Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act – Arms Act – Wildlife Offences – Grant of Bail in Multi-offence FIR – Prolonged Custody – Petitioners Rinku Thapar and Divyam arrested in connection with FIR alleging recovery of drug money, arms, wildlife articles, and narcotics – Petitioners in custody for over one year and two months – Charges framed, but trial yet to commence – 42 witnesses cited, no prior criminal record – Held: Bail granted considering prolonged incarceration, completion of investigation, and parity with co-accused [Paras 2, 6, 7, 11]

NDPS Act – Section 21(c) – Recovery Below Commercial Quantity – Effect on Bail Consideration – From petitioner Divyam, only 381 grams of charas recovered – Less than commercial quantity of 1 kg – Bail plea considered favourably due to lesser offence severity under NDPS Act [Para 10]

Arms and Wildlife Protection Act – Recovery From Co-accused – No Independent Recovery From Petitioner – Bail Not Barred – From petitioner Rinku Thapar, arms, wildlife articles, and cash recovered – However, no recovery of narcotics – Bail granted in absence of bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act and considering lack of past criminal record [Paras 6(viii), 10]

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Trial – Bail Justified – 42 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined – Trial expected to be prolonged – Petitioners not involved in other cases – No purpose served by continued incarceration – Bail granted [Paras 7, 11]

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Co-Accused Already Granted Bail – Seven co-accused granted regular bail earlier by High Court – Petitioners’ case found on parity – Bail granted on equal footing [Para 6(vii)]

Decision: Regular bail granted to petitioners Rinku Thapar and Divyam – Ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of Trial Court – Trial Court to proceed independently and expeditiously.

Service Law – Selection Grade – Non-Communication of Adverse ACRs – Grant Upheld – Pharmacist denied selection grade benefit from 13.04.1977 while juniors were granted the same – Denial based on average ACRs for 1970–1973 which were never communicated to employee – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held such ACRs could not be relied upon – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, all ACRs, including “average” or “good”, must be communicated – Non-communication renders denial of benefit arbitrary and illegal [Paras 7–17].

Administrative Law – Washed-Off Theory – Efficiency Bar Crossed – Employee had crossed efficiency bar on 01.11.1976 – Courts below rightly held that earlier average ACRs were liable to be ignored – Such entries deemed to be “washed off” and could not be the basis for denying selection grade [Paras 11, 18].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Waiver – Issue of limitation framed but not pressed by the State before Trial Court or Appellate Court – No grounds raised in Regular Second Appeal on this issue – Held: Fresh plea barred – Even on merits, limitation not made out as cause of action arose only with letter dated 21.07.1987 granting partial benefit – Suit filed on 09.03.1990 within prescribed 3-year period [Paras 20–24].

Judicial Review – Concurrent Findings – Interference Unwarranted – Concurrent judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on cogent reasoning and legal principles – No perversity shown – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 19, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments upheld – Respondent entitled to selection grade w.e.f. 13.04.1977 – Plea of limitation rejected both on procedural waiver and substantive grounds.

Motor Vehicles Act – Injury Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Partial Disability – Reassessment of Income – Application of Multiplier Method – Claimant aged 23 years, final year engineering student, sustained fracture of left scapula with brachial plexus injury resulting in 25% permanent partial disability – Tribunal awarded compensation based on minimum wages – High Court held that mechanical adoption of minimum wages is impermissible where claimant is academically qualified with clear future earning potential – Monthly income reassessed at ₹20,000 – Future prospects @ 40% added – Multiplier of 18 rightly applied considering age – Loss of future earning recalculated on basis of functional disability – Award enhanced substantially [Paras 9–16, 27].

