Bail  – Illegal Quarrying – Sections 447, 427, 379 r/w 34 IPC, Section 3 PDPP Act, Sections 21(1), 21(4) MMDR Act, Sections 120-B, 109, 290, 506 IPC, Sections 3 & 5 Explosive Substances Act, and SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act – Bail Granted with Conditions – The appellant, former Minister and MLA, was implicated in large-scale illegal extraction of quartz and feldspar minerals based primarily on co-accused confessions and statements of political opponents – Investigation revealed alleged conspiracy, use of explosives, and loss of Rs.138 crores to the exchequer – However, initial FIR and reports did not name the appellant, and no direct overt acts or caste-based intent under SCs & STs (PoA) Act were established – Court held that co-accused confessions are weak evidence, no prima facie role was shown under Atrocities Act, and investigation was substantially complete – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions including restriction from entering Nellore district, surrender of passport, weekly attendance before IO, and prohibition on media statements – Held: Bail is the rule, jail the exception; continued custody not justified [Paras 21–28, 41–49, 53–55].

Income Tax Law - Income from House Property – Determination of Annual Value – Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act – Annual Value Held Justified - The Assessing Officer determined the annual letting value of office premises at ₹22,00,000/- by considering comparable rent of similar premises and notional interest on a large interest-free security deposit – Held: The AO is not bound to accept the municipal rateable value if it does not reflect market rent – Tribunal and CIT(A) rightly upheld the AO’s assessment – Notional interest, though not decisive alone, was relevant contextually – No interference called for [Paras 14–20, 24–26, 35–38].

Notional Interest on Security Deposit – Cannot Solely Determine Annual Value – Legal Principle Affirmed – The Court reiterated that notional interest on interest-free security deposits cannot be considered independently to determine fair rent under Section 23(1)(a) – However, such deposits may provide context for assessing tax avoidance attempts through deflated license fees – Findings in Tip Top Typography and Moni Kumar Subba upheld [Paras 17–20, 36].

Municipal Rateable Value – Not Binding – AO’s Independent Enquiry Permissible – The Court held that municipal valuation is not determinative where there is a wide disparity with actual or reasonable market rent – AO is entitled to conduct enquiry and assess ALV based on market comparables – Rateable value of ₹10,200/- held “ridiculously low” and rightly ignored [Paras 21–26, 30].

Standard Rent – Inapplicability Where Rent Control Not Invoked – The argument that standard rent ought to cap the annual value under Section 23 was rejected as premises were not governed by Rent Control Act – No tenancy created in favour of the licensee – Hence, standard rent provisions held inapplicable [Paras 31–34].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Annual value assessed by AO upheld – Tribunal and CIT(A) found to have correctly applied Section 23(1)(a) by considering fair rent and ignoring irrelevant documents and inadmissible claims – Question of law answered against the assessee [Para 39].

Matrimonial Law – Title over Joint Property – Claim of Exclusive Ownership – Allowed – Husband sought declaration of exclusive ownership over 85 cents purchased jointly with wife – Evidence including Ext.B1 Sale Deed, bank withdrawals, and father’s loan established that consideration flowed from husband – Wife’s claim of contribution by sale of trees and loan unsupported by evidence – Family Court erred in overlooking documentary proof – Held: Sale consideration proceeded from husband – Husband declared exclusive owner – Family Court judgment set aside [Paras 9-11].

Matrimonial Appeals – Claim for Damages – Defamation and Mental Agony – Rs.5,00,000 Award Upheld – Wife alleged persistent false accusations of illicit relationships by husband with colleagues, doctor, students, and others – Evidence showed husband made baseless allegations causing wife to quit employment and suffer mental trauma – Husband failed to substantiate charges – Family Court awarded Rs.5,00,000 damages for mental agony – Held: Findings justified and decree warrants no interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12].

Decision – Mat.Appeal No.674/2018 allowed – Judgment of Family Court set aside and O.P. No.5/2014 allowed – Husband declared absolute owner of property – Mat.Appeal No.675/2018 dismissed – Award of Rs.5,00,000 damages to wife affirmed – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302/34 IPC – Common intention – Conviction partly upheld – Principal assailants identified by multiple eyewitnesses including injured witnesses – Court finds Moijuddin, Faijuddin and Latif restrained the deceased while Maynul delivered the fatal Ramdao blow on the nape of the neck – Held: Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC sustained for these accused [Paras 58–61, 80].

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Alleged use of pistol – Absence of recovery or gunshot injury – Witnesses differed whether pistol was placed on chest or neck – Held: Evidence insufficient against Waser Sk. @ Wacher Mayra either for Section 302/34 or 326/34; acquittal directed and bail bonds discharged [Paras 81–82, 88].

Grievous Hurt – Section 326/34 IPC – Eyewitness and medical corroboration – PW2 hospitalized 11 days; PWs 3 & 4 three days – Weapons were sharp agricultural implements – Non‑production of dying declaration immaterial once declarant survived and deposed – Held: Convictions under Section 326/34 IPC upheld for named accused [Paras 84–87].

