Income Tax – Transfer of Case – Section 127 of Income Tax Act – Held: Transfer of petitioner’s case was justified as part of centralization of investigation into M/s. Falcon Marine Pvt. Ltd. and its group – Multiple cases were transferred for coordinated investigation – Transfer order upheld [Paras 7-8, 12-13].

Principles of Natural Justice – Requirement of Hearing – Held: No prejudice caused to the petitioner as the outcome would remain the same even if a hearing was granted – Courts need not insist on compliance with a useless formality – Reference to Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54 [Paras 10-12].

Requirement of Reasons in Transfer Order – Sufficiency of Show Cause Notice – Held: The show cause notice dated 26.10.2023 provided adequate reasons for the transfer, including the need for centralized investigation – Absence of separate detailed reasoning in the final order does not invalidate the transfer [Paras 13-14].

Incriminating Material – Justification for Transfer – Held: Seized documents and financial transactions linking the petitioner with M/s. Falcon Marine Pvt. Ltd. justified the transfer – Reference to Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, (1976) 1 SCC 1001 [Paras 5-6, 9].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held: No merit in petitioner’s challenge – Transfer order upheld as valid and justified – No costs imposed [Para 14].
 

Service Law - Gratuity Entitlement – Badli Worker – Continuous Service – Held: A worker engaged as a badli (substitute) in permanent positions for 38 years is entitled to gratuity – The employer failed to produce service records, leading to an adverse inference – Controlling Authority’s order directing payment upheld [Paras 1, 17-19].

Employer’s Duty to Maintain Records – Adverse Inference – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Held: Section 25D mandates that an employer must maintain records of workers’ attendance – Failure to produce such records allows the court to presume continuous service – Adverse inference drawn against the employer [Paras 12, 16-17].

Burden of Proof – Evidence Act – Employer’s Obligation – Held: The burden of proof regarding continuous service lies on the employer – The employer’s failure to present attendance records resulted in a presumption in favor of the employee – Reference to Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 [Paras 12, 16].

Interest on Gratuity – Payment of Gratuity Act – Held: Under Section 7(3A), the employee is entitled to interest on delayed gratuity payments – Employer directed to pay the principal gratuity amount along with accrued interest [Paras 6, 11].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held: The orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority upheld – Employer directed to pay gratuity with interest – No interference required by the High Court [Paras 22-23].

Civil Law - Recall of Witness – Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – Held: An application for recall of a witness cannot be entertained as a substitute for filling gaps in cross-examination – Recall under Section 151 is permissible only in exceptional circumstances – Application rejected due to delay and lack of justification [Paras 2-4, 20-22].

Filling Lacuna in Cross-Examination – Prohibited – Held: A witness cannot be recalled merely to put questions that were inadvertently missed during prior cross-examination – The petitioner’s attempt to recall PW1 after three years was an attempt to cover gaps, which is impermissible in law [Paras 3-4, 22].

Amendment of Pleadings – Prior Rejection – Res Judicata – Held: The petitioner’s previous attempts to amend the written statement to introduce the issue of lease deed registration had been rejected up to the Supreme Court – The recall application was a backdoor attempt to reintroduce the same issue, barred by principles of res judicata [Paras 12-14, 17].

Effect of Lease Deed Registration – Impact on Suit – Held: The subsequent registration of the lease deed does not automatically impact the suit’s maintainability – The effect of registration is a matter for trial and does not warrant recalling a witness for further cross-examination [Paras 7, 17].

Discretion of Trial Court – Review of Witness Recall – Held: The trial court has wide discretion to allow or reject witness recall applications – In the absence of compelling reasons, the appellate court will not interfere with such discretionary orders [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Revisional Application Dismissed – Held: The trial court’s order rejecting recall of PW1 upheld – No interference required as questions related to registration had already been addressed in cross-examination – Petitioner may present its case during its own evidence stage [Paras 25-27].
 

