Bail – Cheating and Forgery Allegations – Regular Bail Granted – Applicants alleged to have induced complainants to lend and pay over ₹2.55 crores under false pretenses of loan repayment and property sale while properties were mortgaged – Allegations include forgery of title deeds and No Objection Certificates (NOCs) – FSL report confirmed NOC signatures were not genuine – Despite gravity of charges, petitioners had been in custody for 1 year and 4 months, investigation was complete, and evidence was primarily documentary – Held: Bail granted considering prolonged custody, completion of investigation, documentary nature of evidence, and parity with co-accused granted bail [Paras 1–4, 17–23].

Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction – Sole Testimony of Victim – Medical Corroboration Not Essential – Conviction Upheld - The prosecutrix, though a minor, gave a clear and consistent account of the offence – The delay in medical examination did not negate her statement – Medical opinion on habitual intercourse or absence of injuries was not fatal to the prosecution case – Held: Sole credible testimony of prosecutrix sufficient to convict under Section 376 IPC [Paras 24–31].

SC/ST Act – Proof of Caste-Based Intention – Section 3(2)(v) Not Attracted – Conviction Set Aside - No evidence suggested that the offence was committed on the ground that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste – Mere proof of caste status of the victim is insufficient to attract the offence – Held: Conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act unsustainable and set aside [Paras 32–37].

Sentencing – Reduction of Sentence – Age and Passage of Time Considered – Sentence Reduced - Considering the 27-year-old incident and that the appellant was 62 years old, the Court reduced sentence from 10 years to 7 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 payable to victim as compensation – Held: Modified sentence would meet ends of justice [Paras 38–40].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Rape Conviction Maintained – SC/ST Conviction Set Aside – Sentence Reduced - The conviction under Section 376 IPC was upheld with reduced sentence – Conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was quashed – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence, if any [Paras 39–41].
 

Tenancy Law - Tenancy Dispute – Determination of Status of Occupants – Defendants Held to Be Trespassers – The plaintiff sought recovery of possession on the ground that the defendants were not legal tenants – The original tenant, Manilal Damodardas, was an individual, and no tenancy was ever created in the name of the partnership firm claimed by defendants – Rent receipts and prior litigation confirmed individual tenancy – Held: Defendants were in unauthorized occupation and not protected under tenancy law [Paras 3-6, 13-17, 21-24].

Standard Rent Application – Rejected for Lack of Tenant Status – Defendants’ Civil Misc. Application for fixation of standard rent was dismissed – The Trial Court found no landlord-tenant relationship existed – The First Appellate Court affirmed this and its order was not independently challenged – Held: Dismissal of standard rent application became final [Paras 7, 25, 36-37].

Fabrication of Documents – Defendant's Claim Based on Inadmissible and Forged Documents – Defendants produced xeroxed partnership deeds and other documents years after filing of the suit – The courts held such documents unproven and likely fabricated – Stamp paper used in 1995 allegedly by a person deceased in 1984 further discredited the defense – Held: Documents could not establish partnership tenancy [Paras 14, 24-25].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Scope of Second Appeal – Dismissal Upheld – High Court emphasized that concurrent factual findings by two lower courts cannot be interfered with under Section 100 CPC unless they are perverse or contrary to law – Held: Findings supported by evidence and no substantial question of law arises – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 18, 32-34, 41].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court found no merit in the appeal either on facts or law – Held: The appeal was devoid of any substantial question of law – Dismissed at admission stage – Civil Application also disposed of [Paras 40-41].

Civil Law – Retiral Benefits - Legal Heirship – Entitlement to Death Benefits – Declaration in SOP – Held Valid – The petitioner was declared as legal heir of the deceased teacher by a competent civil court, and such finding attained finality – The respondents’ failure to disburse benefits on grounds of memory-based data and lost service register was held arbitrary – Directed to reconstruct the register and pay dues – Family pension rightly denied as the petitioner did not fall within eligible category under Pension Rules [Paras 3, 6–9].

Reconstruction of Service Register – Decree in Civil Suit – Failure to Comply – Decree to reconstruct service register obtained by the petitioner in O.S. No. 327/2003 was not implemented by the authorities – Execution petition also allowed – Court held continued inaction unjustifiable and mandated compliance within one month [Paras 3, 6–9].

Family Pension – Rule 50(V) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 – Not Applicable to Siblings – The petitioner being the brother of the deceased was rightly denied family pension as he does not fall under Category-I – Claim for pension rejected while other monetary claims upheld [Paras 4, 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed in Part – Court directed respondent authorities to reconstruct the service register within one month and disburse death benefits within two months thereafter – Claim for family pension was rejected [Paras 9–10].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint – Cause of Action – Illusory Pleading – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – The plaintiff claimed a 1/3rd share in ancestral property and challenged sale deeds of 1972 and 1975, relying on the dismissal of a prior unrelated civil suit in 2021 as cause of action – Held: The Court found that the alleged cause of action was fictitious and a result of clever drafting – The pendency or dismissal of prior litigation was irrelevant and did not prevent the plaintiff from asserting his rights earlier [Paras 1-4, 10, 15-16].

Limitation – Declaration of Ownership and Partition – Article 58 & 110 of Limitation Act – Suit Time-Barred – The plaintiff attained majority in 1978 and was aware of the disputed transactions – Held: Suit for declaration and partition should have been filed within 3 or 12 years respectively – The present suit filed in 2022 was clearly barred by limitation – The trial court erred in treating limitation as a mixed question of fact and law despite clear averments in plaint [Paras 12-14, 18-19].