Disability – Functional Impact – Loss of Earning Capacity – Disability percentage certified by doctor cannot automatically be equated with loss of earning capacity – Court must assess functional disability having regard to nature of injuries, profession, age and prospects – Claimant’s upper limb movement compromised permanently – Tribunal erred in undervaluing impact of disability on future earning – Functional loss assessed at 15% for computation of future income loss [Paras 6, 18, 27].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Amenities – Human Dignity – Permanent disability not only causes physical impairment but also lifelong pain, mental agony and loss of dignity – Claimant hospitalized and suffered permanent weakness of limb not likely to improve – Tribunal awarded meagre amount – Following Supreme Court jurisprudence, pain and suffering enhanced to ₹3,00,000 – Separate compensation awarded for loss of amenities of life [Paras 16–20, 26–27].

Attendant Charges – Requirement of Assistance – Reasonable Lump Sum – Claimant suffered grievous injuries requiring assistance in daily activities – Tribunal failed to grant adequate attendant charges – Though disability not 100%, claimant entitled to reasonable attendant expenses – Attendant charges awarded as lump sum ₹30,000 keeping in view age, disability and nature of injuries [Paras 21–22].

Loss of Marriage Prospects – Young Claimant – Non-Pecuniary Loss – Claimant was 23 years old at time of accident – Tribunal failed to consider impact of permanent disability on matrimonial prospects – Loss of marriage prospects recognized as distinct head of compensation in injury cases – Award of ₹2,00,000 granted under this head as just and reasonable [Paras 23–25, 27].

Transportation, Special Diet and Future Medical Expenses – Inadequate Award by Tribunal – Tribunal awarded meagre or no amounts under these heads – High Court enhanced compensation towards transportation, special diet and future medical expenses considering prolonged treatment and continuing disability [Paras 26–27].

Interest – Rate – Exclusion of Delay Period – Enhanced compensation directed to carry interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Period of delay of 388 days in filing appeal excluded from interest computation as undertaken by appellant – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months [Paras 28–29].

Recovery Rights – Insurer’s Liberty – Insurance Company granted right to recover enhanced compensation from owner and driver of offending vehicle in accordance with Tribunal award [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 30.04.2024 modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹16,67,200 – Enhanced amount payable ₹11,16,200 with interest @ 9% per annum (excluding delay period) – Directions issued for deposit, disbursement and recovery.

Taxation Law - Income-tax – Reassessment – Assessment Year 2015–2016 – Notices issued under Section 148 after 01.04.2021 invoking TOLA – Validity – Petitioner challenged notice issued under Section 148 pursuant to reassessment proceedings initiated after introduction of Section 148A – Assessing Officer relied on extension of limitation under TOLA and judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal – Held: For A.Y. 2015–2016, reassessment notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are barred by limitation in view of amended Section 149 – Revenue conceded before Supreme Court that such notices cannot survive – Notices issued during extended period under TOLA declared invalid [Paras 2–5, 9, 17].

Income-tax – Reassessment Procedure – Section 148A(b) and 148A(d) – Effect of Ashish Agarwal decision – Notices originally issued under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 deemed to be notices under Section 148A(b) – Subsequent orders under Section 148A(d) and fresh notices under Section 148 issued in July 2022 – Held: Even after following procedure under Section 148A, reassessment is impermissible if limitation under Section 149 has expired – Procedural compliance cannot cure substantive bar of limitation [Paras 3, 5, 16].

Limitation – Section 149 – Interaction with TOLA – Assessment Year 2015–2016 – Three-year limitation expired on 31.03.2019 and six-year period expired on 31.03.2022 – TOLA cannot revive dead and time-barred proceedings – Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal conclusively held that reassessment for A.Y. 2015–2016 after 01.04.2021 is impermissible – Same principle reiterated in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. – Applied and followed [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Concession – Revenue’s categorical concession before Supreme Court that all notices for A.Y. 2015–2016 issued on or after 01.04.2021 must be dropped – High Court bound to apply law declared and concession recorded by Apex Court – Impugned notice quashed accordingly [Paras 9–11, 17].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2015–2016 quashed and set aside – Reassessment proceedings held to be invalid and time-barred – Petition disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Homicidal Death – The deceased was found in a half-naked condition with multiple injuries including head and brain injuries, abrasions, and nail marks – Post-mortem report and medical officer's testimony confirmed ante-mortem injuries and cause of death due to head and brain injury – The Court found the homicidal nature of death and sexual assault to be conclusively proven by medical and ocular evidence – Findings of the trial court regarding homicidal death and rape upheld [Paras 8, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.8].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Principles of Conviction – The case was based on circumstantial evidence, requiring the prosecution to establish a complete chain of events pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused – The Court reiterated the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622) and other Supreme Court precedents – Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof – The prosecution must elevate its case from "may be true" to "must be true" – The Court meticulously analyzed each circumstance to ensure consistency with the hypothesis of guilt and exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis [Paras 9, 10].

