Motor Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim for non-examination of eyewitness – Accident proved through FIR, post-mortem report, and police investigation – Criminal acquittal of respondent No.1 not binding on Tribunal – Negligence proved on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities – Claimant entitled to compensation [Paras 9-17].

Standard of Proof – Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal wrongly insisted on strict proof as required in criminal trial – Held: Strict rules of evidence do not apply in claim petitions – Tribunal is to decide claims on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment in Sunita vs Rajasthan State Transport Corporation followed [Paras 11-14].

Driving Licence – Validity of LMV Licence to Drive Tractor – Tribunal’s finding that respondent No.1 did not possess valid licence is contrary to law – As per Supreme Court in Bajaj Allianz vs Rambha Devi (2024 INSC 840), a driver holding LMV licence is competent to drive transport vehicles below 7500 kg including tractors – Issue No.3 answered against the Insurance Company [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Acquittal – Not Binding on Tribunal – Criminal acquittal of the driver by giving benefit of doubt does not ipso facto absolve him of civil liability under the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal ought to have independently appreciated evidence – Supreme Court’s ruling in N.K.V. Bros v. M. Karumai Ammal applied [Paras 14-15].

Compensation – Computation – Minimum wages considered as basis of income – Future prospects added @40% – Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses applied – Multiplier of 17 adopted considering age of deceased at 28 years – Compensation awarded under conventional heads following Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram [Paras 18-21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Award dated 06.08.2005 set aside – Claimant entitled to total compensation of ₹3,55,320/- with interest @9% per annum from date of petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit compensation within two months – Costs imposed for non-appearance of counsel also addressed [Paras 26-30].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC – No Premeditation – Sentence Reduced – Appellant convicted for causing the death of his 85-year-old mother during a drunken altercation—Trial court imposed 7 years RI—High Court held: There was no premeditation, and the act occurred in a sudden quarrel—Considering the appellant’s clean record and lack of intent to cause death, sentence reduced to 5 years RI [Paras 29-34].

Sentencing Principles – Proportionality and Reformative Justice – Consideration of Mitigating Factors – High Court observed that the appellant had no prior criminal record, the act was not preplanned, and he had shown remorse—Held: Prolonged incarceration would cause hardship to dependents—Sentence reduced while upholding conviction [Paras 31-33].

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Applicability in Sudden Fight Cases – Court relied on Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana—Held: Offense falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC—No undue advantage or cruelty—Proper sentencing must balance deterrence and rehabilitation [Paras 15-18].

Evidentiary Considerations – Witness Testimonies and Medical Reports – Corroboration of Facts – Statements of key prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s son (PW-1), confirmed that the appellant had a history of alcohol abuse and engaged in frequent altercations—Medical report supported the prosecution’s claim that injuries were caused by a blunt object—Held: Evidence sufficiently established knowledge but not intention to cause death, justifying conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC [Paras 21-25].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC upheld – Sentence reduced from 7 years RI to 5 years RI – Accused to be credited for time already served – Directed to undergo counseling and engage in social welfare upon release [Paras 32-34].
 

Civil Law - Land Allotment for Renewable Energy Project – Challenge to Legality – Petitioner was allotted land by the State Government for establishing a solar power project – Private respondents challenged the allotment before the revenue courts – Assistant Collector refused interim relief to respondents – However, Revenue Appellate Authority granted ad-interim injunction in their favor – Board of Revenue dismissed petitioner’s revision against the injunction order – Supreme Court affirmed the rejection of the revision petition, holding that such petitions are not maintainable against interim orders [Paras 2-4].

Maintainability of Revision under Section 230 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Scope and Limitations – Court ruled that a revision petition under Section 230 is maintainable only against a “decided case” – Ad-interim injunctions do not constitute a final decision and thus do not qualify for revision – Held: Revision jurisdiction can only be exercised when a revenue court has committed jurisdictional errors or acted with material irregularity – Mere disagreement with an interim order does not warrant revision [Paras 8-10, 12-13].

Ex-Parte Interim Orders – No Right to Revision – Petitioner contended that the ad-interim injunction order was granted ex-parte without hearing them – Court held that an interim order is temporary and subject to modification once both parties are heard – Revision under Section 230 cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or for contesting interlocutory orders – Proper remedy is to challenge the injunction before the same forum that granted it [Paras 11-14].

