Criminal Law – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Production of Electronic Evidence – Revision petition assailing order of Judicial Magistrate allowing complainant to tender a pen drive containing recorded conversation along with certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act during examination-in-chief – Earlier CD containing the conversation had become unreadable – Held: Section 311 Cr.P.C. is couched in the widest terms and empowers the Court at any stage of trial to summon, recall or re-examine a witness if the evidence appears essential for the just decision of the case – Provision intended to enable the Court to discover truth and render justice, not to benefit either party [Paras 7–8].

Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Discretion of Court – Filling of Lacunae – Test of Prejudice – Contention that complainant was filling lacunae rejected – Mere fact that evidence strengthens prosecution case or was not produced earlier not a ground to reject application – Test is whether evidence is essential for just decision – Adequate safeguard lies in granting full opportunity of cross-examination – No serious or irreversible prejudice shown to have been caused to accused [Paras 8–9, 11].

Electronic Evidence – Section 65-B Evidence Act – Stage of Admissibility – Production of pen drive along with statutory certificate permitted subject to objections – Genuineness, reliability and evidentiary value of electronic record to be examined at stage of appreciation of evidence – Authenticity cannot be adjudicated at threshold while considering application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Revision – Interference – Limits – Revisional Court will not interfere unless trial Court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or acted with material irregularity or perversity – Impugned order found to be reasoned, balanced and in consonance with settled principles governing Section 311 Cr.P.C. [Para 11].

Decision – Revision petition dismissed – Order dated 19.07.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 13–14].

Tort Law – Electrocution – Death due to high-voltage transmission line – Compensation – Deceased TV cable operator died due to electric shock while repairing cable on rooftop – Trial Court dismissed suit on conjecture that 132 KV line could not cause such death – First Appellate Court reversed findings and decreed suit – Held: Death due to electrocution proved by ocular and medical evidence – Trial Court’s reasoning based on assumptions unsustainable [Paras 2–4, 7–8].

Electricity Law – High-voltage transmission lines – Statutory and non-delegable duty – Electricity supplier under obligation to maintain safe clearances and remove obstructions – Evidence showed tree touching/dangerously close to 132 KV line creating lethal induction zone – Breach of statutory duty established [Paras 8–10].

Strict Liability – Hazardous activity – Transmission of electricity – Electricity inherently dangerous commodity – Once death due to electrocution established, liability of electricity authority arises irrespective of negligence – Burden on authority to show absence of liability – Failure to discharge burden – Reliance placed on M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari [Paras 10–11].

Contributory Negligence – Plea rejected – Victim engaged in lawful occupation on rooftop – Cannot be expected to foresee induction hazard from negligently maintained transmission line – Duty of safety rests on electricity authority and cannot be shifted to victim [Para 12].

Evidence Appreciation – Eye-witness testimony – Departmental records – Eye-witness corroborated by medical evidence and site plan – Defence of no tripping on line disbelieved due to discrepancies and overwriting in departmental records – Absence of tripping not determinative where induction possible [Paras 8–9].

Compensation – Assessment – Multiplier method – First Appellate Court applied principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC and Pranay Sethi – Notional income, future prospects and conventional heads correctly assessed – Quantum neither excessive nor arbitrary [Para 13].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No substantial question of law – Findings of First Appellate Court based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled law – High Court not justified in interfering with concurrent and reasoned findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani affirmed – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Recruitment – Age Relaxation – SEBC Candidate – Migration to Unreserved Category – Petitioner belonging to SEBC category applied for post of Management Trainee (HR) against unreserved vacancy – Advertisement prescribed maximum age of 32 years for UR candidates with age relaxation for reserved categories – No vacancy earmarked for SEBC category – Petitioner exceeded upper age limit for UR category – Held: In absence of express provision permitting migration with relaxation, reserved category candidate cannot claim age relaxation while competing for unreserved post [Paras 6–10, 12–13].

Recruitment Advertisement – Binding Nature – Eligibility Conditions – Recruitment governed strictly by terms of advertisement – Age limits and relaxations form part of employer’s policy domain – Court cannot rewrite or dilute conditions of advertisement – Online portal correctly rejected application as over-aged with reference to UR age criteria – Judicial interference unwarranted [Paras 10–11].