Criminal Law – Rape – Section 376 IPC – Gang Rape – Circumstantial Evidence – The deceased left home to tie Rakhi, did not return, and her half-naked dead body was found in putus bushes near an embankment with dragging marks – P.W.9 saw appellant Kathu Karua naked in the bushes where the deceased's body was found, and heard shrieks – Extrajudicial confession of Kathu Karua to villagers, corroborated by the presence of human blood of Group 'A' (matching deceased's blood) on his seized nicker, formed a complete chain of circumstances – These circumstances cogently and firmly established the guilt of appellant Kathu Karua for gang rape and murder – Conviction of Kathu Karua under Section 376 IPC upheld [Paras 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 12].

Criminal Law – Extrajudicial Confession – Admissibility and Reliability – Extrajudicial confession, though a weak piece of evidence, can form the basis of conviction if it inspires confidence, is voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by other independent reliable evidence – The Court found P.W.5, P.W.7, and P.W.8's testimonies regarding Kathu Karua's extrajudicial confession to be credible, despite P.W.4's contradictions and P.W.5 mentioning slaps, as there was no evidence of inducement, threat, or promise – The confession was corroborated by other strong circumstantial evidence – Extrajudicial confession of Kathu Karua accepted [Paras 10.7, 10.8].

Criminal Law – Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value – The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto but can be accepted to the extent it is dependable on careful scrutiny and consistent with the prosecution or defence case – P.W.9, though declared hostile, provided crucial evidence against appellant Kathu Karua regarding his presence at the scene in a naked condition near the deceased's body – His testimony, not completely shaken in cross-examination, was relied upon against Kathu Karua – The Court found P.W.9's evidence against appellant Ramesh Apat insufficient to implicate him [Para 10.6].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Acquittal of Co-accused – The trial court acquitted co-accused Dadu @ Anil Patra due to lack of corroborative evidence beyond his police confession and the appellants' confessions – The High Court found no evidence of common intention for appellant Ramesh Apat, as his presence at the embankment was explained as chasing goats, and no extrajudicial confession was made by him – The conviction of Ramesh Apat based solely on Kathu Karua's extrajudicial confession was deemed unsustainable – Conviction of Ramesh Apat set aside [Paras 6, 10.6, 10.7, 11].

Criminal Law – Disappearance of Evidence – Section 201 IPC – The appellant Kathu Karua, after committing rape, killed the deceased to wipe out evidence and screen himself from legal punishment – This act falls squarely under Section 201 IPC – Conviction of Kathu Karua under Section 201 IPC upheld [Para 12].

Sentence – Confirmation – The sentence of R.I. for ten years for Section 376(2)(g) IPC, R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for Section 302/34 IPC, and R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for Section 201/34 IPC, with all sentences running concurrently, imposed on Kathu Karua by the trial court, was confirmed by the High Court – The appellant Kathu Karua was directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence [Para 12].

Decision: JCRLA No.58 of 2006 (Kathu Karua) dismissed – CRLA No.450 of 2005 (Ramesh Apat) allowed – Conviction of Kathu Karua upheld under Sections 376, 302 & 201 IPC – Conviction of Ramesh Apat set aside and he is acquitted of all charges – Kathu Karua to surrender within two weeks to serve sentence, failing which coercive steps to be taken – Ramesh Apat discharged from bail bonds [Para 12].

