Jurisdiction – Commercial Nature of Dispute – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court returned the plaint due to lack of jurisdiction, classifying the dispute as commercial in nature – Petitioner’s application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act dismissed – High Court emphasizes that the suit should be transferred to the appropriate Commercial Court instead of being returned – Orders of the Trial Court set aside and the suit transferred to the Commercial Court for trial from the current stage [Paras 1-23].

Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Exclusion of Time – Petitioner’s application for exclusion of time under Section 14 due to previous proceedings in a court without jurisdiction – High Court allows exclusion of time and mandates consideration of the application by the Commercial Court [Paras 20-23].

Transfer of Suit under Section 24 CPC – High Court exercises power under Section 24 to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure judicial efficiency – Emphasizes that non-compliance with special pleadings can be rectified upon transfer [Paras 20-23].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Impugned orders of the ADJ set aside – Suit transferred to the Court of learned District Judge (Commercial)-02, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, for trial from the current stage – All objections including limitation to be considered by the transferee court – Parties directed to appear before the Commercial Court on 15.07.2024 [Para 23].

Pre-arrest Bail – Economic Offences – Judicial Discretion – Petitioners, accused of breach of trust and cheating in granting loans and fixing deposit interests contrary to circulars, sought pre-arrest bail – High Court denied the bail, emphasizing the serious nature of the economic offences and the necessity for custodial interrogation – Court underscored that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly, particularly in complex economic offences with deep-rooted conspiracies [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Principles – Application for Bail – The Court noted that detailed examination of evidence is not required at bail stage, but there should be a prima facie case and consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusations – Reference made to Supreme Court’s guidelines on dealing with economic offences and judicial discretion in bail matters [Paras 9-14].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Held – Custodial interrogation necessary for thorough investigation – Granting bail could impede the investigation and affect public interest adversely [Para 15].

Procedural Law – Application and Transition – Savings Clause – FIR registered before the enactment of BNSS, 2023, must be dealt with under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., 1973, as per Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS – Petition initially filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was converted to Section 528 BNSS due to a registry objection – High Court clarified that ongoing investigations prior to BNSS enforcement should continue under the old code – Petition treated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 2-9].

Investigation Fairness – Legal Remedies – Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the investigation – Court directed petitioner to seek remedies through Section 36 Cr.P.C. or approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for further investigation – High Court emphasized the need for procedural propriety and exploring all legal avenues before approaching higher judiciary [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forums if advised. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of [Paras 15-16].
 

Freedom of Press – Sting Operation – Legal Boundaries – Petitioners, media persons, conducted a sting operation inside a jail to record an accused’s statement. The Court emphasized the critical role of the press in a democracy but highlighted the necessity of adhering to legal boundaries. It underscored that while the media has significant freedom, this does not exempt it from legal consequences if actions contravene established laws. The prosecution alleged violations under Sections 86 and 87 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, which prohibit unauthorized communication and possession of recording devices inside a jail. [Paras 1-16]

Sting Operation – Public Interest vs. Legal Restrictions – The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments noting that sting operations, while sometimes serving public interest, must still adhere to legal standards. It distinguished between lawful investigative journalism and unlawful acts, stressing that intent and adherence to laws are pivotal. The Court cited the necessity for media operations to balance investigative zeal with legal constraints, ensuring actions do not infringe on individual rights or statutory provisions. [Paras 10-15]

Quashing of Proceedings – Lack of Malafide Intent – The petitioners’ actions, aimed at news gathering without malafide intent, were acknowledged. Considering the lack of actual recording and the preventive action by jail authorities, the Court ruled continuation of prosecution unnecessary. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings, recognizing the petitioners’ over-enthusiastic but non-malafide attempt to gather news, thus underscoring the balance between press freedom and legal adherence. [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed. Proceedings against petitioners in ST.No.2065/2014 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime No.1123/2013 of Pathanamthitta Police Station quashed.

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].

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.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Conviction and sentence for dishonoured cheque – Petitioner issued cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- which was dishonoured – Trial Court convicted petitioner, sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, and ordered compensation of Rs. 4,05,000/- – Conviction upheld by Additional Sessions Judge – Petitioner deposited compensation amount, sought compounding of offence – Respondent-complainant agreed to compounding [Paras 1-6]. 

Compounding of Offence – Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Entire compensation paid – No objection from respondent for compounding – Court compounded offence as per Section 147 and Supreme Court guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- and 5% of cheque amount as compounding fee [Paras 7-8]. 

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – Held – Conviction and sentence set aside – Offence compounded – Petitioner acquitted – Litigation cost and compounding fee imposed – Amount deposited to be released to complainant – Compliance within four weeks mandated to avoid penal consequences [Para 8]. 

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.

Criminal Law – Conviction for Attempt to Murder – Appeal – Conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder the informant by assaulting and throwing her out of a moving car – Trial court’s judgment re-evaluated – Prosecution’s evidence primarily from the informant’s testimony – Reliability of the victim’s testimony upheld despite minor inconsistencies – Injury classified as simple by medical evidence – Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside; conviction modified to Section 323 IPC for voluntary causing hurt – Sentence reduced accordingly [Paras 1-21].

Victim's Testimony – Credibility – Informant’s detailed account of assault in the car, corroborated by medical evidence and testimony of the truck driver who provided assistance – Prosecution’s evidence considered sufficient to support conviction for causing simple injuries voluntarily – No substantial evidence supporting intent to kill [Paras 7-21].

Modification of Sentence – Given the nature of injuries as simple, conviction altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 323 IPC – Sentence reduced to six months' simple imprisonment and fine – Relief of set-off for time already served granted [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 323 IPC – Sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, with a default sentence of one month – Trial court to ensure execution of the modified sentence [Paras 20-21].