – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Application dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Remarriage of Divorced Person – Bar under Section 15 applies only if appeal filed within limitation period – Respondent remarried after expiration of appeal period – Court holds bar not applicable – Appeal not filed within 90 days; remarriage on 26.05.2022 considered lawful [Paras 7-12].

Case References – Legal Precedents Cited – Cites Supreme Court decisions in Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh (1988) 2 SCC 90 and Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai (2020) 11 SCC 253 – Highlights precedent on procedural obligations and conditions for remarriage post-divorce decree [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Interlocutory Application Dismissed – Delay in filing appeal not condoned – Court finds delay not satisfactorily explained and bar under Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act not applicable [Paras 13-14].