Criminal Law – Foreigners Act – Sentence Modification – Section 14 – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced – Appellant convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 for rendering assistance to a Pakistani national accused of illegal stay – Trial Court sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine – Appellant did not challenge conviction on merits – Considering age (around 70 years), health condition, no previous criminal record, and long delay in proceedings (27 years since incident, 22 years since conviction), Court held continued incarceration would cause undue hardship – Sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 2, 4, 7–10].

Sentencing – Mitigating Circumstances – Reformative Approach – Rehabilitation Emphasized – Appellant cited Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. to urge a reformative approach in sentencing – Held: Modern penology emphasizes rehabilitation over harsh punishment – Sentence must reflect factors like age, delay, prior record, health, and reintegration potential – Court accepted this view and applied it to reduce sentence [Paras 8–10].

Appeal – Partial Allowance – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified – Appeal not pressed on merits – Conviction sustained – Sentence of 2 years reduced to time already served (approx. 1 year 22 days) – Bail and surety bonds discharged – Trial Court and Jail Superintendent directed to be informed [Paras 7, 10–12].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act maintained – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Bail and surety bonds discharged – Pending applications disposed.

Mines and Minerals – Lease Lapse – Revival Application – Subordinate Legislation – Retrospective Operation – Rule 20(7) of 2016 Rules Held Valid – No Vested Right in Revival – Petitioners sought revival of lapsed iron and manganese mining lease granted in 1990 and lapsed due to inactivity – Revival sought under third proviso to Section 4A(4) of MMDR Act (prior to amendment) – Amendment by Act 16 of 2021 removed revival provision and substituted Rule 20(7) retrospectively from 28.03.2021 – Petitioner’s application pending on amendment date rejected based on new Rule 20(7) – Held: No vested right accrues in mere filing of revival application – Subordinate legislation (Rule 20(7)) amended to align with parent Act’s policy change – Not ultra vires MMDR Act – Application rightly decided under law as it stood on decision date [Paras 27–33].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospective Effect – Subordinate Legislation – General Clauses Act Inapplicable – Rule Consistent with Parent Act – Court held Rule 20(7) not ultra vires merely for applying to pending applications – Amended Rule brought to prevent conflict between principal Act and delegated legislation – Rule-making authority acted within scope under Section 13 MMDR Act – Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897, does not protect non-vested expectations or future benefits – Revival is not a vested or accrued right – Hence, amended Rule 20(7) applies [Paras 29–31].

Right to Revival of Mining Lease – No Vested Right – Legal Principle Reaffirmed – Relying on Hind Stone v. State of Tamil Nadu and Monnet Ispat, Court reiterated that no one has a vested right to grant, renewal, or revival of mining leases – Mere filing of application does not create enforceable right – Such applications are to be considered under rules in force at the time of disposal, not filing – Hence, revival claim cannot survive [Paras 29(c), 30–32].

Judicial Review – Rule 20(7) – Constitutionality Upheld – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners failed to establish any grounds of invalidity under tests for subordinate legislation – Rule 20(7) neither manifestly arbitrary nor beyond statutory authority – Challenge dismissed – Application for revival rightly decided under prevailing law [Paras 31–33].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Rule 20(7) of the 2016 Rules upheld as valid – No vested right accrued to petitioner under repealed revival provision – No order as to costs.

Tender Law – Disqualification of Lowest Bidder – Abnormally Low Bid – Petitioner submitted financial bid quoting ₹1.92 for Packet-1 and ₹4.55 for Packet-2 in UIDAI tender for Aadhaar document verification services – Petitioner declared L-1 based on highest technical score and lowest combined commercial bid – Financial Evaluation Committee (FEC) disqualified bid citing price as “abnormally low” for Packet-1 – Court held: Though RFP did not expressly permit rejection on such ground, none of the other bidders agreed to match L-1 rate, frustrating the tender process – Held: Disqualification justified in larger public interest despite procedural lapses [Paras 26–43, 46–50]

Tender Evaluation – QCBS and RFP Compliance – RFP mandated equal weightage to Packet-1 and Packet-2 for financial bid evaluation under Clauses 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 – FEC considered only Packet-1 rate of ₹1.92 while disqualifying petitioner – Court held: Evaluation process flawed and not in full compliance with RFP – However, since tender required multiple vendors and other bidders refused to match rate, FEC's action was not arbitrary – Court declined to interfere [Paras 33–38, 41–43]

Public Procurement – Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Court reiterated limited scope of interference under Article 226 in contractual matters – Held: Court will not supplant expert views unless decision is perverse, arbitrary, or actuated by mala fides – FEC considered petitioner’s clarifications twice, recorded reasons in rejection report – Mere error in procedure does not warrant interference if public interest outweighs private loss – Petition dismissed [Paras 44–48]

