POCSO – Child Rape – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on 9-year-old neighbour – Victim’s consistent testimony supported by parents’ depositions – Delay in FIR explained as due to absence of father and social stigma – Medical report noting possibility of penetration and absence of hymen corroborated – Negative FSL report immaterial – Section 29 POCSO presumption applied as foundational facts proved – Defence plea of false implication over quarrel rejected – Conviction and sentence affirmed, appeal dismissed [Paras 7-15, 18-21].

Child Witness – Reliability – Court reiterated law that conviction can rest on sole testimony of a child if found competent and trustworthy – No signs of tutoring or contradictions – Victim’s evidence detailed and credible, sufficient without corroboration – Supreme Court precedents in Dattu Ramrao Sakhare, Ranjeet Kumar Ram, Balveer Singh applied [Paras 8-10].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal – Hymen absent, penetration possible – Law does not mandate injuries or semen detection for conviction – Corroboration rule is prudential, not mandatory – Victim’s credible testimony sufficient – Supreme Court rulings in Ranjit Hazarika and Satyapal followed [Paras 15-17].

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO – Once prosecution establishes foundational facts (identity, age, act of penetration), presumption of guilt operates – Accused failed to rebut presumption through cross-examination or defence evidence – Mere allegation of quarrel insufficient – Conviction sustained [Paras 18-20].

Decision – No error in Trial Court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 6 POCSO and Section 363 IPC upheld [Paras 21-22].

Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice – Pump Operators – Regularization – Workmen employed for decades in perennial duties of water supply through contractors – Corporation itself admitted essential and continuous nature of work – Failure to issue termination letters or contractor licences under CLRA Act – Held: Corporation guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 6 & 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Workers entitled to permanency with effect from 01.01.2004, wages and benefits at par with permanent employees [Paras 7-11, 14, 17].

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 9A – Change in Service Conditions – Corporation reverted to contractors reducing wages and benefits – Such change fell within Item 1 of Fourth Schedule (wages/mode of payment) – Failure to issue mandatory notice under Section 9A rendered change illegal – Invites penalty and amounts to unfair labour practice [Paras 12-13].

Standing Orders – Clause 4C of Bombay Industrial Employment Rules – Temporary employees completing 240 days in 12 months must be made permanent – Petitioners did not dispute applicability – Workers completed requisite service – Held: Entitled to permanency notwithstanding absence of sanctioned posts – Beneficial provisions prevail over municipal statute [Paras 11, 14-15].

Municipal Law – Duty to Create Posts – Section 51, Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act – Corporation must recommend creation of posts where perennial work exists – State’s failure to sanction posts cannot justify exploitation through ad hocism – Arbitrary inaction violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 of Constitution [Paras 14-15, 20].

Supreme Court Precedent – Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025) – Reaffirmed distinction between irregular and illegal employment – Long-term ad hoc engagements in perennial duties cannot be perpetuated – Umadevi not a defence for denial of regularization – Applied to hold Corporation liable [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Industrial Court judgment upheld – Writ Petition dismissed – NMMC directed to reinstate 48 surviving workmen within one week, grant continuity of service, back wages/differential wages, and issue permanency letters – Judgment stayed for 4 weeks to enable appeal [Paras 21-25].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Material Alteration – Sections 87, 138, 118(a), 139, NI Act – Cheque issued for ₹7 lakhs returned unpaid for “insufficient funds” – Accused admitted issuing cheque but alleged alteration in account number and limited liability of ₹1.92 lakhs – Evidence (CW1 testimony) confirmed alteration from CD-5956 to CD-6033 without drawer’s authentication – Held: Alteration in name/account of payee constitutes material alteration under Section 87; cheque rendered void; no liability arises on its dishonour. Acquittal [Paras 18-27].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Sections 118(a), 139, NI Act – Presumption of consideration and liability arises on issuance of cheque – Presumption is rebuttable; once evidence of alteration and lesser liability is shown, presumption stands displaced – Complainant failed to prove subsisting legally enforceable debt of ₹7 lakhs – Cheque unenforceable [Paras 28-29].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Sections 397 & 401 CrPC – High Court ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence in revision – However, where concurrent findings of courts below ignore material alteration rendering cheque void, interference is justified – Conviction and sentence set aside; complaint dismissed; accused acquitted [Paras 13-17, 30-32].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act set aside – Complaint dismissed – Accused acquitted – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 BNSS, 2023) for ₹25,000/- with one surety, effective for six months [Paras 32-33].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Ss. 118(a), 139 – Rebuttal – Complainant alleged advancing ₹2,50,000/- loan, cheque dishonoured for “insufficient funds” – Accused admitted issuing cheque but claimed it was blank and misused; pleaded he borrowed only ₹50,000/- and repaid – Complainant’s income shown as ₹20,000/month; no documents or ITRs produced to establish financial capacity – Held: Presumption under Ss.118(a), 139 is rebuttable; complainant’s financial incapacity raised a probable defence; presumption stood displaced – Trial court’s acquittal upheld [Paras 14-21].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Section 378 CrPC – High Court can interfere with acquittal only if judgment suffers from patent perversity, ignores material evidence, or is wholly unreasonable – Trial court took a possible view on evidence, doubting complainant’s financial capacity – No perversity found – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13, 22].