Confiscation of Vehicle Under NDPS Act – Permissible Only Upon Conclusion of Trial – Confiscation Order Set Aside - The police recovered ten grams of smack from the revisionist’s vehicle, leading to registration of a case under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act – The trial court rejected the revisionist’s application for release and ordered confiscation – The High Court held that under Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act, confiscation of a vehicle used in an NDPS offense can only occur after the accused is convicted, acquitted, or discharged – Held: Since the trial was still pending, the confiscation order was illegal and was set aside [Paras 6-14].

Owner’s Right to Seek Release of Vehicle – Discretion of Trial Court – Case to Be Considered on Merits - The High Court relied on Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, wherein the Supreme Court held that if the accused is the owner of the vehicle, the trial court has discretion in granting release – The trial court failed to consider the revisionist’s application on its own merits – Held: The application for release of the vehicle must be reconsidered by the trial court in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Confiscation Order Set Aside – Trial Court Directed to Reconsider Release Application - The High Court quashed the confiscation order and directed the trial court to decide the revisionist’s application for release of the vehicle strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam [Paras 20-21].
 

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide vs. Murder – Whether Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Warranted – The trial court convicted the accused under Section 304-II IPC for causing fatal injuries to the deceased with an axe—State contended that the assault was intentional and warranted conviction under Section 302 IPC—Held: Evidence indicates the accused had knowledge that their act could cause death but lacked intent to kill—Trial court correctly convicted them under Section 304-II IPC—No ground for enhancement to murder [Paras 10-15].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability of Relatives as Witnesses – The appellants argued that all prosecution witnesses were relatives of the deceased, making their testimony unreliable—Held: Mere relationship with the victim does not disqualify a witness—Testimonies of PWs 1, 5, and 9 were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence—Conviction upheld [Paras 16-18].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Whether Death Could Have Been Prevented – The doctor (PW13) opined that the injuries, though severe, could have been non-fatal if treated promptly—Held: This does not absolve the accused of liability—Findings of culpable homicide not amounting to murder justified [Paras 19-22].

Final Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction under Section 304-II IPC upheld—No interference with sentence of five years RI [Paras 23-25].
 

Maintenance – Right of Wife Despite Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Husband contended that wife voluntarily deserted him, making her ineligible for maintenance—Held: Mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not disentitle wife from maintenance unless husband proves willful desertion—Maintenance order upheld [Paras 6-9].

Quantum of Maintenance – Whether Excessive Given Husband’s Financial Condition – Husband argued that he earned only ₹21,167 per month, making maintenance of ₹9,000 excessive—Held: Trial court correctly considered financial capacity—No reduction warranted [Paras 10-12].

Effective Date of Maintenance – Whether Payable from Date of Application – Husband challenged retrospective applicability—Held: Maintenance is payable from the date of application unless special circumstances exist—No error in trial court’s order [Paras 13-15].

Final Decision – Revision dismissed – Maintenance order upheld—Arrears to be cleared within three months [Paras 16-18].

Civil – Writ - Religious Institutions – Police Interference – Mandamus Issued – Departmental Inquiry Ordered – Police Directed Not to Interfere in Religious Disputes – The Uttaradi Mutt filed a writ petition alleging that the police coerced them to hand over the keys of Sri Narahariteertha Swamy Brundavana to Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt – The petitioner cited prior civil court decrees affirming their possession and alleged that the police acted beyond their jurisdiction – The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had ordered status quo and held that police should not interfere in religious matters unless there is a law and order issue – Held: The police officer exceeded his authority, and a departmental inquiry was ordered against him [Paras 9-14].

Police Powers – Abuse of Authority – Unauthorized Mediation in Civil Disputes – Disciplinary Action Ordered – The police officer convened a “Shanthi Sabhe” meeting and directed the petitioner to hand over possession despite the absence of any judicial directive – The court observed that police interference in purely civil disputes violates established legal principles and State circulars – Held: The police had no jurisdiction to interfere, and a disciplinary inquiry was warranted [Paras 10-14].

