Criminal Law – Rape – Age of Victim Not Proven – Acquittal – Prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a “child” as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act – Birth certificate (Exhibit P8) obtained on court order shortly before complaint, with no production of the court order or supporting documents under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act – No school admission register or SSLC marks card produced – Medical officer failed to conduct ossification test or comply with Section 164A CrPC – Parents of victim admitted ignorance of her birth date – Held: Age determination failed statutory standards under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act and Supreme Court guidance in P. Yuvaprakash v. State – Adverse inference drawn under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act [Paras 12–19].

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent – Delay in Filing Complaint – Alleged repeated intercourse on promise of marriage – Complaint lodged after two-year delay – Medical report confirmed absence of signs of recent assault – Victim's own statement indicated consensual relationship – Held: No evidence of force or coercion – Ingredients of Section 375 IPC not satisfied – Conviction under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC not sustainable [Paras 20–21].

Criminal Procedure – Fair Trial – Investigation Lapses – Investigating Officer failed to follow procedures for determining age or gathering admissible evidence – No application filed under Section 173(8) CrPC for additional documents post-charge sheet – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court’s conviction based on inadequate appreciation of evidence set aside [Paras 16–19, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Civil Law – Gift Deed – Interim Injunction – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff executed a registered gift deed in 2015 transferring 2050 sq. yds. of land to the defendant – Later filed suit for declaration claiming gift was void due to non-transfer of possession – Said suit rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation – Plaintiff then filed fresh suit for possession and injunction with interim relief alleging encroachment and construction by defendant – Trial court rejected injunction application for lack of prima facie case – Held: Plaintiff cannot bypass rejection order in declaratory suit by filing fresh suit over same property – Proper course was to seek relief in pending appeal (RFA 341/2024) – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 2.1, 5, 6]

Interim Relief – Status Quo – Suit Property Sub Judice – Trial court refused to grant injunction on ground that ownership of property already under challenge and plaintiff failed to show urgency or irreparable loss – Held: No interference warranted as plaintiff’s title was already rejected in earlier suit and relief ought to have been sought in appeal pending against that order – Injunction rightly denied [Paras 2.3, 5, 6]

Res Judicata / Abuse of Process – Multiple Proceedings – Plaintiff filed successive suits with overlapping claims over same property despite earlier rejection of similar claim – Court held that filing of second suit without awaiting outcome of appeal was inappropriate – Filing fresh suit instead of moving appropriate application in appellate court discouraged [Paras 5, 6]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference with order of trial court – Pending applications, if any, stand closed [Para 7]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Disqualification of Member of Parliament – Effect of Stay of Conviction – Petitioner sought Quo Warranto against Respondent No. 1 (Rahul Gandhi) on the ground of disqualification under Article 102 r/w Section 8(3) of the RP Act due to conviction in a defamation case – Held: Once the conviction is stayed by the Appellate Court (Supreme Court in this case), the disqualification arising out of such conviction ceases to operate from the date of the stay order. The conviction becomes non-operative, and the bar under Section 8(3) does not apply during the pendency of the appeal. – Writ Petition dismissed. [Paras 13, 16-17]

Election Law – Disqualification upon Conviction – Distinction between Stay of Sentence and Stay of Conviction – Held: There is a fundamental distinction between the stay of execution of sentence and the stay of conviction. Mere stay of sentence/bail does not wipe out the disqualification. However, when the conviction itself is stayed by the High Court or Supreme Court under Section 389 CrPC or inherent powers, the disqualification is kept in abeyance and the individual is not debarred from holding public office. [Para 13]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. [Para 20]

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from raising construction on agricultural land allegedly belonging to his ancestors – Claimed defendants obtained revenue entries fraudulently during consolidation – Courts below rejected injunction holding no prima facie title established and possession with defendants – Held: In absence of conclusive documents and pending challenge before Consolidation Officer, no prima facie case made out – Interlocutory relief rightly denied [Paras 1–7, 13–14]

Land Law – Consolidation Proceedings – Revenue Entries – Plaintiff challenged validity of consolidation allotment and mutation in separate proceedings – Until such challenge is resolved, existing entries hold the field – Courts held that long-standing entries in Jamabandi and possession support respondents – Mere allegation of forgery insufficient to disturb settled possession at interim stage [Paras 5, 8, 14–15]