Financial Capacity – Burden on Complainant – Principles from Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant (2022) 6 SCC 735, Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, Dattatraya v. Sharanappa (2024) 8 SCC 573, John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham (2014) 2 SCC 236 – Where complainant fails to prove capacity to lend, accused entitled to acquittal – Applied to present case [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal confirmed – No interference warranted [Para 23].

Service Law – Absorption on Takeover – Special Officer (CAPE) vs. Senior Superintendent (DME) – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petitioner appointed as Special Officer under CAPE, probation declared post-takeover; later downgraded to UDC by Govt. order – Tribunal dismissed challenge citing lack of proof of equivalence – High Court noted crucial documents (Exts.P9 & P10) recommending creation of Senior Superintendent post to accommodate petitioner were withheld – Held: Tribunal erred in ignoring these – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 10–18].

Qualification Dispute – MBA as Postgraduate Degree – To Be Examined by Tribunal – Notification required Post Graduation + MBA – Govt. disputed MBA as PG – Court held issue of qualification and equivalence must be considered afresh along with absorption claim [Paras 7–13].

Parity Claim – Vanishing Category Posts – Engineers Retained, Officer Downgraded – Petitioner argued Engineers allowed to continue as vanishing category; same principle should apply – Court held Tribunal must examine parity argument in light of policy documents and Govt. practice [Paras 8–13].

Final Order – Tribunal’s judgment dated 04.03.2025 in O.A. No.79/2020 set aside – Case remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration with Exts.P9 & P10 and observations of Court – OP allowed [Para 18].

Specific Relief Act  - Agreement to Sell – Claim of Earnest Money by Stranger – Concurrent Findings Against Plaintiff – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant claimed to have paid ₹46,85,625/- as earnest money and to have inserted respondent no.1’s name in agreement dated 14.10.2011 in good faith – Both Trial and First Appellate Courts held that agreement (Ex.P1) showed respondent no.1 as buyer and no evidence supported appellant’s plea – Bank records proved earnest money was paid by respondent no.1 from funds withdrawn from his and his wife’s accounts – Held: No cogent evidence by appellant; concurrent findings sustained [Paras 2–9].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of fact by both courts below that appellant was never part of transaction and consideration flowed from respondent no.1 – High Court found no substantial question of law arising – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–10].

Final Decision – Writ for Declaration/Recovery – Relief Denied – In absence of proof of involvement or payment by appellant, suit rightly dismissed; second appeal also dismissed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Employment Dispute – Maintainability of Civil Suit – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Specific Relief Act – Single Judge rejected plaint holding specific performance of employment contract barred under Section 14 SRA – Division Bench held rejection unsustainable since plaint also sought damages of ₹2 crores for arbitrary and mala fide termination and reputational harm – Cause of action disclosed, and rejection of part of plaint not permissible – Suit restored [Paras 2, 5-10].