Judicial Precedents on Revisional Jurisdiction – The Court relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan Board of Revenue in Jagdish Prasad v. Bhopal Ram & Ors., Revision/LR/9867/2012, which held that revision petitions against interim orders are not maintainable – Further referred to Supreme Court rulings stating that revisional jurisdiction is narrower than appellate jurisdiction and cannot be used to correct mere factual or legal errors [Paras 14-15].

Final Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Rajasthan High Court upheld the Board of Revenue’s decision that revision against an ad-interim order is not maintainable – Directed the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the pending stay application within four weeks to ensure timely adjudication of the dispute [Paras 16-17].
 

Income Tax Law - Bogus Purchases – Determination of Profit Rate – Section 69C of Income Tax Act – The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision to restrict disallowance to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases instead of confirming the full disallowance – The Tribunal relied on past precedents allowing only a portion of the purchases to be disallowed – Held: If an assessee fails to prove the genuineness of purchases, full disallowance should be made under Section 69C—Tribunal erred in restricting disallowance—Full disallowance for purchases from M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders reinstated [Paras 24-27].

Burden of Proof – Assessee’s Failure to Substantiate Purchases – The assessee failed to furnish bank statements of M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders—Held: Non-furnishing of bank statements and absence of withdrawal details prevent verification—Tribunal’s findings set aside for these transactions—Disallowance confirmed in full [Paras 17-19].

Genuine vs. Non-Genuine Transactions – Revenue’s Independent Verification – For other suppliers, the Revenue independently verified bank statements and found no cash withdrawals—Held: In absence of evidence to the contrary, purchases from these suppliers considered genuine—No disallowance warranted for these transactions [Paras 14-16].

Precedents – Tribunal’s Reliance on Profit Rate Estimation – Revenue contended that Tribunal ignored binding precedents requiring full disallowance of unverified purchases—Held: Approach of estimating profit percentage contradicts settled law in N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT—Full addition must be made where purchases remain unproven [Paras 20-23].

Final Decision – Revenue’s appeal partly allowed – Tribunal’s decision upheld for genuine purchases, but reversed for transactions with M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders—Full disallowance of Rs. 1,00,10,773 confirmed [Paras 27-28].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Power of Execution Court – Whether It Can Modify the Decree – Petitioners obtained a decree for possession of land marked with letters ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’ & ‘H’ in site plan Ex. PW-4/9—Respondents raised objections regarding measurement, claiming possession of 400 sq. yards instead of 305 sq. yards—The executing court modified the decree by directing proportional apportionment of land—Held: An execution court cannot travel beyond the decree or modify it—Decree must be executed as per site plan boundaries—Impugned order modifying the decree set aside [Paras 6-12].

Res Judicata – Objections on Measurement Previously Decided – Whether Respondents Could Raise It Again – Respondents’ objections on measurement were already dismissed in trial court’s order dated 23.10.2018—Held: Raising the same objections again in execution proceedings constitutes an abuse of process—Once measurement was determined in trial, it cannot be re-agitated—Execution court erred in reconsidering the same issue [Paras 8-9].

Order 7 Rule 3 CPC – Identification of Property in Suit – Sufficiency of Site Plan – Petitioners described property in suit with boundaries ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’ & ‘H’ as shown in red in site plan Ex. PW-4/9—Respondents neither submitted an alternative site plan nor rebutted this identification—Held: Site plan forming part of decree sufficiently identifies the property—Executing court cannot re-measure or apportion land based on subsequent claims [Paras 10-11].

Final Decision – Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 25.04.2019 set aside—Executing court directed to enforce possession strictly in terms of site plan Ex. PW-4/9—No orders as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law - Default Bail – Stringent Conditions – Violation of Fundamental Rights – Petitioner was granted default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC due to the prosecution’s failure to file a charge sheet within 60 days – However, bail conditions included an excessive surety bond of ₹1.10 crore and a bank guarantee of ₹55 lakh – Petitioner challenged these conditions as violative of his fundamental rights under Article 21 – Held: Imposing stringent financial conditions on default bail is impermissible and renders bail illusory – Bail conditions modified to ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount [Paras 6-8, 22-23].

Delay in Trial – Violation of Right to Liberty – Petitioner remained in custody for over 4 years despite a maximum punishment of 5 years under Section 132 of the CGST Act – Charges had not been framed, and the trial had not commenced – Held: Prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to a gross violation of the right to a speedy trial – Courts must ensure that undertrial prisoners are not indefinitely detained due to procedural delays [Paras 6, 9].