Criminal Law - NIA Act – Section 21 – Appeal against order framing charge – Maintainability – Held: order framing charge is interlocutory for purposes of appeal under NIA Act – appeals dismissed as not maintainable – remedy lies under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS [Paras 1–20].

Criminal Procedure – National Investigation Agency Act – Section 21 – Appeal – Scope – Expression “judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order” – Interpreted in light of scheme and object of NIA Act – Held: “order” refers to final orders capable of appellate scrutiny on facts and law – Not intermediate orders such as framing of charge [Paras 15–18].

Charge – Framing of – Nature of order – Though treated as “intermediate order” for purposes of revision under Section 397 CrPC, such classification not applicable while interpreting appellate provision under Section 21 NIA Act – Order framing charge does not finally determine rights and proceedings continue till conviction or acquittal – Hence interlocutory for appeal under NIA Act [Paras 11–12, 16–18].

Statutory Interpretation – Purposeful interpretation – NIA Act enacted to ensure expeditious investigation and trial of scheduled offences affecting national security – Bar on revisions and limited appellate remedy intended to avoid delay – Permitting appeals against charge-framing orders would defeat legislative intent [Paras 13–16].

Appeal vs. Revision – Distinction – Jurisprudence on “intermediate orders” developed in context of revisional jurisdiction under CrPC (Amar Nath; Madhu Limaye) – Same concept cannot be bodily imported into appellate jurisdiction providing appeal “on facts and law” – At stage of charge, factual adjudication impermissible [Paras 8–12, 16].

Remedy of Accused – Availability – Though appeal under Section 21 NIA Act not maintainable, accused not remediless – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS remains available to challenge framing of charge on limited grounds of abuse of process, lack of jurisdiction or manifest injustice [Paras 16–18].

Precedent – V.C. Shukla v. State – Constitution Bench – Order framing charge held interlocutory under Special Courts Act – Principles applied while interpreting Section 21 NIA Act – Appeal against charge-framing order not envisaged [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed on ground of maintainability – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 19–20].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Public Servant – Abuse of Position – Petitioner, a former Tahsildar, accused of illegally and hastily converting forest land for industrial use without due compliance of rules and forest clearance – Allegations supported by official enquiry and statements under Section 161 CrPC – Held: No mala fide in registration of FIR – Disciplinary exoneration cannot override findings in criminal proceedings – Petition dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 13–14, 19–22]

Corruption – PC Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Dishonest Intent – Petitioner argued that he acted in good faith relying on Revenue Inspector’s report and gained no pecuniary advantage – Court held: Conversion order passed with undue haste before bifurcation of Tahasil; lack of direct pecuniary benefit irrelevant when favour is conferred without public interest – Prima facie case made out for trial – No grounds for quashing [Paras 5, 15–16, 18]

Criminal Procedure – Standard of Proof – Disciplinary Proceedings vs Criminal Prosecution – Petitioner exonerated in departmental proceedings on ground of good faith – Court held: Disciplinary findings not binding on criminal court – Proceedings based on separate legal standards – No bar on continuation of trial [Paras 6, 19, 21]

Forest Conservation Act – Section 3B – Liability of Government Officials – Petitioner as Tahsildar held liable for illegal conversion without prior forest clearance – Held: Conversion granted without due diligence and verification; allegations support culpability under FC Act – No ground to interfere under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 2–4, 18]

Inherent Powers – Abuse of Process – Delay in Trial – Petitioner claimed continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of court’s process – Court held: Long pendency alone not ground for quashing where material indicates commission of cognizable offence – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 13, 22–24]

Decision: Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – FIR, chargesheet and pending proceedings in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 53 of 2010 (TR Case No. 08 of 2018) to continue – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

Co-operative Law – Review Jurisdiction – Reference to Larger Bench – Review petition filed against judgment restoring money decree passed by Co-operative Court – Review based on subsequent coordinate Bench decision holding that Co-operative Courts lack jurisdiction for recovery above ₹10 lakh – Court held that issue raises substantial questions of law requiring authoritative determination – Matter referred to larger Bench instead of deciding review on merits [Paras 1, 75–79].