Civil Procedure – Partial Rejection of Plaint – Not Permissible – Court reiterated that plaint must be read as a whole; partial rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC impermissible – Relief for damages independent and maintainable even if reinstatement barred – Hence, plaint could not be rejected in entirety [Paras 6, 10].

Employment Law – Termination – Allegations of Mala Fides and Procedural Impropriety – Plaintiff pleaded arbitrary suspension, sham enquiry, collusion of senior officials, and reputational harm by public removal from workstation – Such allegations constituted triable issues requiring adjudication – Rejection of plaint at threshold erroneous [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Single Judge set aside – Suit restored to file for trial – Parties directed to appear before Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 16.09.2025 [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Civil Dispute Cloaked as Criminal Offence – Sections 406, 420 IPC – Quashment Allowed – Petitioners (OYO and its Directors) challenged proceedings initiated by the complainant alleging cheating, breach of trust and conspiracy regarding hotel management agreements – The dispute pertained to contractual breaches, revenue sharing, and claims already referred to arbitration and IBC proceedings – Held: No entrustment of property or dishonest inducement at inception – Essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC absent – Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle civil scores – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-11, 13-19].

Abuse of Process – Invocation of Criminal Law in Contractual Disputes – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioners contended that multiple similar complaints had already been quashed by coordinate benches; complainant cleverly drafted complaint to give colour of criminality – Court held that criminal process cannot be used as a cudgel for recovery of money or arm-twisting in commercial disputes – Reliance placed on Paramjeet Batra, Sarabjit Kaur, Naresh Kumar, Manish, Rikhab Birani, and S.N. Vijayalakshmi – Complaint held to be mala fide and vexatious [Paras 12-16].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Remedies – While in law civil and criminal proceedings may coexist, such coexistence requires a demonstrable element of criminality – In the present case, substratum of dispute was purely civil – Invocation of criminal law deprecated – Reliance on Punit Beriwala distinguished as facts revealed fraudulent intent at inception in that case, unlike present matter [Paras 17-18]

Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Proceedings in C.C.No.10486/2023 before IV ACMM, Bengaluru quashed – Clarified that observations confined to exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and shall not influence other proceedings [Para 20].

Criminal Law - Human Trafficking – Sections 366, 366B, 370, 370A(2) IPC – Conviction Upheld – Victim alleged that she was brought from Bangladesh by Sumi, handed over to Subir Jana, and later to Surya Pradhan in Bhubaneswar where she was forced into prostitution – Victim identified both appellants in Test Identification Parade and in court – Medical report corroborated repeated sexual assault – Held: Victim’s testimony consistent, reliable, and trustworthy – Conviction sustained [Paras 14, 17, 19, 27-28].

Victim’s Sole Testimony – Corroboration Not Mandatory – Courts observed that the testimony of a prosecutrix in sexual offences can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence – Minor discrepancies in statements under Section 164 CrPC do not undermine substantive evidence – Reliance placed on Gurmeet Singh (1996), Rajinder @ Raju (2009), Manga Singh (2019), Vinod Kumar Garg (2020) – Held: Victim’s account trustworthy; corroboration not required [Paras 20, 22, 24-26].

Test Identification Parade – Validity – Defence argued that presence of police vitiated TIP and identification doubtful – Held: TIP conducted by Magistrate following due procedure; 30 under-trials of similar height, build and complexion included – No evidence that police influenced victim – Report reliable; identification corroborates victim’s testimony – Delay in holding TIP not fatal [Paras 15, 26-27].

Contradictions and Omissions – Not Material – Defence highlighted inconsistencies between FIR, Section 164 statement, and trial testimony – Court held that contradictions not material and did not affect core allegations – Statement before Magistrate corroborated gist of victim’s testimony – Cross-examination failed to discredit victim – Held: Minor contradictions natural due to lapse of time, do not weaken prosecution case [Paras 14, 17-18, 22].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 366, 366B, 370, 370A(2), and 120B IPC affirmed – Both appellants to continue serving sentence [Paras 27-28].