Criminal Law - Acquittal for Murder - Government Appeal against trial court’s judgment acquitting accused of murder charges under Section 302/34 IPC - Trial court convicted accused for causing simple injuries under Section 323/34 IPC - Prosecution alleged that accused snatched a one-year-old child from her mother's lap and threw her on the ground, leading to her death - Post-mortem report indicated death due to shock and haemorrhage from a ruptured spleen with no external injuries - Prosecution witnesses' testimonies inconsistent and contradicted by medical evidence - Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder - Acquittal for murder charges affirmed. [Paras 20-23, 36-39, 46-47]

Injury Causing - Conviction for Simple Injuries - Prosecution established that accused inflicted simple injuries on complainants during altercation - Medical evidence corroborated injuries consistent with blunt force trauma - Trial court’s finding of guilt under Section 323/34 IPC supported by consistent testimonies of injured witnesses and medical reports - Conviction for simple injuries upheld. [Paras 33-34, 48]

Procedural Aspects - Charges Framing - Discrepancy in charges framed by trial court noted - Separate charges for individual accused under Section 302 IPC and joint charges under Section 302/34 IPC - Alteration unexplained by prosecution - Emphasized importance of clarity in charges framing. [Para 45]

Decision - Dismissal of Government Appeal - Appeal challenging acquittal under Section 302/34 IPC dismissed - Trial court’s judgment affirmed - Conviction and sentence for simple injuries under Section 323/34 IPC sustained - No order as to costs. [Paras 49-51]

Appointment of Non-Teaching Staff – Requirement of Prior Approval – Appellant challenged the decision of the Single Judge which quashed the orders of the DIOS disapproving the appointment of the respondent as an Assistant Clerk – Argument that minority institutions are exempt from seeking prior approval as per Regulation 101 of the Act – Single Judge held Regulation 101 inapplicable to minority institutions, affirming the appointment of the respondent and directing financial sanction and salary payment – High Court held that Regulation 101 applies to all aided institutions, including minority institutions, and mandates prior DIOS approval – Judgment of Single Judge set aside [Paras 1-56].
Minority Educational Institutions – Regulatory Provisions – Applicability of Regulation 101 – Detailed examination of Regulation 101 which mandates prior DIOS approval for filling non-teaching posts in aided institutions – Analysis of Supreme Court rulings affirming the regulation's applicability to both minority and non-minority institutions – Emphasis on the necessity of regulatory oversight for ensuring lawful appointments and proper utilization of state aid [Paras 44-53].
Recruitment Process – Validity of Appointment – The respondent's appointment as Assistant Clerk found invalid due to non-compliance with Regulation 101 – Advertisement for the post lacked essential details and the appointment letter was deficient – High Court concluded that the appointment process was flawed and lacked transparency – Importance of adhering to prescribed procedures for fair and legitimate recruitment [Paras 30-34, 53-54].
Conclusion – Special Appeal Allowed – Single Judge's judgment reversed – Held – Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is fully applicable to aided minority institutions – Appointment of the respondent without prior DIOS approval is invalid – Directive issued for compliance with regulatory requirements in future recruitment processes [Paras 55-56].
Decision: Special Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of Single Judge set aside – Appointment of respondent as Assistant Clerk declared invalid due to non-compliance with Regulation 101 – Emphasis on mandatory prior DIOS approval for filling non-teaching posts in aided institutions, including minority institutions.
 

Income Tax – Exemption – Assessee, a charitable trust, transferred Rs. 20 crores of accumulated income to its Trust Fund Account and used it to make corpus donations to other charitable trusts – Assessing Officer (AO) denied exemption on this amount, treating it as deemed income under Sections 11(3)(c) and 11(3)(d) – ITAT allowed exemption under Section 11(1) for 15% of deemed income [Paras 1-9].

Utilization of Accumulated Income – The assessee argued that the temporary utilization of accumulated funds for donations, later reversed within two months, should not affect the exemption under Section 11(2) – ITAT upheld this view, citing that the funds were used for charitable purposes and quickly restored [Paras 10-25].

Legal Precedents – Reference made to the Calcutta High Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Natwarlal Chowdhury Charity Trust, which held that accumulated income can be exempt under Section 11(1)(a) even if deemed income under Section 11(3) arises due to temporary non-compliance [Paras 6-10].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – ITAT's decision upheld – Accumulated income utilized for donations to other charitable trusts temporarily should not result in loss of exemption – Donations treated as application of income for charitable purposes, and 15% of deemed income allowed for exemption under Section 11(1) [Paras 29-31].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Condonation of Delay – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition against Trial Court’s order condoning delay in filing complaint – Petitioners argued delay not justified and trial court failed to provide reasons – Trial Court’s order found to be non-speaking and lacking in cogent reasons – Held, condonation of delay requires detailed reasoning reflecting application of mind – Order quashed and matter remanded for fresh decision with proper reasoning.

Condonation of Delay – Analysis – Held – Trial Court must provide detailed reasoning for condonation of delay, reflecting proper application of mind – Order lacking such reasoning is unsustainable – Right to reason is indispensable for a sound judicial decision – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh decision on condonation application.

Decision – Quashing of Non-Speaking Order – Trial Court’s order condoning delay set aside – Matter remanded for fresh decision with proper opportunity for parties to be heard – Order to be passed with cogent reasons in accordance with law.

