Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 366A IPC – Assessment of Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Prosecution relied on inconsistent statements by witnesses and failed to present corroborative evidence from independent witnesses or reliable medical findings – Held: Inconsistencies in testimony of the victim (PW-1) and informant (PW-2) undermine the prosecution’s case. No injuries were reported on the victim’s body, and the victim's age was determined to be on the borderline of adulthood, further complicating the charge of procuration of a minor girl [Paras 17-19].

Credibility of Prosecution Case – Eyewitnesses Not Examined – The prosecution failed to examine critical eyewitnesses, including school staff and students, despite the alleged abduction occurring in broad daylight outside a school – Held: Non-examination of key witnesses raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case [Para 19].

Ante-Dated FIR and Informant's Knowledge – Question of Reliability – FIR appeared ante-dated as the informant (PW-2) claimed to file the report based on details shared by the victim the day after the alleged incident. Further, the informant admitted he did not know the accused personally before filing the complaint – Held: Such discrepancies render the prosecution’s case untrustworthy [Para 18].

Age Determination of the Victim – Borderline Case – The medical board opined the victim’s age to be between 17 and 18 years, with no evidence conclusively establishing her as a minor – Held: Lack of clarity on age undermines the applicability of Section 366A IPC [Paras 8, 19].

Outcome: Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges [Para 20].

Decision: Judgment and Sentence Set Aside. Conviction under Section 366A IPC quashed. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of ₹1,000/- annulled. Acquittal and Discharge of Bail Bonds. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. Appeal Allowed:
 

Employment Law – Back Wages – Gainful Employment Not Proved – Full Back Wages Granted – Respondent was suspended and dismissed from service on allegations of misconduct. The Co-operative Arbitration Court found the suspension and dismissal to be illegal, awarding full back wages for the period of suspension and dismissal. Appellants failed to prove that the respondent was gainfully employed during the said period. Held: A workman whose termination is found to be illegal is ordinarily entitled to full back wages unless the employer proves gainful employment during the period of dismissal – Award upheld; writ appeal dismissed [Paras 10-14].

Burden of Proof – Employer's Duty to Prove Gainful Employment – Respondent submitted evidence before the Arbitration Court affirming lack of employment during the period of suspension-dismissal. Appellants, despite being provided opportunities, failed to produce evidence to prove gainful employment. Held: The burden lies on the employer to establish that the dismissed employee was gainfully employed during the period of absence – No such evidence presented; award upheld [Paras 13-14].

Reinstatement with Back Wages – Precedents Applied – Citing Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees [(1979) 2 SCC 80] and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [(2013) 10 SCC 324], the Court held that reinstatement is ordinarily accompanied by full back wages unless the employer proves otherwise. The employer’s failure to substantiate claims of gainful employment entitles the employee to full back wages [Paras 10-11].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Limited Scope of Interference – High Court reiterated that the scope of appellate interference in writ matters is confined to jurisdictional errors or patent legal infirmities. Finding none in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal was dismissed [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Writ appeal dismissed – Award of Co-operative Arbitration Court granting full back wages and other monetary benefits upheld – Appellants failed to establish gainful employment of the respondent during the suspension-dismissal period [Paras 14-16].

Civil Law - Trust Property – Reversionary Rights of the Trust – Section 19(b) of the Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940 – Land granted by the Sansthan to Sangli State for running a public hospital – Public hospital shifted to an alternate location – Held: The Sansthan retained ownership of the land, and upon cessation of the public purpose, the land must revert to the Sansthan under Section 19(b) – Directions issued to the State to return the land or acquire it in accordance with law [Paras 13-16].

Pre-Constitutional Enactments – Continuance of Existing Laws – Article 372 of the Constitution – Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940, recognized as “law in force” – Held: The rights of the Sansthan under Section 19(b) are enforceable under Article 372, as the Act remains valid and binding [Paras 10-11].

Land Appropriation – Purpose of Appropriation Ceasing – Interpretation of Section 19(b) – Appropriation for a specific public purpose does not divest the grantor of ownership rights – Held: Once the original purpose ceases, the land reverts to the grantor unless acquired under law – Municipality or State cannot claim perpetual appropriation without formal acquisition [Paras 12-14].

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy – State argued that the petitioner could seek compensation or approach a civil court – Held: Availability of compensation or an alternative remedy does not bar the Sansthan’s right to seek reversion under Section 19(b) – Relief granted [Paras 6, 16].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Land from City Survey Nos. 4, 5, 5/1 to 5/18 directed to be returned to the Sansthan within three months – State permitted to acquire the land if required for a public purpose – Alternate accommodation to be arranged for hospital staff occupying part of the land [Paras 16-17].