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Plaintiff failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in concurrent findings – High Court held that re-appreciation of facts not permissible in revision under Section 115 CPC – No ground for interference made out [Paras 16–17]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – No merit in challenge to concurrent orders rejecting temporary injunction – All pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of [Paras 17–18]

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act – Reinstatement vs. Lump-sum Compensation – Daily Wager in Irrigation Department – Labour Court granted reinstatement but denied full relief – Employee and State both challenged award – Held: Irrigation Department is an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the ID Act as settled by Supreme Court and Full Bench – State barred from repeatedly raising contrary plea [Paras 9–11].

Evidence – Completion of 240 Days – Burden of Proof – Workman entered witness box and deposed continuous service – Employer failed to produce muster rolls despite directions – Adverse inference rightly drawn against employer – Non-production of best evidence fatal to employer’s case [Paras 12–15].

Section 25B, 25F, 25G & 25H ID Act – Continuous Service – Retrenchment – Violation Established – Once breach of Sections 25G and 25H proved, plea of non-completion of 240 days loses significance – Termination held illegal [Paras 15, 19].

Judicial Review under Articles 226 & 227 – Scope – High Court not to re-appreciate evidence unless perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Labour Court’s findings based on evidence and settled law – No ground for interference in State’s petition [Paras 16, 19].

Parity – Similarly Situated Workmen – Coordinate Bench Decisions – Awards granting only compensation modified to reinstatement with continuity – Orders confirmed by Division Bench in multiple LPAs – Judicial discipline requires similar relief in identical facts [Paras 11–18].

Relief – Reinstatement with Continuity – Back Wages Denied – Labour Court award modified in line with precedent – Employee directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages – Reinstatement to be effected within three months – State’s petition dismissed [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Employee’s petition allowed – Labour Court award dated 05.01.2022 modified/confirmed to grant reinstatement with continuity of service and without back wages – State’s petition dismissed – Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Taxation Law - International Taxation – Service Permanent Establishment (PE) – Calculation of Threshold Period – Article 5(6)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA – Assessee, a Singapore legal firm, had employees present in India for 120 days – Assessee claimed exclusion of vacation days (36), business development days (35), and common days (5) – Held: To constitute a Service PE, services must be "furnished within" the contracting state. Vacation days where no work is performed, and business development days where no billable services are rendered to clients, must be excluded from the threshold calculation. Excluding these, the period was 84 days, falling below the 90-day threshold. No Service PE constituted. [Paras 38-40]

International Taxation – Virtual Service PE – Interpretation of Treaty – Revenue argued for "Virtual Service PE" due to remote services provided from outside India – Held: The concept of "Virtual Service PE" is not expressly provided in the India-Singapore DTAA. Article 5(6) requires services to be furnished "within" India "through employees present". Courts cannot read new concepts into the treaty which are not explicitly included. Until the treaty is renegotiated to include virtual services, existing provisions must be strictly interpreted. [Paras 42-46, 49]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Questions of law answered in favour of the Assessee. [Para 62]

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Rape – Conviction Set Aside – Accused convicted for offences under Sections 366A and 376 IPC for allegedly enticing and raping a 16-year-old girl – Victim voluntarily accompanied accused to Kanchipuram on pretext of marriage – No evidence of inducement or threat – Medical reports confirmed absence of physical injuries or recent intercourse – Held: Prosecution failed to prove offence under Section 366A or rape under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction not sustainable [Paras 17–21].

Criminal Law – Consent and Age – Applicability of Pre-Amendment Law – Offence occurred on 31.05.2011 – Victim was 16 years, 2 months, and 18 days old – As per unamended law, consent above 16 years relevant – Application of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 to incident predating its enforcement held impermissible – Retrospective application of stricter penal provision violates Article 20(1) of Constitution – Conviction under amended standards illegal [Paras 11, 25–30].

Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 114A – Not Applicable – Section 114A applies only to charges under Section 376(2) IPC – No such charge framed against accused – No presumption of lack of consent could be drawn – Victim’s testimony lacked corroboration – Medical evidence confirmed absence of force – Held: Burden remained on prosecution, not discharged [Paras 22–23].