Inquest Report – Scope under Section 174 CrPC – Investigative lead, not substantive determinative evidence – Court declines to fault investigation for not pursuing “son of Tajer Bere” line recorded by inquest witnesses not present at the scene – Reliance placed on Pedda Narayana (1975) 4 SCC 153 – Held: No infirmity [Paras 42–43].

Minor Discrepancies – Witness Credibility – Variations on who held the deceased’s hands and sequence of blows – Court treats as normal discrepancies in a melee; cites Bharwada Bhoginbhai (1983) 3 SCC 217 and Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752 – Injured eyewitness testimony accorded higher weight; Balu Sudam Khalde (2023) applied – Held: Prosecution version substantially reliable [Paras 41, 49, 51–52, 61–62].

Medical Evidence – Time of last meal and “empty stomach” – PM opinion not conclusive of exact time of death; possibility deceased skipped morning meal – Over‑emphasis on digestion timelines rejected – Held: Argument rejected [Paras 44–47].

Delay/Choice of Medical Facility – Skipping nearer centres for better hospital – Not fatal where deceased likely died on the spot and injuries to others were promptly treated – Defense failed to prove prejudice – Held: No adverse inference [Paras 54, 79].

Non‑Recovery of Weapons/Pistol – Effect – Faulty investigation not a ground for acquittal when ocular and medical evidence are unimpeachable; however, non‑recovery of pistol noted as material omission vis‑à‑vis accused with pistol – Held: Convictions sustained notwithstanding non‑recovery of sharp weapons; pistol non‑recovery underpins Waser’s acquittal [Paras 55, 81–82].

Doctors not told assailants’ names – Whether fatal – In emergency treatment names may not be recorded; not ipso facto exculpatory – Reliance on State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad (1998) 9 SCC 49 – Held: Argument rejected [Para 65].

Final Orders – CRA 320/2015 allowed; CRA 283/2015 and CRA 266/2015 dismissed – Surrender directions issued; costs: none [Paras 87–91].

Company Law – Transfer of Assets During Pendency of Winding-Up Proceedings – Section 536(2) & 537(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 – Transfer Held Void – The applicant entered into a registered sale deed on 03.01.2018 for a property belonging to the 1st respondent company after the presentation of a winding-up petition on 20.11.2015 but before the order for winding-up dated 06.12.2019 – Held: Disposition of property made after commencement of winding-up proceedings without leave of court is void unless validated by court – In the absence of publication of notice or due diligence by the applicant, the court rejected the plea that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser – The sale was declared in violation of Sections 536(2) and 537(1)(b) – Application dismissed [Paras 27, 28, 33, 36].

Winding-Up – Discretion to Validate Post-Petition Transactions – Judicial Principles – Court may validate transactions post-petition if they are bona fide and in the interest of company and creditors – However, burden lies on transferee to prove good faith – In this case, absence of public notice and suppressed knowledge of winding-up petition led court to conclude lack of bona fides – Judicial discretion not exercised in favour of the applicant – Transaction not validated [Paras 22, 23, 33, 36].

Real Estate Transaction – Bonafide Purchaser – Duty of Due Diligence – Applicant failed to issue public notice or exercise caution despite knowing of mortgage and SARFAESI involvement – Court held such conduct unconvincing and indicative of collusion – Applicant’s claim of resale to third party at a lower price was also disbelieved – Not a bonafide purchaser [Paras 12, 28, 33, 35].

Final Decision – Application Dismissed – The sale deed dated 03.01.2018 between the applicant and the respondent company was held invalid under Sections 536(2) and 537(1)(b) – Applicant not entitled to relief as transaction was void and lacked bona fides – Miscellaneous applications also dismissed [Para 37].

Rape Conviction – Deaf and Dumb Witness – CrPC S.164(5-A); Evidence Act Ss.118–119 – Interpreter was prosecution witness; denial of effective cross-examination – Trial vitiated – Conviction set aside without remand; guidelines issued for vulnerable witnesses.

Rape Conviction – Deaf and Dumb Witness – Section 376(2)(l) IPC; Section 164(5-A) CrPC – Conviction Set Aside – Statement under S.164 recorded using PW2 (first informant/prosecution witness) as interpreter; held impermissible under law; violation of principles in Alavi and Darshan Singh; denial of effective cross-examination – Trial vitiated; conviction and sentence set aside without remand [Paras 8, 11-16].

Evidence – Competency of Witness – Section 118 Evidence Act – Magistrate must ascertain competence of deaf and dumb witness to depose before recording statement; failure to assess capacity and reliance on PW2 (interested witness) to interpret renders statement inadmissible [Paras 11-13].

Interpreter – Legal Requirement – Section 119 Evidence Act – Services of trained interpreter/special educator mandatory; if interpreter unable, court may use familiar person, but not one who is an interested or prosecution witness; safeguards emphasized [Paras 12-13].

Cross-examination – Effective Right Denied – Victim’s deposition treated as examination-in-chief under S.164(5-A)(b) CrPC; absence of proper interpretation and inability of defence to cross-examine vitiates trial [Para 16].