Reservation Law – Age Relaxation vis-à-vis Reservation – Distinction – Age relaxation is a category-based concession ancillary to reservation – Such concession cannot be availed independently when no post is reserved for the concerned category – Grant of such relaxation without reservation would result in hostile discrimination against unreserved candidates – Violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 11, 13, 15].

Precedent – Applicability – Union of India v. Sajib Roy – Supreme Court held that migration of reserved category candidates to unreserved posts with relaxations is not an inherent right – Such migration must be expressly authorized by recruitment rules or notification – Ratio applied to deny claim of SEBC candidate in absence of enabling clause in advertisement [Paras 9–10].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Policy – Limited Scope – Fixation of age limits, category-wise vacancies and relaxations fall within exclusive domain of employer – Courts to interfere only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or illegality – No such infirmity found in present case [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Rejection of petitioner’s application upheld – Interim orders vacated – No entitlement to age relaxation against unreserved post in absence of SEBC vacancy [Paras 14–15].

Civil Law – Order 41 Rule 21 CPC – Rehearing of Appeal – Ex-parte Judgment – Delay of 86 Days – Delay Condoned – Application for rehearing maintainable where sufficient cause shown for non-appearance of respondent when appeal was heard ex-parte [Paras 1–3].

Advocate’s Default – Litigant Not to Suffer – Respondents had engaged counsel who appeared initially but stopped appearing thereafter – No Special Process/Notice (SPC) issued by Court despite continuous absence of counsel – Applicants unaware of listing and hearing of appeal – Sufficient cause established for non-appearance [Paras 7, 11].

Principles of Natural Justice – Right of Hearing – Party having done everything expected by engaging counsel cannot be penalised for advocate’s lapse – Litigant not required to act as watchdog over advocate – Reliance placed on Rafiq v. Munshilal and Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad – Rehearing warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 8–9].

Knowledge of Ex-parte Decree – Irrelevant Consideration – Relevant factor is cause for absence on date of hearing and not subsequent knowledge of judgment – Participation in execution proceedings does not disentitle applicant from relief under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC [Para 10].

Delay and Conduct – Bona fide Explanation Accepted – No material to show deliberate avoidance of proceedings – Absence attributable to counsel’s failure to inform – Distinction drawn from cases where parties were negligent or relief discretionary [Paras 7, 11].

Costs – Balancing of Equities – Though rehearing allowed, applicants directed to compensate respondents – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed as condition for rehearing [Para 12].

Decision – Application Allowed – Delay Condoned – Ex-parte Judgment Dated 15.04.2025 Recalled – Second Appeal Directed to be Listed for Rehearing – MCC Disposed of [Paras 1, 11–12].

Customs – Appeal to High Court – Section 130 Customs Act – Scope – Appeal lies only on substantial question of law – Concurrent findings of fact by Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT regarding Fe content of Iron Ore Fines exported – Questions raised by Revenue essentially factual in nature – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–3, 8.8–10, 11–12].

Export Duty – Iron Ore Fines – Determination of Fe Content – WMT vs DMT – Prior to Finance Act, 2022 – For exports made before 01.05.2022, Fe content for levy of export duty to be determined on Wet Metric Tonne basis including moisture – Reliance placed on Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal (SC) and consistent CESTAT decisions – Held: Assessment on WMT basis is correct and in accordance with settled law [Paras 7.1–8.7, 9–9.6].

Evidence – Test Reports – CRCL vs NABL Accredited Private Laboratory – Load Port Test Report – Transaction Value – Final invoice and Bank Realisation Certificate issued on basis of NABL Accredited Laboratory (SKM) test reports – Payments received accordingly – CRCL report based on delayed testing and DMT basis – Held: No perversity in preferring contemporaneous load port test report for determining Fe content and valuation [Paras 7.2–7.9, 9.1–9.2].

Customs Valuation – Section 14 Customs Act – Transaction Value – Value of export goods to be price actually paid or payable as per contract between exporter and foreign buyer – Customs authorities cannot alter contractual basis of valuation when no doubt exists regarding transaction value – Held: Load port test report forming basis of transaction value must prevail [Paras 7.5–7.9, 9.2].

