Criminal Procedure – Right to Documents Post Discharge – Accused, discharged by investigating authorities and Internal Complaint Committee, seeks access to documents including the closure report and other investigative materials to participate effectively in the protest petition hearing – Supreme Court precedents and legal principles on the entitlement of an accused to such documents discussed – Trial court and revisional court denied the request leading to a revision under Section 482 CrPC.

Court’s Rationale – Dismissal of Revisional Application – High Court upholds decisions of lower courts, agreeing that at the stage of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, the accused does not have the right to participate or access documents that form part of the investigative process – Principles of natural justice not violated as the accused is recognized legally only post-cognizance – Court stresses the distinction between the rights of a de facto complainant and an accused in accessing investigative documents.

Decision – High Court dismisses the revisional application CRR 784 of 2023 affirming that no legal provision mandates hearing the accused or providing him documents at the pre-cognizance stage of a protest petition under Section 173(8) CrPC – Revision against order denying document access to discharged accused is not supported by law.

Pre-emption Proceedings and Title Disputes – Rejection of an amendment to a pre-emption application that sought to introduce questions about the title and share entitlement over land sold – Original application filed under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act based on non-notification of sale to a co-sharer and a misstated sale price – Amendment aimed to challenge the vendor’s title to sell the full extent of the land – High Court held that such issues exceed the scope of Section 8 and must be addressed in a separate title suit – Pre-emption is viewed as a statutory right with specific constraints, and is not intended to resolve title disputes – Amendment rejected as it sought to convert the nature of the proceedings from pre-emption to a title and partition suit [Paras 1-37].

Judicial Interpretation of Statutory Rights in Pre-emption – Application of the Code of Civil Procedure to pre-emption applications does not extend the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) to include resolution of title disputes inherently within such cases – The court emphasized the limited and specific jurisdiction under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for deciding pre-emption applications without delving into broader title issues unless they relate directly to establishing pre-emptive rights [Paras 14, 20, 25, 26].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping with Intent to Murder – Respondents acquitted by the trial court – Prosecution’s case based on the testimony of PW2-Dharmendra Kumar and other witnesses – Trial court found no evidence of intent to kill or to dispose of the victim in a manner that endangered his life – Acquittal affirmed by High Court due to lack of substantial evidence supporting prosecution’s claims [Paras 1-6].

Appeal against Acquittal – Standard of Review – High Court emphasized the principle that appeals against acquittal require substantial and compelling reasons for interference – Cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reinforcing the presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal – No perversity or illegality found in the trial court’s judgment [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – High Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment – Emphasized the importance of careful review of evidence in appeals against acquittal to prevent wrongful convictions [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Petitioner, a neighbor in a land dispute, alleged to have been maliciously implicated in the criminal case – Contention that dispute is civil in nature, lacking ingredients of offences under SC/ST (PoA) Act – Reliance on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing scrutiny of allegations for malicious prosecution [Paras 1-4].

SC/ST (PoA) Act – Allegations of Harassment – Respondent, a member of Scheduled Caste, claimed harassment by petitioner preventing construction on his land – Court noted absence of land dispute, deemed it a case of untouchability – Offence under SC/ST (PoA) Act held to be made out [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Criminal proceedings not quashed, as allegations of harassment on account of untouchability substantiated – Dismissal based on acknowledgment of discriminatory practices against SC/ST individuals [Para 7].

Commercial Dispute – Recovery of Payments – Appeal against Commercial Court’s decree ordering appellant to pay ₹8,49,385 with 18% p.a. interest from the date of suit filing for goods supplied to appellant – Dispute involves recovery of payments for 2500 T-shirts supplied under invoice dated 30.06.2018 (Ex.PW-1/2A) – Appellant challenges correctness of transactions, claims of defective goods, and pre-suit interest calculation under MSMED Act [Paras 1-40]

Defective Goods Claim – Appellant contends goods were defective and returned; however, Commercial Court finds only a portion (22 T-shirts) were disputed regarding quality – No full return was executed, and emails indicate ongoing discussions on quality but no complete denial of receipt [Paras 12-14, 32-33]

Interest Calculation under MSMED Act – Appellant disputes the entitlement to 18% p.a. pre-suit interest, alleging non-establishment of respondent’s MSMED status and lack of notice on interest penalty – Commercial Court finds sufficient notice and basis under MSMED Act despite appellant’s denial – Upholds interest claim as per Act’s provisions [Paras 36-39]

Judgment Assessment – Commercial Court found that despite discrepancies in transaction recording, evidence (ledger entries and emails) confirmed ongoing business transactions and non-payment specific to the challenged invoice – Ledger review indicated non-payment for the goods received; thus, financial claims by respondent were justified [Paras 17-20, 24-29]

Decision – High Court upholds Commercial Court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal, affirming respondent’s claim on principal and interest amounts due under provided invoices – Confirms legal and factual basis for the original decision, including the appropriateness of invoking MSMED Act provisions for interest calculation [Paras 38-40]

Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Nativity Certificate - Minor petitioner represented by his natural guardian applied for a Nativity Certificate to pursue higher studies in Tamil Nadu - Application rejected by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar on grounds of non-residence and birth outside the state - High Court quashes the order and directs issuance of the Nativity Certificate - Held, rejection of application based on birthplace and current residence contrary to established precedents and principles of domicile - Authorities directed to issue Nativity Certificate within seven days. [Paras 1-5]

Eligibility for Nativity Certificate - Analysis - Held, birthplace and current residence outside Tamil Nadu not sole determinants of nativity - Petitioner's parents, being natives of Tamil Nadu with roots traceable to the state, establish eligibility for Nativity Certificate - Authorities' denial based on misinterpretation of criteria and lack of consideration of relevant factors. [Para 4]

Decision - Issuance of Nativity Certificate - High Court quashes impugned order and directs Zonal Deputy Tahsildar to issue the Nativity Certificate within a specified timeframe - Authorities' refusal deemed incorrect and contrary to judicial precedents. [Para 5]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10(1)(c) – Reference to Labour Court – Principle of Res Judicata – Applicability – High Court examined the Labour Court's decision, which declined the petitioner’s reinstatement claim based on res judicata, as previous matters had been adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT-LC). The High Court found that the principle of res judicata was incorrectly applied since the petitioner was not a Central Government employee, invalidating prior decisions of the CAT and CGIT-LC. The matter required adjudication on merits regarding the termination's legality under the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned award was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication by the Labour Court [Paras 1-25].

Jurisdiction – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and Labour Courts – Inherent Lack of Jurisdiction – High Court observed that the CAT and CGIT-LC decisions regarding the petitioner’s employment status were coram non judice (without jurisdiction). The CAT’s earlier decision was deemed a nullity as the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.R. Pillai clarified that Unit Run Canteens’ employees are not Central Government employees. Consequently, CAT's decision lacked jurisdiction, necessitating proper legal remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Paras 9-16, 22-23].

Delay in Legal Remedy – Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s prolonged legal battle spanning over 20 years and protected her right to pursue a remedy under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner had approached various forums under a bona fide belief of their jurisdiction, thus excluding the time spent in such proceedings from the limitation period [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Revival of Reference – Expeditious Adjudication Ordered – The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Labour Court’s award and ordering the revival of the reference for fresh adjudication. The Court directed the parties to appear before the Labour Court on a specified date and mandated a decision within one year to mitigate further delays and alleviate the petitioner’s prolonged suffering [Paras 24-26].

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 132, 153A, 153C – Invalid Search and Seizure Proceedings – Quashing of Notices and Assessment Orders - Court examined the validity of search and seizure proceedings and subsequent assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Petitioner challenged the initiation of proceedings, search, and assessment order, asserting lack of authorization and procedural violations – Court held that without proper authorization and adherence to the prescribed procedure under Section 153C, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A were invalid and unjustified – Based on the evidence and precedents, the Court quashed the notices and assessment orders [Paras 1-36].

Income Tax – Search and Seizure – Procedural Compliance – Requirement of Authorization – Invalid Panchnama - High Court clarified that mere mention of a company’s name in a panchnama does not equate to authorization for a search under Section 132 – Reiterated the principle that procedural compliance is mandatory, and deviations render proceedings void – Emphasized the necessity of following Section 153C when incriminating materials of third parties are found during a search – Court found lack of compliance and quashed the assessment proceedings [Paras 25-30].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act – Petitioner contended that materials obtained from the cloning of a laptop were inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act – Court considered the arguments but primarily focused on procedural lapses under the Income Tax Act to quash the proceedings [Para 12].

Decision – Quashing of Notices and Orders – Held – The writ petition is allowed, notices dated 05.01.2018, and assessment orders and demand notices dated 07.02.2024 are quashed and set aside as nonest due to procedural violations and lack of jurisdiction. All pending applications stand disposed of, with no costs awarded. [Paras 35-36]

Criminal Law – Attempt to Rape – Section 376/511 IPC – Conviction Altered to Section 354 IPC – The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 376/511 IPC on the grounds that the evidence did not substantiate the charge of attempted rape. The appellant argued that no offence under Section 376/511 IPC was made out as the act did not proceed beyond preparation. The prosecution's case was based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, a minor, who stated that the appellant undressed her and himself but did not proceed further. The court found that the appellant's acts were indicative of an intention to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix rather than an attempt to rape. Therefore, the conviction was altered to Section 354 IPC. [Paras 1-20]

Sentencing – Period Already Undergone – Young Age of Offender – Considering the appellant's age (below 25 at the time of the offence), the long duration since the incident (33 years), and the period already spent in jail (about 2.5 months), the court decided that further incarceration was unwarranted. The appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone. [Paras 21-24]

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The court altered the conviction from Section 376/511 IPC to Section 354 IPC and sentenced the appellant to the period already undergone. The order of the Sessions Judge, Tonk, was modified accordingly. [Paras 24-26]