Criminal Law - Age Determination – Procedural Deficiency – Conviction Under POCSO Act Set Aside – The appellant challenged the victim’s age, arguing insufficient evidence to prove her minority – Court noted reliance solely on a bonafide certificate (Ex.P17), with no corroborating school admission or birth certificate, nor an ossification test – Held: Victim’s age could not be conclusively proved as below 18 years; POCSO Act charges were not attracted [Paras 10-16].

Consent in Sexual Relationship – Conviction for Rape (Section 376 IPC) Set Aside – Evidence revealed consensual intimacy between the appellant and the victim over time – Court observed no evidence of force or coercion in the relationship; victim disclosed allegations only after discovering pregnancy – Held: No offence of rape established [Paras 17-21].

Inducement for Marriage – Conviction Under Section 417 IPC Sustained – Appellant induced the victim under the pretext of marriage but subsequently married another woman – Court upheld conviction under Section 417 IPC for cheating the victim [Para 22].

House Trespass (Section 448 IPC) – Conviction Quashed – The appellant’s visits to the victim’s house were consensual and not proven to constitute house trespass – Held: Conviction under Section 448 IPC set aside [Para 23].

Decision: The criminal appeal was partly allowed. Convictions under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 448 and 376(2)(n) IPC were set aside. The conviction under Section 417 IPC was sustained with a one-year sentence. The appellant was ordered to be released immediately, considering his incarceration duration, unless required in any other case.

Metro Railway – Compensation for Damages – Loss of Rent – Petitioners sought compensation for unrealized rent from Syndicate Bank for ten years due to alleged damages caused to their building by Metro Railway construction – Held: No valid lease existed between Syndicate Bank and the petitioners – Petitioners failed to execute a registered lease deed, as required under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 17 of the Registration Act – Claim dismissed for lack of evidence of a valid landlord-tenant relationship [Paras 25-28, 31].

Doctrine of Estoppel – Scope of Remand and Res Judicata – Petitioners argued that earlier remand by the High Court limited the Tribunal's scope to determine the monetary extent of compensation – Held: Prior High Court order allowed remand for comprehensive adjudication, including the validity of the claim – No res judicata or estoppel applies as the earlier findings did not conclusively settle the substantive issues in favor of the petitioners [Paras 16-18].

Lease and Sub-Lease – Legal Requirements – Petitioners relied on Exhibit-4 (an unregistered letter from Syndicate Bank to M/s Tee Jay Properties) to establish a 20-year sub-lease – Held: Exhibit-4 merely mentioned an intention to execute a lease, and Clause 15 required a registered lease deed, which was never executed – Absence of a registered lease precludes enforcement of tenancy claims, and Syndicate Bank’s occupation was limited to an informal arrangement, deemed as occupational charges [Paras 24-28].

Sale of Property – Impact on Compensation Claim – Petitioners sold the disputed property in 2004 but continued to pursue compensation claims for alleged damages occurring prior to the sale – Held: Sale of property extinguishes claims for damages unless expressly reserved – Petitioners’ claims for double benefit from sale proceeds and damages are unsustainable [Para 30].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to cases of manifest injustice, arbitrariness, or perverse findings – Held: Tribunal’s findings were based on evidence and were neither perverse nor arbitrary – Petition dismissed as no grounds for interference were found [Paras 32-34].

Decision – Application Dismissed – High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of the compensation claim – No illegality, irregularity, or misdirection found in the impugned order [Paras 34-35].

Order VII Rule 11 – Cause of Action and Limitation – Application Rejected – Petitioners contended that the plaint should be rejected as it lacked a cause of action and the suit was barred by limitation – Court observed that the plaint disclosed a cause of action, as it pleaded joint family properties and refusal of partition on 28/07/2022 – Held: Issues of limitation and possession are mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial; rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was unwarranted [Paras 18-22].

Revenue Records – Fiscal Purpose – Not Proof of Ownership – Petitioners relied on entries in Pahanis and Adangals to argue prior distribution of properties – Court held that revenue records are for fiscal purposes and not conclusive proof of ownership or possession – Held: Rejection cannot be based on revenue entries alone [Para 23].

Judicial Precedents – Relevance and Application – Court distinguished the cases cited by petitioners, including T. Arvindham v. T.V. Satyapal, noting that the present case did not involve “clever drafting” or an illusion of cause of action – Held: The cited judgments were inapplicable to the facts of this case [Paras 24-25].

Court Fee – Plaintiff’s Joint Possession Assumed for Valuation – Petitioners argued insufficient court fee payment under Section 34(2) of APCF & SV Act – Court noted that the issue of court fee was dependent on possession and had to be decided during trial [Para 22].

Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action, and issues of limitation and possession required trial. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was found to lack merit.

Juvenile Justice – Bail – Denial of Bail by Juvenile Justice Board and Children’s Court – Rejection based on social investigation report citing lack of parental care and potential risks to the child and victim – High Court holds denial of bail improper due to absence of substantive material supporting concerns raised – Accusatory language used in orders contravenes Section 3(viii) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Orders set aside, and CICL released on bail [Paras 8-14, 16-17].