CBIC Circulars – Interpretation – Circular No.12/2014-Cus and Circular No.04/2012-Cus – Circulars clarify assessment on WMT basis for export duty on Iron Ore Fines – Tribunal correctly applied circulars consistent with judicial precedents – No legal error demonstrated [Paras 8.7, 9.2].

Judicial Discipline – Precedent – Coordinate Bench Decisions – CESTAT followed consistent line of decisions on WMT basis and valuation – High Court declined to re-appreciate evidence or reopen settled position of law – Held: Judicial discipline mandates uniformity [Paras 8.8–8.11, 9.6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – CESTAT order dated 04.12.2024 upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 12–12.3].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal Set Aside – Dishonour of Cheque – Trial Court ignored documentary evidence (Cheque Return Register and Memo) establishing date of knowledge of dishonour – Complainant issued statutory notice within 15 days from said date – Held: Trial Court committed legal error by failing to consider Exhibits 3 and 6 which directly impacted limitation and compliance with Section 138(b) – Acquittal set aside – Case remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 8–19, 22]

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal – Appeal Against Acquittal – Improper Appreciation of Evidence – Trial Court failed to consider material documentary exhibits forming part of record – No findings recorded regarding Exhibits 3 and 6 – Selective appreciation of evidence vitiated judgment – Held: Judgment based on incomplete analysis is legally unsustainable – Remand warranted for fresh decision [Paras 15–19, 21–23]

Limitation – Section 138 NI Act – Date of Dishonour vs. Date of Knowledge – Distinction between date of dishonour of cheque and date of receipt of intimation by payee is material – Statutory notice issued based on date of knowledge supported by documentary evidence – Trial Court erred by failing to account for this aspect – Legal notice held to be within limitation [Paras 9–10, 16]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 30.03.2016 set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh adjudication after proper appreciation of entire documentary and oral evidence – Trial Court directed to pass a reasoned judgment uninfluenced by present observations and to dispose of the case expeditiously [Paras 20–23]

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Dying Declaration – Acquittal – Accused convicted by Trial Court for murder of deceased by setting her ablaze after alleged quarrel arising out of illicit relationship – Prosecution case resting mainly on dying declaration and medical evidence – On appeal, High Court finds that there were no eyewitnesses and neighbours (PWs.1 to 3) did not support prosecution case regarding presence of accused at scene – Last seen theory not established – Motive of illicit relationship not proved by cogent evidence – Held: Chain of circumstantial evidence not complete and incapable of excluding other hypotheses – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 10–14, 29–32].

Evidence Act – Section 32 – Dying Declaration – Reliability and admissibility – Dying declaration recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector in hospital allegedly in presence of doctor – Doctor failed to certify mental and physical fitness of deceased in a satisfactory manner – No mention of vital parameters such as blood pressure, pulse rate or treatment administered – Duty doctor and case-sheets not produced – Deceased had suffered 80–85% burn injuries including face and lips – Mother and sister of deceased stated that deceased was not in a position to speak when they visited hospital – Held: Dying declaration not proved to be wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful – Cannot be sole basis for conviction [Paras 15–27].

Witness Testimony – Hostile witnesses – Neighbours as chance witnesses – PWs.2 and 3, neighbours of deceased, stated that they only heard cries and saw deceased with burn injuries – Categorically denied seeing accused at spot or running away from house – Prosecution version of last seen circumstance disbelieved – Evidence held insufficient to connect accused with crime [Paras 13–14].

Motive – Proof – Illicit relationship – Alleged motive based on illicit relationship between accused and deceased and objections by parents of accused – Neither parents of accused examined nor independent evidence led to establish motive – Held: Motive not proved and cannot by itself sustain conviction in absence of other reliable circumstances [Para 12].

Appeal – Criminal Appeal against conviction – Interference by High Court – Trial Court relied heavily on doubtful dying declaration and ignored material contradictions and omissions in prosecution evidence – Failure to scrutinize circumstantial evidence in strict legal standard – Held: Judgment of conviction and sentence liable to be set aside – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 28–32].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2018 and sentence dated 31.08.2018 set aside – Accused acquitted of offence under Section 302 IPC – Accused to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Order regarding disposal of properties maintained.