Administrative Law – Natural Justice – Compliance – Petitioner given two opportunities to justify pricing and explain technical approach – FEC recorded detailed reasons for rejection after reviewing clarifications – Principles of natural justice held to be satisfied – No procedural illegality found [Paras 44–47]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference warranted under Article 226 – Procedural lapse by FEC in not strictly following RFP clauses did not vitiate outcome – Disqualification based on inability of other bidders to match price protected larger public interest – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - POCSO Act – Age Determination – Mandatory Compliance – Conviction set aside – Appellant convicted under Sections 448, 323 IPC and Sections 8, 12 of POCSO Act for alleged trespass and sexual assault on a minor girl – No school certificate, birth certificate or ossification test produced as required under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act – Held: Age of victim not proved as per statutory requirements – Conviction under POCSO Act unsustainable [Paras 17-20, 26].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Contradictory Statements – Sole Testimony Unreliable – Mother of victim (PW2) and neighbours (PWs 3, 4, 6) turned hostile – Victim (PW1) gave court testimony contradicting original complaint, stating the injury occurred during a public quarrel regarding money – Held: Sole testimony of victim insufficient and unreliable when contradicted by medical and witness evidence [Paras 21-24].

False Implication – Suppression of Counter-Complaint – Misuse of POCSO Act – Accused sustained head injuries during quarrel and lodged complaint against victim’s family – FIR (Ex.D1) against complainant’s family closed after POCSO case was registered – Held: Likely misuse of POCSO Act to neutralize genuine complaint by accused – Courts must remain vigilant to prevent misuse of special legislation [Paras 29-31].

Injury – Section 323 IPC – No Clear Evidence – Acquittal Warranted – Injury to victim found to be simple – No consistent or credible evidence linking it to accused – Held: Conviction under Section 323 IPC not safe – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25, 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under IPC and POCSO Act set aside – Accused acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Bail bond cancelled [Para 32].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Maintainability – Applicant filed for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal in complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Held: In view of the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, complainant in a cheque dishonour case is a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC – Such victim has an unconditional right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without needing leave of the High Court – Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on merits [Paras 1–5].

Victim’s Right to Appeal – Section 372 CrPC – Supreme Court clarified that a complainant in a Section 138 N.I. Act case qualifies as a "victim" and thus can file appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Requirement of special leave under Section 378(4) does not apply – Reiterated by High Court in Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishore, Ajmer Kundu (deceased) through LRs v. Pardeep Sharma, and Raj Kumar v. Rajender [Paras 2–4].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction – Appeal Transferred – Application treated as appeal under Section 372 CrPC and directed to be placed before Sessions Judge, Ambala – Registry directed to transmit record and paper-book – Applicant directed to appear before Sessions Court on specified date – No opinion expressed on merits [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Application disposed of – Treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC – Ordered to be transferred to Sessions Judge, Ambala for adjudication in accordance with law – Applicant directed to appear on 14.11.2025 – Registry to transmit complete record.

Criminal Law – Cognizance – Quashing of Summoning Order – Dispute Related to Temple Management – Complaint alleged encroachment, criminal intimidation, and physical assault by petitioner due to a temple management dispute – Petitioner’s father had been appointed trustee of Kali Mandir by Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts – Prior civil litigation in favour of petitioner – Petitioner claimed complaint was mala fide, lodged out of vengeance after losing civil dispute – Held: Magistrate failed to consider material background facts and prior civil proceedings while taking cognizance – Allegations general and lacking specificity – Order of cognizance dated 16.11.2024 set aside [Paras 1–17].

Abuse of Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Apex Court decisions in Paramjeet Batra and Kailashben Patel applied – Criminal proceedings not to be used to settle scores arising from temple trustee appointments – Complaint revealed civil dispute dressed up as criminal allegations without sufficient criminal ingredients – Revisional Court and Magistrate both erred in not examining background circumstances – Magistrate directed to reconsider matter afresh with notice to all parties and full application of judicial mind [Paras 12–17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Magistrate’s Cognizance Order on Remand – Revisional Court had earlier remanded matter for reconsideration due to procedural lapses – Magistrate again took cognizance without addressing civil context or mala fides – Quashing application allowed – Magistrate to issue fresh order after hearing all parties and evaluating complete factual background [Paras 6–9, 16–18].

Decision:

Order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2024 set aside – Contesting parties directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalsinghsarai – Magistrate to issue notices, apply judicial mind, and pass a fresh order considering all relevant facts and background circumstances – Quashing application disposed of accordingly.

Cooperative Societies – Maintainability of Dispute – Section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act – Allotment of FSI to Member – Tender restricted to society members only – Held: Dispute arises out of membership rights and touches the business of the society – Transaction not commercial in nature nor with outsider – Cooperative Court had jurisdiction [Paras 20–35, 36–43].

Housing Society – Utilization of FSI/TDR – Validity of MoUs – General Body resolution authorized Managing Committee to allot additional FSI – Formation of FSI Sub-Committee lawful – Execution of MoUs under such authority valid – Consideration paid and receipts issued – Subsequent challenge to MoUs unsustainable – Society bound by its resolutions [Paras 44–50].