Property Law – Eviction under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act – Appeal and Writ Petition – Respondent No. 3 (mother) sought eviction of the appellant (son) under the Act, citing harassment – District Collector ordered eviction – Appellant challenged the eviction order in writ proceedings, citing lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice – High Court quashed the eviction order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with due process [Paras 5.3, 18-19].

Principles of Natural Justice – Failure to Provide Opportunity – District Collector failed to allow the appellant to submit an explanation or supporting documents before passing the eviction order – High Court held this to be a violation of natural justice – Remanded the matter for rehearing and compliance with Rule 21(3) of the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 [Paras 6.3, 14, 18].

Jurisdiction – Eviction Proceedings by Senior Citizen – Appellant argued that the mother (Respondent No. 3) had executed a gift settlement deed in favor of another son, Respondent No. 4, and therefore lacked standing to seek eviction – High Court clarified that jurisdictional issues must be adjudicated by the District Collector without being influenced by previous findings [Paras 10, 18].

Alternative Remedy – Writ Maintainability – Appellant bypassed the statutory remedy of appeal, citing breach of natural justice – High Court held that while alternative remedies are generally preferred, writ jurisdiction can be invoked in cases involving natural justice violations or lack of jurisdiction [Paras 17-18].

Decision: W.P. No. 34257 of 2024 allowed – Eviction order dated 20.11.2024 set aside – Matter remitted to District Collector for fresh consideration – Appellant directed to submit an explanation within two weeks, and Collector to decide within six weeks thereafter – W.A. No. 1202 of 2024 dismissed as infructuous – No costs [Paras 19-21].
 

Arbitration – Interim Relief – Security for Disputed Amount – Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Petitioner sought interim relief to secure Rs. 156.75 crores against Make-Up Gas owed under GSPA, alleging respondents’ inability to supply due to reduced gas production – Respondents claimed non-performance due to Force Majeure (FM) and expiration of GSPA and Production Sharing Contract (PSC) – Held: A strong prima facie case existed as GSPA’s restoration period was nearing expiration, and petitioner had paid Rs. 197.13 crores without full adjustment – Respondents directed to provide solvent security to secure the disputed amount [Paras 41-62].

Force Majeure – Validity and Invocation – Non-Compliance with Procedural Clauses – Respondents invoked FM under GSPA due to adverse reservoir behavior – Petitioner challenged FM citing lack of timely notice and failure to meet conditions under Clauses 7.5 and 7.7 of GSPA – Held: FM claim requires proof of adherence to procedural requirements, which is to be evaluated by the arbitral tribunal – Court refrained from delving into substantive merits at interim stage [Paras 54-56].

Attachment of Assets – Applicability of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Foreign Respondents – Risk of Enforcement Challenges – Court noted respondents’ assets were inadequately detailed and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were foreign entities – Risk of irrecoverable arbitral award recognized – Held: Ingredients of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC satisfied – Respondents directed to provide solvent security to prevent dissipation of assets [Paras 60-62].

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondent No. 1 directed to secure Rs. 157.75 crores through bank guarantee or unencumbered immovable assets within two weeks – Observations limited to interim relief without prejudice to arbitral tribunal’s findings [Paras 62-64].
 

Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Maintainability of Application Under Section 28A – Petitioners sought parity in compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court in a first appeal – Application rejected by the Collector on the ground that Section 28A applies only to awards passed by the reference court under Section 18, and not by appellate courts – High Court held: The provisions of Section 28A, being beneficial in nature, must be interpreted to advance their purpose – Application under Section 28A maintainable on the basis of enhanced compensation awarded in appeal by the High Court [Paras 20–22].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Court observed: Section 28A aims to address inequality in compensation by providing relief to landowners who were unable to file references under Section 18 – Interpretation must favor extending the benefit, not curtailing it – Rejection of the petitioners’ application was contrary to the legislative intent of Section 28A [Paras 11–12, 20].

Limitation Under Section 28A – Trigger Date – Petitioners filed their application within three months of the High Court’s judgment enhancing compensation – High Court held: Limitation under Section 28A begins from the date of the award or judgment with which parity is sought – Application filed within the prescribed period was valid [Paras 13, 22].