Banking Law – Co-operative Banks – Applicability of RDB Act – Core issue whether State co-operative banks fall within definition of “bank” under Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of RDB Act – Petitioner relying on Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule contended that co-operative banks are banking companies and must approach DRT exclusively – Respondents contended that said judgment was confined to SARFAESI Act and did not extend RDB Act to State co-operative banks – Court held issue remains unresolved [Paras 2, 33–48].

Jurisdiction – Conflict between Central and State Laws – Section 91 MCS Act vs. Sections 17 & 18 RDB Act – Whether recovery proceedings by State co-operative banks before Co-operative Courts stand barred by RDB Act – Court noted absence of express inclusion of State co-operative banks under RDB Act, contrasted with express inclusion of multi-State co-operative banks – Held that jurisdictional exclusion cannot be conclusively determined without larger Bench ruling [Paras 49–71].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Entries 45 List I and 32 List II – Banking and recovery of bank dues fall under Entry 45 (Union List), while co-operative societies fall under Entry 32 (State List) – Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule weakened constitutional foundation of Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank but did not expressly overrule its conclusions on RDB Act – Striking down of Part IX-B in Rajendra N. Shah further complicates analysis – Issue held fit for reference [Paras 72–75].

Precedent – Overruling by Implication – Limits – Court reiterated that judgments cannot be treated as overruled by implication unless irreconcilable conflict exists on same issue – Held that Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule does not expressly overrule Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank on applicability of RDB Act – Coordinate Bench decision in Washim Urban raises debatable legal position [Paras 22–48].

Procedure – Reference under Appellate Side Rules – Exercising powers under Chapter I Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Court referred substantial question of law to Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench – Review petition to remain pending till reference is answered [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Question of law referred to larger Bench – Review Petition kept pending – Registry directed to place papers before Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Matter to be decided in accordance with law laid down by larger Bench [Paras 76–79].

Land Law – Common Land – Applicability of J&K Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1956 – Section 1(4) of the Act expressly excludes applicability of the Act to areas declared as Municipalities – Land in question situated within Municipal Council, Udhampur – Respondents themselves admitted non-applicability of the Act – Held: Invocation of Common Lands Act, 1956 for passing impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction [Paras 11–12].

Writ Jurisdiction – Administrative Action – Lack of Statutory Authority – Impugned order directing seizure of building material and lodging of FIR passed by relying upon inapplicable statute – Action taken without affording opportunity of hearing – Held: Order unsustainable being arbitrary and dehors statutory powers [Paras 3, 11, 13].

Supreme Court Directions – Scope – Jagpal Singh Case – Directions in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 applicable only to Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Shamlat/Poramboke land – Land falling within municipal limits and recorded as proprietary land does not fall within said category – Held: Supreme Court directions wrongly applied [Paras 11–13].

Revenue Records – Gair Mumkin Talai – Proprietary Rights – Though land recorded as Gair Mumkin Talai, revenue record showed ownership of private individuals including respondent No.6 – Mere description as Gair Mumkin Talai does not automatically convert land into common or Panchayat land – Restrictions on alienation do not negate ownership [Paras 2, 13].

Seizure of Property – Third Party Rights – Petitioner did not claim ownership over land – Building material stored with consent of recorded owner – Even assuming violation, action could lie only against landowner and not against petitioner – Held: Seizure and FIR direction against petitioner unjustified [Paras 13–14].

Municipal / Water Resources Law – Plea Raised Without Action – Contention that land vests in Government or Municipal Council under Municipal Act or Water Resources Act unsupported by revenue entries or prior proceedings – Held: Such plea cannot sustain impugned action; liberty reserved to authorities to proceed under appropriate law if permissible [Para 15].

Relief – Release of Seized Property – Prayer for release of seized material rendered infructuous as material already released pursuant to earlier court directions – Writ petition confined to legality of impugned order [Para 10].

Decision: Impugned order dated 04.03.2017 quashed – Action taken under Common Lands Act held illegal – Writ petition allowed to the extent indicated.