Preventive Detention – Section 126 of BNSS (Equivalent to Section 107 Cr.P.C.) – Supreme Court Precedents – Restrictions on Liberty – The court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate to emphasize that proceedings under Section 126 of BNSS (formerly Section 107 Cr.P.C.) should not be misused to curtail personal liberty – The court observed that registering proceedings against the petitioner under Section 126 was a clear abuse of power [Para 13].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed in part. The Karnataka High Court directed the Police Commissioner, Dharwad to initiate a departmental inquiry against the third respondent (police officer) and conclude it within four months. The inquiry report must be submitted to the court. The Director General & Inspector General of Police, Karnataka was instructed to ensure compliance [Para 17].
 

Criminal Law - NDPS Act – Non-Compliance with Section 42 – Secret Information Not Recorded – Acquittal Upheld - Accused were apprehended with 30 bags of poppy husk hidden under groundnuts in a truck – Court found that secret information received by DSP was neither reduced to writing nor sent to superior officer as required under Section 42 – Held: Mandatory requirements under Section 42 not followed – Material lapse that vitiated the prosecution’s case [Paras 3, 11, 14, 18-20].

Search by Gazetted Officer – Applicability of Section 41(2) – No Written Record of Secret Information – Requirements Not Satisfied - Though DSP was a Gazetted Officer empowered under Section 41(2), he failed to record the secret information in writing – Court held that even under Section 41(2), such recordal is mandatory – Non-compliance invalidates search and subsequent recovery [Paras 13-16, 23].

Search of Private Conveyance in Transit – Section 42 Applicable – Distinction from Section 43 Clarified – Acquittal Justified - Truck in transit was searched on highway – Court clarified that Section 43 applies to public conveyance in public place; for private vehicle in transit, Section 42 applies – Hence, compliance with Section 42(1) and (2) mandatory – No such compliance found [Paras 16, 24-26].

Disclosure Statements of Co-Accused – Not Sufficient to Convict – No Independent Corroboration - Against accused Bahadur Singh, only disclosure statements of co-accused were relied upon – Held: Cannot form sole basis for conviction – Acquittal proper in absence of independent corroboration [Para 14].

Failure to Examine Independent Witness – Jatinder Pal Singh Not Produced – Prosecution's Case Weakened - Star public witness who joined at the time of search not examined, allegedly won over – Court observed that this further weakened prosecution case and cast doubt on credibility of search and seizure [Para 14].

Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Procedural Non-Compliance Fatal to Prosecution – Court held that failure to record secret information and comply with mandatory safeguards under Section 42 rendered the entire search, seizure and prosecution illegal – Appeal dismissed, acquittal of all accused confirmed [Paras 25-27].

Criminal Law - POCSO Act – Disclosure of Minor Victim’s Identity – Media Responsibility – The petitioner, an editor of a news channel, was accused of revealing the identity of a minor victim and her family in a sexual offence case—Held: Publication of victim’s identity violates Section 23 of the POCSO Act—Media houses have an obligation to protect the identity of child victims—Allegations justified investigation [Paras 4-7].

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Power to Direct FIR Registration – The petitioner argued that the Special Court erred in directing the police to register an FIR instead of taking cognizance itself—Held: The Special Court can either take cognizance or direct investigation if it deems necessary—No illegality in the Special Court’s decision to refer the matter to the police [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Procedure – Whether Direct Complaint Before Special Court was Maintainable – The petitioner contended that the complainant should have approached the police first under Section 154 CrPC—Held: The POCSO Act contains overriding provisions that allow direct complaints to the Special Court—Court’s direction to register FIR upheld [Paras 11-13].

Final Decision – Criminal revision petition dismissed – Investigation to proceed—Police directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within two months—Special Court to expedite trial [Paras 14-16].