Contrary Precedents – Clarification – High Court clarified: Judgments limiting Section 28A applications to awards passed by the reference court (e.g., Bhagti v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 473) are not applicable in cases where the enhancement was first made in appeal – Judgments in Pradeep Kumari v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCC 736, and Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., (2024), correctly reflect the law and were relied upon [Paras 13–19].

Decision:

Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 29/07/2022 rejecting the application under Section 28A quashed – Respondent-Collector directed to reconsider the application for redetermination of compensation and pass a fresh order in terms of the High Court’s judgment in First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 [Para 22–23].

Criminal Law – Evidence – Call and Tower Location Records – Right of Accused to Summon Relevant Evidence – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Held: Tower location records of witnesses in alleged trap proceedings are relevant for determining their presence at the scene of the incident – Denial of such evidence would amount to miscarriage of justice – Directions issued to preserve and produce tower locations, with privacy safeguards for unrelated call details [Paras 10, 13-15, 16].

Natural Justice – Fair Trial – Principles Under Article 21 of the Constitution – Admissibility of Electronic Records – Held: Denial of access to admissible electronic records under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act violates principles of natural justice – Ensuring access to relevant evidence is integral to a fair trial [Paras 14-15].

Privacy – Balancing Accused's Rights and Witness Privacy – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Held: Right to privacy of witnesses may be breached to the extent necessary to ensure a fair trial for the accused – Tower locations may be summoned with specific restrictions, such as redacting unrelated call details, to balance rights [Paras 13, 14].

Judicial Precedents – Applicability of Suresh Kumar Case – Preservation of Tower Locations – Held: Following Suresh Kumar v. Union of India, preserving tower location data for determining witness presence is necessary for justice – Court directed preservation of tower location records for specified time period with redactions [Paras 10, 16].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Trial Court directed to summon tower locations for specified witnesses with safeguards – Petition disposed of.
 

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Dereliction of Duty – Theft of Overhead Electric Wires – Petitioner charged with dereliction of duty after criminals stole 150 meters of overhead electric wires from a 3 KM stretch under his watch – Disciplinary Authority found petitioner guilty and imposed a penalty of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect – Orders confirmed by Appellate and Revisional Authorities – Court held that findings of fact by disciplinary authorities were well-reasoned and supported by evidence – Petition dismissed, findings upheld. [Paras 1-10].

Proportionality of Punishment – Judicial Review – On challenge to the quantum of punishment, Court observed that petitioner’s previous conduct was considered by the Appellate Authority, including a prior penalty imposed for similar dereliction of duty just three months earlier – Appellate Authority reduced the penalty to a two-stage pay reduction for three years with cumulative effect – Held: Punishment proportionate to misconduct and not unconscionable – Judicial interference unwarranted. [Paras 11-15].

Authority’s Discretion – Scope of Court’s Intervention – Court reiterated its limited role in reviewing disciplinary actions, emphasizing that it is not an appellate forum – Findings of guilt and punishment by authorities are to be respected unless proven arbitrary, perverse, or disproportionate. [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Findings and punishment upheld with modifications introduced by the Appellate Authority. [Paras 14-16].
 

Matrimonial Law - Muslim Personal Law – Maintainability of Divorce Suit by Muslim Male – Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – Maintainable - The Family Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s suit for divorce, holding it as non-maintainable under Muslim personal law – Section 7 of the Family Courts Act empowers Family Courts to adjudicate suits for dissolution of marriage arising out of a marital relationship irrespective of caste or community – Rejection of the suit denied the appellant his right to access justice [Paras 9-12].

Dissolution of Marriage – Grounds under Shariat Act and Family Court Rules – Right of Muslim Male Recognized - Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Family Court Rules, 1988 explicitly includes suits under the Shariat Act and Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 – Muslim males can pursue judicial remedies for divorce under these provisions, establishing a valid legal framework for such suits [Paras 11-12].

Constitutional Morality – Denial of Access to Justice – Remedy to Muslim Male Secured - Denial of judicial forum for Muslim males to seek divorce under personal law would violate the constitutional mandate ensuring access to justice – Such an interpretation would contravene constitutional morality and the principles of justice [Paras 13-14].

Remand for Adjudication – Family Court Judgment Set Aside – Directions for Reconsideration - The High Court quashed the Family Court’s decision and remanded the matter for adjudication – Parties directed to appear before the Family Court for further proceedings, including the possibility of settlement [Paras 15-17].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Family Court is set aside. The case is remanded for adjudication by the Family Court with liberty granted to the parties to pursue settlement if desired. The Registrar General is directed to circulate the judgment to all Civil/Family Courts in Madhya Pradesh.