Jurisdiction of Trial Court – Failure to Exercise Judicial Discretion – Misapplication of Order VII Rule 11 – The trial court rejected the application without thoroughly evaluating whether the plaint disclosed a real cause of action or was barred by limitation – Held: The trial court failed to act as per binding precedents requiring courts to reject plaints lacking a meaningful cause of action or filed beyond limitation [Paras 17-18, 22].

Decision – Plaint Rejected – Revision Allowed – The High Court quashed the trial court’s order and allowed the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held that the plaint disclosed no genuine cause of action and was hopelessly barred by limitation – Pending applications were also disposed of accordingly [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law - Temple Theft – Confession in Police Custody – Not Admissible – Acquittal Ordered – The prosecution relied primarily on alleged confessions of the accused made while in police custody and recoveries based on such statements – Held: Confessions made to police officers without a magistrate’s presence are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act – Discovery panchnamas were not supported by credible witnesses and were deemed unreliable – Acquittal ordered due to lack of admissible evidence and breach of procedural safeguards [Paras 21, 23].

Recovery of Stolen Property – No Independent Corroboration – Doubt Cast on Genuineness – The recovered ignots (melted ornaments) were allegedly produced by the son of the third accused under police pressure – He was not managing the goldsmith shop and claimed coercion – Held: Recovery not proven to be voluntary or linked to the alleged theft – Presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act not applicable – Accused acquitted [Paras 18, 21].

Panchnamas – Hostile Witnesses – Lack of Evidentiary Value – Majority of panch witnesses either turned hostile or failed to support key elements such as disclosure and seizure – Held: With panchnamas unproven and no corroboration, prosecution failed to establish chain of evidence – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 15-17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof – Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Court held that past criminal records cannot substitute for legal proof in current case – Acquittal granted due to lack of cogent, credible, and admissible evidence [Para 23].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Appeals Allowed – State's Appeal Dismissed – The conviction and sentence of all accused under Sections 457, 380, 413, and 114 IPC were set aside – Accused acquitted – State’s appeal for enhancement of sentence rendered infructuous and dismissed [Paras 24-25].

Taxation Law - Capital Gains – Timing of Transfer under JDA – Section 2(47)(v) – Substantive Assessment from A.Y. 2007–08 – Not Taxable in A.Y. 2006–07 - Held: The transaction under the unregistered Joint Development Agreement dated 23.11.2005 did not amount to “transfer” under Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in A.Y. 2006–07 as there was no development activity in that year – Capital gains to be computed in subsequent assessment years based on actual transfer of constructed property [Paras 1–4, 50–53, 104–105].

Section 80IB(10) Deduction – Applicability of Section 80AC – Deduction Allowed for A.Y. 2006–07 Only - Held: Benefit of deduction under Section 80IB(10) could not be denied for A.Y. 2006–07 as Section 80AC was not yet in force – However, for A.Ys. 2007–08 onwards, deduction not allowable as no claim was made in returns filed under Section 139(1) as mandated by Section 80AC – Remedy left open for collateral challenge to Section 80AC in separate proceedings [Paras 12, 90–104, 118–120].

Bogus Expenditure – Cost of Improvement – Remanded for Fresh Verification – Held: Assessee failed to substantiate Rs. 4.52 crore cost claimed via M/s. Takshil Trading Pvt. Ltd., a suspected hawala operator – Tribunal rightly remanded issue to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting procedural lapses and non-disclosure of documents to assessee [Paras 25, 64–65, 71–72].

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) – Justified Reduction – Tribunal's Discretion Upheld - Penalty for concealment of income reduced from 300% to 100% by CIT(A) and upheld by ITAT – High Court found no perversity in exercise of discretion by lower authorities [Paras 28, 39–41].

Suppression of Income – Re-routing via Related Party – Assessee Found Liable - Managing Director’s son introduced as partner in Developer Firm received Rs. 25 crore consideration – Held: This was diversion of company’s capital gains, not substantiated in returns – Tribunal correctly upheld substantive assessments in A.Y. 2007–08 onwards [Paras 16–20, 62–63, 73–74].

Decision – Partial Relief to Assessee – Deduction allowed for A.Y. 2006–07 – Dismissal of appeals for A.Ys. 2007–08 to 2011–12 – Appeals of Department allowed for statistical purposes – Assessee given liberty to challenge Section 80AC separately under Article 226 [Paras 120–124].

Criminal Law – Bail – Murder - Prolonged Incarceration of Undertrial – Bail Granted – The applicant was arrested in October 2018 for allegedly murdering his younger brother – Despite more than 6 years of custody, trial had not progressed beyond listing of witnesses – The Court emphasized the right to speedy trial under Article 21 and observed that delay caused by systemic backlog cannot defeat fundamental rights – Held: Bail granted considering excessive delay, overcrowded prison conditions, and the need to protect personal liberty of undertrial prisoners – Applicant to be released on appropriate conditions to ensure attendance at trial [Paras 3–14].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint on grounds of vague and insufficient averments regarding the claimed freight charges and services rendered – Trial court rejected the application holding cause of action disclosed in plaint and documents – Held: While examining Order 7 Rule 11, courts may consider documents filed with plaint under Order 7 Rule 14 – If the plaint and accompanying documents disclose necessary facts to support a claim, rejection is unwarranted – Court reiterated that rejection of plaint is a drastic measure, to be used sparingly where no arguable case exists – Petition dismissed as the plaint, read with documents, disclosed sufficient cause of action [Paras 13–18].

Decision – Rejection of Plaint Denied – Petition under Article 227 Dismissed – Delhi High Court upheld trial court’s finding that the plaint, supported by invoices and records, disclosed a valid cause of action – Reiterated narrow scope of Order 7 Rule 11 and cautioned against its liberal invocation where triable issues exist [Paras 17–18].