Electricity Laws – Meter Tampering – Appeal against demand notice – Regular second appeal challenging the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court – Dispute over alleged tampering of electricity meter in respondent’s cotton factory – Appellants’ Flying Squad claimed meter reading was reversed and glass scratched – Both courts found seals on the metal box and meter intact – No substantive evidence of tampering with the glass – Appeal dismissed.

Meter Tampering – Analysis – Held – Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that the meter was installed in a metal box with intact seals – Witnesses from the appellants admitted seals were intact – No evidence to support claims of glass tampering – Statement of DW2 regarding reversed meter reading considered insufficient without corroborative evidence.

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissed – No substantial question of law found – Judgments and decrees of the lower courts upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Suit – Notice Requirement under Section 80 CPC – Second Appeal against the judgment of the lower appellate court, which dismissed the suit for lack of mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC – The suit was initially filed by plaintiffs seeking a declaration of ownership by adverse possession of agricultural land – Trial Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but lower appellate court reversed this, citing non-compliance with Section 80 CPC – High Court upheld the decision of the lower appellate court, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the notice requirement under Section 80 CPC – Held, compliance with Section 80 CPC is a condition precedent for instituting a suit against the Government or public officers – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Mandatory Nature of Section 80 CPC – Analysis – Supreme Court precedents affirming the necessity of serving notice under Section 80 CPC before instituting a suit – Section 80 aims to provide the government a chance to address grievances outside of court – Non-compliance results in the suit being deemed not maintainable – Exceptions under Section 80(2) discussed, but the case at hand did not meet the criteria for such exceptions. [Para 9-13]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court upheld the lower appellate court’s judgment dismissing the suit due to the absence of mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC – No error found in the lower appellate court’s application of law – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Para 13]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonor of Cheque – Criminal Revision against the conviction and sentence by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, upheld by Additional Sessions Judge – Petitioner entered into an agreement to sell a petrol pump and issued a cheque as part of a settlement – Cheque dishonored due to insufficient funds – Legal notice served but payment not made – Petitioner denied execution of agreement and claimed cheque was lost/misused – Evidence including testimonies and documents (agreement to sell, settlement deed) examined – Petitioner’s multiple contradictory defenses dismissed – Conviction upheld as petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act – Revision dismissed. [Paras 1-18]

Role of Petitioner – Evidence Analysis – Held – Petitioner’s multiple contradictory defenses deemed unreliable – Consistent evidence from respondent No.1 and witnesses corroborating the agreement and settlement deed – Petitioner’s failure to take legal action against alleged misuse of cheque noted – Signatures on crucial documents including agreement and settlement deed verified – Conviction based on substantive evidence and legal presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act. [Paras 14-17]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Court finds no merit in the petition – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act upheld – Petition dismissed due to lack of credible defense and failure to rebut statutory presumption. [Para 18]

Education Law – Promissory Estoppel – Legitimate Expectation – Return of Applications for Special Education Courses – RCI’s Decision – Judicial Review – Writ Petitions Against RCI Circulars

Representation and Reliance - Circulars issued by RCI invited fresh proposals from institutions for conducting special education courses for the academic session 2024-2025, including diploma and degree courses. The petitioners, acting on the representations, invested substantial resources to conform to RCI norms. Subsequently, RCI’s decision to return these proposals, based on a letter from the Ministry, was challenged as arbitrary and lacking legal justification. [Paras 1-23]

Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation - Held, RCI’s circulars amounted to a clear representation inducing petitioners to submit proposals and invest resources. The decision to resile from this representation without adequate justification or supervening public equity was not permissible. Petitioners could not restore status quo ante, making the initial representation irrevocable against RCI. [Paras 60-79]

Arbitrariness and Lack of Statutory Basis - The decision to return the proposals was based solely on a ministerial letter without due consideration by the Executive Committee of RCI. No statutory provision or amended regulation justified the return of applications for diploma and degree courses. The ongoing need for special educators further negated any public interest justification for the decision. [Paras 66-74]

NEP 2020 Considerations - The NEP 2020 recognized the urgent need for additional special educators, contradicting the rationale for not considering new proposals. Enhancing seats in existing institutions while refusing new proposals was inconsistent with the stated objectives of NEP 2020. [Paras 80-81]

Decision - The impugned circulars dated 4 January 2024 and 8 March 2024 were quashed to the extent they returned the petitioners’ applications for starting D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses. The RCI was directed to process the proposals in accordance with law. The challenge to the circular allowing enhancement of seats in existing institutions was dismissed. [Paras 83-85]

Admission – Post-Graduate Medical Courses – Appellants challenged their exclusion from the merit list for Priority-III candidates in AFMS institutions due to lack of official seals on their sponsorship certificates – Learned Single Judge upheld the rejection – Appellants sought reconsideration and admission based on their NEET-PG 2023 ranks [Paras 1-11].

Sponsorship Certificates – Technical Deficiencies – Appellants argued that the absence of an official seal was a technical formality, not a mandatory requirement – Cited provisions from the Information Bulletin – Respondents failed to provide opportunities for rectifying the deficiency – Prior practice did not enforce this requirement strictly [Paras 12-20].

Legal Precedents – Procedural Relaxations – Appellants relied on Supreme Court rulings (Dolly Chhanda v. JEE, Chairman and S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh) emphasizing that procedural defects should not deprive candidates of admissions – Prior judgments supported the rectification of minor deficiencies [Paras 21-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Respondents directed to grant admission to appellants in the next academic year (2024-2025) based on NEET-PG 2023 ranks and chosen institutions – Sponsorship certificate deficiency deemed a procedural formality, not a ground for exclusion [Paras 29-36].