Judicial Interpretation – Doctrine of Non-Retrospectivity – Trial court erroneously applied post-2013 rape law to offence committed in 2011 – Bar under Article 20(1) of Constitution is absolute – Law cannot impose enhanced punishment retrospectively – Conviction and sentence contrary to binding constitutional protections – Acquittal warranted [Paras 25–30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 366A and 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bond cancelled – Trial court directed to comply – Judgment to be circulated among judiciary and prosecution for strict adherence.

Bail – Attempt to Murder – KCOCA – Bail rejected for Accused Nos.3 and 4 – Petitioners alleged to have assaulted CW.2 with deadly weapons causing grievous injuries – Seizure of blood-stained dagger and cricket bat from petitioners confirmed by FSL report – CCTV footage corroborates incident – Petitioners involved in multiple prior criminal cases and are registered rowdy sheeters – Held: Prima facie case established against petitioners – Threat to witnesses if enlarged on bail – Bail denied [Paras 12–16]

Confessional Statement – Section 19 KCOCA – Validity of Confession – Petitioners challenged admissibility of confession recorded by DCP under Section 19 of KCOCA – Court held that in Bengaluru, DCP holds rank equivalent to Superintendent of Police – Confession held admissible under Section 19 – Challenge rejected [Para 13]

Delay in Trial – Long Custody – Petitioners in custody for over 1½ years – Contended trial yet to commence – Cited Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 – Court distinguished case based on gravity of offences, evidence, and antecedents – Held: Nature of crime and threat to witnesses outweigh prolonged custody – Bail cannot be granted solely on basis of delay [Paras 3, 16]

Organised Crime – Applicability of KCOCA – Petitioners argued they were not members of organised crime syndicate – Court found sufficient material including overt acts, seizure of weapons, identification by witnesses, and involvement in previous cases – Held: Prima facie ingredients under KCOCA met – Bail rightly refused [Paras 3, 14–16]

Judicial Reasoning – Rejection of Bail – Courts must weigh nature of offence, evidence, and potential threat to witnesses – Prior criminal record relevant – Cited Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 – Held: Bail to be denied when antecedents and facts indicate possibility of interference with justice [Para 15]

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Petitioners failed to make out any ground – Threat to witnesses and seriousness of offence considered.

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Suit by Public Trust – Mandatory Consent Under MPT Act – Plaintiffs’ own pleadings and annexed documents repeatedly describing Defendant as “trustee/permanent trustee/erstwhile trustee” held decisive – Suit for recovery of compensation for misuse of trust property by a trustee falls squarely within Section 50 clauses (a), (e), (f), (p), (q) – Held: Without prior consent of Charity Commissioner under Section 51, suit is statutorily barred [Paras 11–18].

Trust Property – Recovery from Trustee – Section 50 MPT Act – Suit seeks recovery of compensation for occupation of trust property by Defendant during tenure as trustee – Documents (letters, opinions, correspondence) annexed to plaint addressing Defendant as trustee held to override later verbal assertions that he was a “trespasser” – Plaint averments read holistically demonstrate action against trustee for breach/misconduct, not trespass – Section 50 attracted [Paras 10–15].

Trespass Argument Rejected – Plaintiffs’ Case Inconsistent with Record – Plaintiffs’ attempt to classify Defendant as “rank trespasser” held untenable when plaint averments and exhibits consistently acknowledge him as trustee discharging obligations – Once trust itself admits fiduciary capacity, suit cannot be framed as simple trespass to bypass statutory requirement of consent [Paras 14–17].

Scope of Section 51 MPT Act – Consent Mandatory – When suit is of a nature specified under Section 50, plaintiffs must obtain Charity Commissioner’s prior written consent; Commissioner becomes necessary party – Absence of consent renders suit non-maintainable at inception – Bar attracts Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 16–18].

Pleadings Control O7R11(d) – Court Reiterates – For O7R11(d), plaint averments and plaint documents alone are considered – Defence cannot cure statutory bar – Here, plaint itself revealed suit to be one “relating to trustee” requiring consent; absence is fatal [Paras 7–12].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit held not maintainable without prior consent under Sections 50 & 51 MPT Act – Pending Interim Application No. 4005 of 2025 disposed [Paras 19–21].