Service Law - Departmental Enquiry – Police Personnel – Allegation of Corruption – Reliance on Electronic Evidence – CD Not Proved – Non-Examination of Complainant – Violation of Natural Justice – Enquiry Vitiated – Departmental proceedings founded solely on alleged video CD purportedly showing acceptance of bribe – CD neither exhibited nor proved during enquiry – Complainant who allegedly recorded video not examined – Respondent not supplied CD nor given opportunity to rebut contents – Findings based on unproved and derivative material – Held: Enquiry suffers from foundational defects and violates principles of natural justice [Paras 36–40, 42].

Disciplinary Proceedings vis-à-vis Criminal Acquittal – Effect of Acquittal Based on Inadmissibility of Evidence – Criminal case and departmental enquiry founded on same CD – Criminal court held electronic record inadmissible for want of original device, Section 65-B certificate and authenticity – Acquittal affirmed by High Court – Though departmental proceedings not barred per se after acquittal, where acquittal is based on unreliability of foundational material, disciplinary authority must assess existence of independent evidence – No substantive material remaining once CD excluded – Charge unsustainable [Paras 41–42].

Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 – Rule 16(iii) – Scope and Limitations – Rule permits reliance on prior statements where witness cannot be procured without undue delay – Cannot be invoked to dispense with proof of primary incriminating material – Rule does not cure defect where very basis of charge is unproved – Reliance on Rule 16(iii) misplaced [Paras 39–40].

Standard of Proof in Departmental Enquiry – Preponderance of Probabilities – Limits – Though standard of proof is lower than criminal trial, material relied upon must still be legally admissible and put to delinquent officer – Findings cannot rest on material neither proved nor supplied – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute evidence even in departmental proceedings [Paras 37–38, 42].

Parity – Co-Delinquents – Relevance – Other officials allegedly involved in same incident either exonerated or granted relief by Tribunal – Allegations and evidence common – Selective sustainment of punishment against respondent without distinguishing material unjustified – Parity relevant though not determinative [Para 43].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Matters – Scope under Article 226 – Tribunal confined itself to examining existence of legally sustainable evidence and fairness of process – No re-appreciation of evidence as appellate authority – Interference justified where findings based on no evidence – High Court declined to interfere with Tribunal’s order [Paras 35, 45–46].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order of CAT dated 02.08.2016 upheld – Departmental proceedings and penalties quashed – No order as to costs.

Income-tax – Nil Withholding Certificate – Section 197 – Rule 28AA – Rejection of application – Mechanical approach by Assessing Officer – Assessing Officer rejected application solely on ground that determination of income at Section 197 stage is premature and tax must be deducted to protect revenue – Held: Such reasoning contrary to statutory mandate of Rule 28AA which requires consideration of estimated income, tax liability of previous four years, existing liabilities and advance tax – Non-consideration of mandatory parameters vitiates decision-making process [Paras 20–26, 30–32].

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – India–UK DTAA – Fees for Technical Services – Managerial services – “Make available” test – Petitioner providing routine managerial and administrative support services to Indian subsidiary on cost-to-cost basis – ITAT in petitioner’s own case for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 held such services not taxable as FTS under Article 13 – Held: Until set aside, Tribunal’s findings are binding on Revenue authorities [Paras 23, 26–28].

Judicial Discipline – Binding nature of appellate orders – Filing of appeal – Effect – Revenue contended that appeals against ITAT orders were pending – Held: Mere filing of appeal does not render appellate order inoperative – Authorities bound to follow decisions of higher appellate forums as per Kamlakshi Finance Corporation principle [Paras 26–28].

Administrative Law – Speaking order – Section 197 proceedings – Scope – Assessing Officer must record application of mind to statutory factors under Rule 28AA – Order stating that assessment is not possible and deduction is required to safeguard revenue does not meet statutory requirements – Non-application of mind renders order arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 21–22, 30–32].

Remand – Section 197 application – Although impugned order and certificate quashed for failure to follow Rule 28AA – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law – Direction to decide afresh within four weeks and without being influenced by pendency of appeals unless ITAT orders are set aside or varied [Paras 33–35].

Decision: Impugned order dated 09.06.2025 and certificate dated 30.07.2025 quashed – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication under Rule 28AA – Writ petition disposed of.