Juvenile Justice – Section 12 of JJ(C&P) Act, 2015 – Bail to Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) – Mandate of Section 12 emphasizes release on bail unless specific grounds such as risk of association with known criminals or exposure to moral, physical, or psychological danger exist – High Court finds no evidence of such risks in the social investigation report – Held: Bail is the rule, refusal is an exception [Paras 9-10, 13-14].

Best Interest Principle – Section 3(i), (iv), and (viii) of JJ(C&P) Act, 2015 – Decision-making regarding CICL must prioritize reformative approach and avoid stigmatizing language – High Court finds that accusatory words in lower court orders violated this principle – Orders quashed as contrary to the Act’s mandate [Paras 9, 13].

Social Investigation Report – Evidentiary Value – High Court observes that concerns in the social investigation report were speculative and lacked corroboration – No record of bad association, risk of absconding, or likelihood of repeating offenses – Rejection of bail based on presumptions held unsustainable [Paras 14(i)-(v)].

Case Law – Relevant Precedents – Reiterated principles from Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 04 of 2020 (SC), Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. (2016), and Shahnawaz Hussain v. State of Jharkhand (2023) – Emphasis on granting bail to juveniles unless clear and valid reasons under Section 12 exist [Paras 11].

Decision – Bail Granted – Impugned orders of Juvenile Justice Board and Children’s Court set aside – CICL released on bail with conditions including parental undertaking to ensure care and prevent bad associations [Paras 15-17].

SARFAESI Act – Delay Condonation under Section 17 – Applicability of Limitation Act – DRT Can Condon Delay – The Gauhati High Court examined whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) can condone delays in filing applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by applying the Limitation Act – The Court distinguished between original proceedings under Section 19 of the RDB Act and applications under Section 17 of SARFAESI – Held: Section 24 of the RDB Act, which applies Limitation Act provisions to Tribunal proceedings, extends to applications under Section 17 of SARFAESI, provided delay is sufficiently explained [Paras 24-27].

Conflict of High Court Views – Calcutta and Orissa High Court vs. Other High Courts – Divergent interpretations exist among High Courts on the applicability of the Limitation Act to Section 17 applications – Gauhati High Court disagreed with Calcutta and Orissa High Courts' restrictive approach, which treated Section 17 proceedings as akin to civil suits where Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply – Endorsed broader interpretation of other High Courts allowing condonation of delay [Paras 18-22].

Legislative Intent – Interpretation of Section 17(7) of SARFAESI – The Court emphasized the principle of legislation by incorporation – Noted that Section 17(7) requires DRT to dispose of Section 17 applications in accordance with the RDB Act, which includes applicability of the Limitation Act under Section 24 – Concluded that exclusion of Limitation Act provisions from Section 17 applications is not intended by the legislature [Paras 23-26].

Relief Granted – DRT’s Order Set Aside – Remand for Reconsideration – The Court held that the DRT erred in refusing to condone the delay without considering the merits of the petitioners’ explanation for the delay – Set aside the DRT’s dismissal and remanded the matter to DRT to adjudicate the condonation application and, if allowed, decide the Section 17 application on merits [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Conviction and Appeal – Non-Compliance Allegations Rejected - Appellant convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act by the Special Judge, Bijni, for possessing cannabis weighing approximately 40.4 kg – Sentenced to 3 years and 6 months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000, with a default sentence of 60 days’ rigorous imprisonment – Appellant challenged the judgment on grounds of non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 42(2), 52A, 55, and 57 [Paras 2, 4].

Seizure Process – Compliance with Section 42(2) NDPS Act - Appellant argued that mandatory reporting to the superior officer under Section 42(2) was not followed – Prosecution evidence established that the search and seizure were conducted under the direct supervision of the SDPO, who issued the authorization letter (Exhibit-3) – Court held that since the superior officer was directly involved in the operation, compliance with Section 42(2) was adequate – Appellant’s claim of non-compliance rejected [Paras 33–34].

Chain of Custody – Malkhana Records and FSL Examination - Appellant contended that the chain of custody was not established as the malkhana register was not produced – Court noted that the malkhana in-charge issued a receipt (Exhibit-8), acknowledging custody of the seized articles, which was corroborated by other prosecution evidence – Delay of one day in forwarding the samples to FSL was not deemed fatal as samples were found sealed and properly marked upon receipt by FSL – Prosecution successfully established chain of custody [Paras 45–51].

Inventory and Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act - Appellant alleged non-compliance with Section 52A, claiming the Magistrate’s certification of the inventory (Exhibit-9) was unsubstantiated – Evidence showed that samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate, and the inventory was certified – Court held that the absence of the Magistrate’s testimony did not undermine the compliance, as records and certification sufficed to establish procedural adherence [Paras 39–40].

Independent Witnesses – Credibility of Evidence - Appellant argued that independent witnesses (P.W.2, P.W.4) did not support the seizure – Court observed that while witnesses were unaware of the contraband’s contents, they confirmed their presence at the scene and signed the seizure list – Their testimony did not contradict the prosecution’s case, and the evidence of official witnesses corroborated the seizure [Paras 28–31].

