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].

Revocation of Probate – Citation of Interested Parties – Applicant’s Status as Biological Son – Application for revocation of probate granted to respondents. Applicant, Michael Soumen Ghosh, contended he was the biological son of the testator, Satyabrata Ghosh, but was not cited in the probate proceedings. The court emphasized the necessity for a testamentary court to verify that the testamentary disposition reflects the testator’s genuine intent without fraud or collusion [Paras 1-22].

Non-citation – Legitimacy and Legal Presumption – Applicant born during the wedlock of Phyllis Irene Roy with Sudhindra Narayan Roy, name on birth certificate and passport/visa. Respondents relied on Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, establishing presumption of legitimacy. Testamentary court’s limited jurisdiction does not extend to ordering DNA tests or declaring status [Paras 9-20].

Decision – Petition for Revocation Dismissed – Held – Testamentary court cannot adjudicate on the status of the applicant as biological son without a civil court’s declaratory decree. The application for revocation of probate dismissed on contest [Paras 21-22].
 

Sports Gradation Certificate – Eligibility Criteria – Petitioner, a sportsman aspiring to join a five-year integrated law course, sought a sports gradation certificate from UT Chandigarh’s Sports Department. The Department refused, citing the petitioner’s educational background outside Chandigarh. The High Court examined the Chandigarh Administration’s policy dated May 5, 2003, and found that the policy pertained to institutions under the Chandigarh Administration’s control, not Panjab University. The policy did not bar issuing gradation certificates to students representing Chandigarh teams, regardless of where they studied. The Court directed the issuance of the certificate to the petitioner [Paras 1-33].

Administrative Law – Reasoned Decisions – The High Court criticized the Sports Department’s mechanical application of policy without proper consideration of the petitioner’s achievements and the context of his application. Emphasized the need for administrative authorities to provide reasoned decisions, especially in matters affecting individuals’ educational and professional futures [Paras 6-8, 29-30].

Judicial Review – Ultra Vires – The policy, when interpreted to bar issuance of certificates to students like the petitioner, was found to be misapplied and ultra vires the authority’s mandate. The High Court underscored the judicial responsibility to rectify administrative misapplications adversely affecting the rights of individuals [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – High Court set aside the Sports Department’s order dated June 13, 2024. Directed issuance of the Sports Gradation Certificate within three days and Panjab University to reserve a seat for the petitioner, subject to his merit and eligibility [Paras 30-32].

Custody of Minors – Habeas Corpus Petition – Petitioner, the biological mother, seeks custody of her minor children from the step-brother and step sister-in-law – Supreme Court precedents emphasize welfare of the child as paramount – Mother’s right to custody upheld unless disqualified by clear exceptions [Paras 1-17].

Writ of Habeas Corpus – Maintainability – Writ is appropriate where a minor’s detention by a non-guardian relative is unlawful – Jurisdiction rests on inherent equitable powers – Ordinary remedy lies under guardianship statutes but habeas corpus is applicable in exceptional cases [Paras 13-21].

Paramount Consideration of Welfare – Court underscores that in custody matters, child’s welfare supersedes all other considerations – Mother’s natural ability to cater to young children’s needs prioritized – Step relatives’ custody deemed secondary to biological mother’s right [Paras 17-20].
Decision: Petition allowed – Custody of minors granted to the biological mother – Directions issued for prompt communication and compliance.
 

Property Tax – Arrears and Interest – Demand Notice: Appeal against the modification of a notice demanding arrear property tax and current dues with surcharge and interest – Appellant contended no bills were raised for the arrear period, and sought to pay arrears in installments – Municipality asserted the bills were duly raised and interest cannot be waived – Single Judge had waived 50% interest – Division Bench upheld the waiver of interest, noting the absence of a clear record of bills due to passage of time, and dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal [Paras 1-16].

Waiver of Interest on Arrears: Single Judge’s discretion to waive 50% interest was upheld – Interest charged at the highest rate – Discretionary power of the Board of Councillors noted, but currently administered by an administrator – Reduction justified under circumstances [Paras 11-12].

Service of Demand Notices: Appellant’s claim of non-service of bills for arrear period rejected – Plea raised for the first time at appellate stage considered unfounded – Importance of raising such issues timely emphasized [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Order of Single Judge upheld – Municipality directed to issue revised demand notice – Appellant to comply within specified timeframe to avoid additional interest charges [Para 13-15].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge sheet – Allegations of fraudulent inclusion of property Dag Nos. in Power of Attorney – Investigating officer collected evidence showing a prima facie case of forgery – FIR disclosed cognizable offence – Court found criminal proceedings not a mere civil dispute but with criminal overtones justifying the charges [Paras 1-21].

Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Court’s obligation to consider overall circumstances beyond FIR – Court relied on principles from Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., and Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand – Emphasis on looking into attending circumstances and materials collected during investigation – Court found sufficient material to proceed with charges [Paras 13-20].

Forgery – Intent to Deceive – Essential element for constituting offence of forgery – Mere act of altering documents with intent to deceive attracts penal consequences – No necessity for accused to make wrongful gain – FIR and evidence demonstrated intent to deceive, validating charges under IPC [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Revision Application Dismissed – Criminal Revision application dismissed – Proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1330/2013 to continue in accordance with law – Trial Court instructed not to be influenced by observations in this decision [Paras 21-24].
 

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.

Impleadment of Parties – Necessary and Proper Parties – Petitioners challenged the impleadment of opposite party No. 14 in a partition suit, arguing the party had no direct interest in the suit after an order of amendment was passed – Trial Court allowed the addition of opposite party No. 14, finding their presence necessary for complete adjudication – High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of including all interested parties to resolve the dispute effectively [Paras 1-14].

Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC – Discretionary Power of the Court – Court highlighted the discretionary power under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of CPC to add necessary and proper parties at any stage – Noted the Trial Court’s responsibility to ensure all relevant parties are included to adjudicate all issues completely and effectively [Paras 7-13].

Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to uphold the Trial Court’s order, stressing that the inclusion of opposite party No. 14 would not alter the nature of the suit but ensure all issues are addressed [Para 15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of the Learned 3^rd Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Howrah affirmed – Special Officer appointed to inspect the suit property and property of opposite party No. 14 – High Court allowed future striking out of opposite party No. 14 if found unnecessary after inspection and issue framing [Para 16-20].

Criminal Procedure – Framing of Charges – Petitioners challenged charges framed under Sections 304(ii) and 325 of IPC and Section 192-A of Motor Vehicles Act – Trial court's charge lacked necessary details against the second petitioner – High Court held charges for culpable homicide and grievous hurt untenable against the second petitioner due to lack of direct knowledge or involvement – Charges under Section 192-A of MV Act sustained [Paras 1-6].

Motor Vehicles Act – Liability of Vehicle Owner – Second petitioner, as owner, allowed driving of vehicle without speed governor – High Court found sufficient basis for charge under Section 192-A of MV Act – Remanded case to trial court for framing fresh charges considering observations [Paras 4-6].

Prosecution and Fair Trial – Revisiting Charges – High Court emphasized proper framing of charges to ensure fair trial – Incomplete or vague charges set aside to prevent undue prejudice to accused – Directed trial court to expedite proceedings with properly framed charges [Paras 6-7].

Decision:Revision petition allowed in part. The charge dated 20th January 2017 framed by the trial court was set aside. The trial court was directed to frame fresh charges in accordance with the observations made by the High Court and proceed to dispose of the case expeditiously.