Guidelines – Vulnerable Witnesses – High Court issues mandatory directions supplementing 2024 Notification; courts must record satisfaction on competence of witness and interpreter, ensure videography, avoid use of interested witnesses, and mandatorily record demeanour under S.315 BNSS [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence in S.C. No.184/2021 set aside – No remand directed due to incurable defects – Appellant released forthwith [Paras 16-18].

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act – Conviction Restored – The trial court had convicted the accused for issuing a dishonoured cheque of ₹30 lakhs, finding that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Sessions Judge reversed the conviction on the ground of absence of documentary proof of loan and by considering unrelated case records – Held: Sessions Judge committed perversity by relying on extraneous material and inventing a defence not raised by the accused – Since execution of cheque was admitted and there was no rebuttal evidence or cross-examination disputing the debt, the presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted – Conviction restored against respondent no.2 only [Paras 1-25].

Cross-examination – Effect of Omission – Section 138, Evidence Act – Defence Not Put to Witness – The accused failed to put any suggestion during cross-examination that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt – Held: In absence of cross-examination, testimony remains unimpeached and must be accepted – Sessions Judge erred in disbelieving such evidence without challenge or contradiction [Paras 17-20].

Personal Knowledge by Judge – Illegality – Judgment Based on Facts from Another Case – Reversal Set Aside – Sessions Judge erred in taking judicial notice of findings from another complaint case between the parties without placing it on record or giving opportunity to the complainant to rebut – Such reliance amounts to grave violation of fair trial principles and resulted in miscarriage of justice [Para 21].

Money Lending without Licence – Presumption Not Rebutted – Accused’s Defence Absent – Though complainant admitted money lending without licence, no question was put to link that the cheque was issued in such context – Held: Without specific plea or cross-examination, court cannot assume cheque was issued in course of illegal money lending – Presumption under Section 139 not rebutted [Para 23].

Final Decision – Acquittal Set Aside – Conviction Restored Against Respondent No.2 – As the other two accused had died and Respondent No.3 was not party to the original trial or appeal, conviction restored only against Respondent No.2 – Acquittal appeal allowed to that extent [Paras 24-26].

Civil Law - Declaration of Title – Assignment Deeds in Name of Minor – Burden of Proof – Father–Son Property Dispute – Plaintiff claimed that properties purchased in 1983 under two assignment deeds stood in his name when he was 6 months old, though deeds recorded age as 6 years – Father contended plaintiff was born in 1983 and not in existence when deeds were executed – Held: Burden of proving title lies on plaintiff, but evidence established that “minor Basheer” was indeed the plaintiff – Plaintiff’s mother (PW2) categorically testified that plaintiff was born in October 1982, and her testimony went unchallenged – Birth certificate showing 1983 rebutted by oral evidence – Presumption of correctness of birth register is rebuttable – Oral evidence of mother preferred [Paras 7–13].

Property Purchased in Minor’s Name – Ceiling Law Justification Rejected – Defendant’s claim that land was purchased in fictitious name of non-existent minor to avoid ceiling law not supported by evidence – Assignment deeds themselves showed defendant purchased property on behalf of minor son Basheer – Defendant admitted no other son named Basheer – No third-party claim was raised – Thus plaintiff proved absolute ownership [Paras 14–17].

Decision – Trial Court rightly decreed declaration and injunction in favour of plaintiff – Appellate Court upheld decree – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs considering close relationship [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Law - Bail Cancellation – Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 201, 302 Of IPC - Threat to Witnesses – Interference with Trial – Bail Cancelled – The prosecution sought cancellation of bail on grounds that Accused No.9 threatened PW.10 (approver), PW.30, and PW.40 – The Court accepted that there was prima facie evidence of threats, based on call records, witness emails, and corroborating statements, and that allowing the accused to remain free would jeopardize the fairness of the trial – Held: Bail cancelled until completion of evidence of threatened witnesses to protect integrity of proceedings [Paras 24, 26, 33-36].

Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities – Applicable in Bail Cancellation – Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The Court reiterated the legal principle that for cancellation of bail, the prosecution must only establish its case on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt – Based on facts and Supreme Court guidance in State (Delhi Admin.) v. Sanjay Gandhi, held that continued liberty of accused poses reasonable apprehension of threat to justice [Paras 26-27, 30-34].

Witness Protection and Judicial Discretion – Procedural Lapse by Trial Court Not Fatal – Though the trial court did not follow the “Witness Protection Scheme, 2018” in letter, the High Court found that its decision to grant protection was justified based on the circumstances – Held: Allegations of threat by witnesses and corroborative material justified protection and supported the basis for bail cancellation [Paras 31-32, 35].

Prior Conduct and Role of Accused – Political Influence and Criminal Background Considered – Accused No.9 was found to be a rowdy sheeter with multiple criminal cases – His proximity to other powerful accused and involvement in conspiracy to derail investigation were held relevant – Held: These factors support the conclusion that bail conditions were violated and further custody was warranted [Paras 28-30, 34].

Decision – Bail Cancelled Temporarily – Petition Allowed in Part – The Court cancelled the respondent’s bail until the examination of key prosecution witnesses is completed – Trial court was directed to expedite the trial and consider fresh bail thereafter – Petition partially allowed with structured safeguards [Paras 35-36].