Reverse Burden of Proof – Section 35 and Section 54 NDPS Act - Court reiterated that the reverse burden under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act becomes applicable after the prosecution establishes a prima facie case – Prosecution proved the seizure of cannabis from the appellant’s possession, shifting the burden to the appellant to rebut the presumption – Appellant failed to provide any rebuttal evidence [Paras 52–56].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act upheld – Prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court’s judgment was found to be based on proper appreciation of evidence and law – Appellant to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court [Paras 57–58].
 

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Court Commissioner – Order XXVI Rule 9, CPC – Permissibility at Initial Stages – Held: The appointment of a Court Commissioner is permissible under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC even at the initial stage of proceedings when the purpose is to elucidate facts or assist the court in ascertaining the situation of the property – Procedural laws must aid justice and not obstruct it – Trial court's decision upheld [Paras 8-12].

Procedural Law – Purpose of Order XXVI Rule 9, CPC – Explained: Local investigation by a Court Commissioner is justified when necessary to bring clarity to disputed facts, such as property boundaries, possession, or physical conditions – Powers under Order XXVI Rule 9 can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings to achieve justice [Para 10].

Objection to Evidence Collection – Judicial Precedents – Held: The contention that Order XXVI Rule 9 cannot be used to collect evidence for possession is unsustainable, provided the Commissioner's role is limited to fact-finding without prejudicing the rights of either party – Consistent with precedents from various High Courts [Paras 8-11].

Interpretation of Procedural Law – Facilitation of Justice: Procedural laws should be construed liberally to ensure substantive justice – The Court emphasized that procedural prescriptions act as handmaids to justice and not as tyrannical obstacles [Para 11].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Binding Authorities – Held: The trial court correctly relied on precedents allowing the appointment of a Court Commissioner to ensure the resolution of disputed property issues – Decision aligns with rulings in Jyotsnaben R. Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Rajesh Kumar Gautam v. M.M.V.C. Ashram [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The Special Civil Application was dismissed. The Gujarat High Court upheld the trial court's decision to appoint a Court Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9, CPC. The Court found no infirmity in the trial court's reasoning or findings, affirming that procedural law must serve the cause of justice.
 

Money Laundering – Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner sought bail on grounds of parity with co-accused who was released on bail – Held: Petitioner is entitled to bail as investigation is complete, prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21, and co-accused in similar circumstances has already been released [Paras 1, 6, 27-29].

Economic Offences – Stringent Approach – Section 45 of PMLA – Court acknowledges seriousness of economic offences but emphasizes that prolonged detention without trial violates fundamental rights – Held: Rigours of Section 45 can be relaxed in light of Article 21 and excessive delay in trial [Paras 19, 24].

Right to Speedy Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 of the Constitution – Petitioner has been in custody for 22 months and trial is unlikely to conclude soon due to the volume of evidence and witnesses – Held: Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 outweighs statutory restrictions on bail for economic offences – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 20, 23-24].

Presumption under PMLA – Section 22 and Section 23 – Prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s involvement in the offence exists – Held: Petitioner’s bail does not negate presumption under Sections 22 and 23; such issues can only be adjudicated during trial [Paras 17-18].

Delay in Trial – Grounds for Bail – Case involves thousands of documents and 300 witnesses – Investigation is complete, but trial has not yet commenced – Held: Delay in trial justifies bail under both constitutional and statutory principles [Paras 13, 23, 27].

Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions – Petitioner granted bail with a bond of ₹10,00,000 and strict conditions, including surrendering passport, restricted movement, and no contact with witnesses – Held: Trial Court may cancel bail in case of any violation of conditions [Paras 28-30].

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Appellant accused of grievously injuring a woman using a sharp weapon (darat), resulting in life-threatening injuries – Victim’s testimony corroborated by medical evidence and circumstantial findings – Trial Court’s judgment upheld [Paras 28-33].

Credibility of Injured Witness – Testimony Deemed Reliable – Court observed the victim's testimony as credible and consistent with medical evidence – Discrepancies pointed out in minor details were not sufficient to discredit the victim – Held: Injured witness testimony carries significant probative value unless major contradictions exist [Paras 34-38].

Test Identification Parade – Not Substantive Evidence – No Adverse Inference – Argument of procedural flaws in test identification parade dismissed – Court emphasized substantive evidence is identification in court; test identification serves only corroborative purposes [Paras 42-45].

Defensive Plea – Lack of Motive and Falling from a Tree – Rejected – Appellant’s contention that injuries were caused by a fall contradicted by medical evidence indicating sharp weapon use – Held: Defence unsubstantiated and inconsistent with evidence on record [Paras 46-50].

Sentence – Life Imprisonment Under Section 307 IPC – Proportionate – Considering the nature and gravity of injuries, the Court upheld the life sentence and fine imposed, rejecting pleas for reduction of sentence as excessive [Paras 51-55].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant to life imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and other punishments under Sections 326 and 354 IPC.