Development Rights – Change from FSI to TDR – Subsequent resolutions (1991–1997) permitted use of TDR at member’s cost – Society continued to act upon MoUs – Plea that FSI lapsed rejected – Communications from Municipal Corporation do not extinguish rights created under society’s resolutions [Paras 51–56].

Procedural Irregularities and Alleged Collusion – Allegations of fraud, undue haste, and collusion with office bearers not proved – Meetings duly held, resolutions recorded, payments acknowledged – No evidence of misconduct – Findings of Cooperative and Appellate Courts based on proper appreciation of record; not perverse [Paras 57–63].

Judicial Discipline – Status Quo Order – Resolution cancelling MoUs passed in 2003 despite High Court’s interim order of status quo dated 13.01.2003 – Held: Cancellation void ab initio – Resolution passed in defiance of binding judicial direction unenforceable – Cooperative Courts rightly declared it invalid [Paras 64–69].

Equitable Principles – Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation – Member acted on society’s representations, paid consideration, and altered position – Society estopped from denying validity of MoUs or rescinding rights after acceptance of benefit – Agreements binding both in law and equity [Paras 70–76].

Interpretation – “Business of the Society” – Scope under Section 91 – Distinguished Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain (1968), Belganda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (1994 Mh LJ 1756), Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (5) Mh LJ 570) – Held: Unlike cited cases, here the housing society’s bye-laws expressly authorized real estate development – Allotment of FSI/TDR forms part of society’s business – Dispute maintainable before Cooperative Court [Paras 77–84].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Orders of Cooperative and Appellate Courts upheld – MoUs held valid and binding – Society directed to implement awards and effectuate MoUs within three months – No order as to costs [Para 85].

Motor Accident Claim – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – FIR in the present case was lodged ten days after the accident – Held: Delay in FIR cannot by itself be a ground to reject claim – Human priorities in medical emergencies or last rites are valid reasons for delay – Reliance placed on Ravi v. Badrinarayan (2011) 4 SCC 693 [Paras 7, 10, 15]

Negligence – Eye-witness and Charge Sheet – Evidence of eye-witness (PW-3) established that offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently and hit the deceased's motorcycle – Charge sheet filed against driver of the Truck – Driver and owner did not enter witness box to rebut claim – Site plan showing head-on collision cannot override direct oral evidence – Tribunal rightly held driver negligent – Reliance placed on ICICI Lombard v. Rajani Sahoo (2025) 2 SCC 599 and Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497 [Paras 3, 5, 6, 12–14]

Assessment of Compensation – Future Prospects – Tribunal awarded 50% future prospects applying Rule 220-A of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules since deceased was aged 38 – Held: Tribunal justified in doing so as the Rule mandates 50% addition for persons below 40 – Rule prevails over Pranay Sethi guideline in the context of U.P. – Reliance placed on New India Assurance Co. v. Urmila Shukla (2021) 20 SCC 800 [Paras 3, 16]

Interest on Future Prospects – Permissible – Tribunal awarded interest on future prospects as well – Contention raised by insurer that such interest is impermissible was rejected – Held: Rule 220-A(6) allows interest on entire compensation amount – Supported by several precedents including Oriental Insurance v. Niru, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1431 – SLP against similar award dismissed by Supreme Court [Paras 17–22]

Evidence Standard – Preponderance of Probabilities – Court reiterated that in motor accident claims, standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Reliance placed on Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi (2023) 13 SCC 510 and Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 [Paras 5, 6]

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Tribunal’s award of ₹18,34,000/- with 7% interest upheld – Direction to refund statutory deposit of ₹25,000/- to Tribunal.

Labour Law – Reinstatement – Illegal Termination – Voluntary Resignation Not Proved – Tribunal directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages – Employer challenged award citing alleged resignation and full and final settlement – Held: Photocopies of alleged resignation and cheque were not proved through admissible evidence – Workman denied receiving settlement beyond salary dues – Tribunal rightly rejected employer’s plea and held termination illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F of I.D. Act [Paras 5–11].

Industrial Disputes – Back Wages – Employer’s Burden to Prove Gainful Employment – Management challenged grant of 50% back wages arguing absence of claim of unemployment by workman – Held: Burden was on employer to prove gainful employment during the period of termination – In absence of such evidence, Tribunal’s award of back wages sustainable – Relief consistent with Hindustan Tin Works and Deepali Gundu Surwase decisions of the Supreme Court [Paras 12–14].

Industrial Law – Demand Notice – Discrepancy in Date of Appointment – Tribunal found actual date of appointment as 05.09.2013 based on management’s own record – Held: Mere discrepancy in dates across multiple demand notices immaterial where employment and termination were otherwise established – Finding of Tribunal affirmed [Para 4].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Tribunal’s award of reinstatement with 50% back wages upheld – Management failed to prove resignation or settlement and failed to discharge burden of proving gainful employment – No interference warranted under Article 226.