Application of Section 479 BNSS – Retrospective Effect – Court noted that Section 479 of BNSS, which provides for the release of undertrial prisoners who have served a certain proportion of their maximum sentence, applies retrospectively – Supreme Court in In Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons directed immediate implementation of this provision – Held: Petitioner had already undergone more than one-third of his maximum sentence and was entitled to release under Section 479 BNSS [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Precedents on Bail Conditions – Reference to Moti Ram v. State of M.P. and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar – Court reiterated that bail conditions must be reasonable and cannot be used to impose financial constraints that effectively result in continued detention – Held: Courts must ensure that monetary conditions do not create a class divide in access to bail [Paras 12-16].

Failure of District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) – Non-Compliance with Bail Reforms – Supreme Court in In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail directed DLSAs to assist undertrial prisoners unable to fulfill bail conditions – Court found that DLSA failed to take any steps to secure the petitioner’s release – Ordered matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action to ensure compliance with Supreme Court directives [Paras 7-8, 25].

Final Decision – Petition allowed – Bail conditions modified – Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount – Family Court directed to expedite the trial – Matter referred to Chief Justice to ensure compliance with bail-related Supreme Court directions [Paras 23-25].
 

Civil Law - Provident Fund – Levy of Damages for Delayed Remittance – Whether Mandatory – The Tribunal set aside damages under Section 14B citing lack of willful default—Held: Mens rea is not required for imposing damages under Section 14B—Authority must consider aggravating and mitigating factors but cannot mechanically waive damages—Tribunal’s order set aside [Paras 7-11].

Interest vs. Damages – Whether Both Can Be Levied – The Tribunal held that interest under Section 7Q sufficiently compensates employees—Held: Interest under Section 7Q compensates for delayed payments, but damages under Section 14B serve a deterrent purpose—Levy of both justified [Paras 12-14].

Final Decision – Writ petition allowed – Tribunal’s order quashing damages set aside—PF authorities directed to re-assess damages with a reasoned order [Paras 15-17].

Criminal Law – Repetitive Complaints by Informant – Pattern of False Allegations – CBI Inquiry Ordered - The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR lodged by the informant, Pooja Rawat, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2008 – The petitioners argued that the informant had previously filed 11 similar complaints against various persons, all represented by the same counsel – Held: Given the pattern of repeated complaints, the Court directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry and submit a report by 10.04.2025 [Paras 3-6].

Abuse of Process – False FIRs for Extortion – Protection from Arrest Granted - The Court observed that the repeated filing of FIRs suggested a possible misuse of the legal process for personal gain – Directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested unless sufficient and credible evidence is found against them – Held: Until further orders, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners [Paras 6, 10].

Investigative Procedure – Role of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Judicial Oversight - Noting the seriousness of the issue, the Court found it appropriate to entrust the matter to the CBI – Held: The Senior Registrar of the Court shall forward a copy of the order to the CBI Head of Branch at Lucknow for compliance, and the report shall be submitted by 10.04.2025 [Paras 6-9].

Civil Law – Challenge Ex-Parte Order - Service of Summons – Valid Service Through Adult Family Member – Order V Rule 15 CPC – The defendant challenged the service of summons, arguing that notice was served on his wife and not personally on him – The Court held that service of summons on an adult family member is valid when the defendant is unavailable and there is no likelihood of his presence within a reasonable time – Held: Summons served on the wife of the defendant is valid and in compliance with Order V Rule 15 of CPC [Paras 6.6-6.8].

Delay in Seeking Recall of Ex-Parte Order – 16 Years Unexplained – The petitioner sought to reopen the right to file a written statement after 16 years – The Court found no sufficient cause to condone the delay, emphasizing that a party cannot remain negligent and then seek to reopen proceedings at the stage of final judgment – Held: Application rightly rejected by the Trial Court due to the inordinate and unjustified delay [Paras 6.5, 6.15].

Failure to Disclose Date of Knowledge – Conduct of Petitioner Not Bonafide – The petitioner failed to disclose the exact date when he allegedly came to know about the pending suit, raising doubts about his bonafide intentions – The Court noted that the petitioner’s own suit was pending before the same court, making it improbable that he was unaware of the proceedings – Held: Petitioner’s claim of ignorance is untenable and lacks bona fides [Paras 6.14-6.16].

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was validly served, remained negligent for 16 years, and failed to disclose material facts. No interference under Article 227 was warranted as there was no jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s decision.