Bail in Money Laundering Cases – Section 45 of PMLA – Twin Conditions Evaluated - The Court considered whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for bail, including whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence if released. The petitioner was not arraigned as an accused in the predicate offence, raising questions about the prosecution’s case – Held: Petitioner satisfies the twin conditions; bail granted [Paras 14-15, 18-19].

Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted - The petitioner has been in custody since 10th March 2023, and the trial involves voluminous evidence with no likelihood of early conclusion. The Court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Held: Continued detention amounts to pre-trial punishment; bail granted [Paras 22-28].

Restrictive Bail Provisions and Article 21 – Constitutional Balance - The Court observed that restrictive bail conditions under the PMLA cannot override the sacrosanct right to life and liberty under Article 21. A balance must be maintained between statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees – Held: Bail granted with stringent conditions to address apprehensions of witness tampering and flight risk [Paras 23-25].

Decision: The bail application is allowed.
 

Limitation - Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay – Application Rejected - The appellant sought condonation of a 4486-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to alleged professional misconduct by previous counsel and subsequent pursuit of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court held that the appellant, a corporate entity, failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay or take action against the counsel for alleged misconduct. The explanation was found unsatisfactory, especially as the appellant neglected its duty of diligence in monitoring litigation – Held: Delay not condoned; application dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Section 14 Limitation Act – Lack of Good Faith – Benefit Denied - The appellant claimed exclusion of time spent in pursuing proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court observed that the judgment under challenge was not ex parte, rendering the application misconceived. Further, the appellant failed to act with due diligence or in good faith, as required under Section 14 – Held: Time not excluded; appeal barred by limitation [Paras 9-10].

Professional Misconduct – No Action Taken – Explanation Unacceptable - The appellant alleged professional misconduct by its previous counsel but admitted to taking no action against the counsel. The Court noted that condoning the delay based on unsubstantiated allegations would unjustly condemn the counsel unheard, violating principles of justice – Held: Allegation rejected; delay not condoned [Paras 3-6].

Purpose of Limitation Law – Public Policy and Judicial Discipline – Court Reiterates Standards - The Court reiterated that laws of limitation are grounded in public policy, ensuring legal certainty and diligence. Unexplained delays and negligence undermine judicial discipline and fairness – Held: No interference with accrued rights of the respondents due to appellant’s inaction [Paras 7-8].

Decision: The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal (RFA 797/2024) and accompanying applications are dismissed as barred by limitation.
 

Recall Applications – Basis for Recall – No Grounds Made Out – Applications Dismissed - The Court examined the recall applications filed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) to revisit its previous order dated 28/02/2024. The petitioners argued that the order was based on their counsel's misunderstanding of the Tribunal's directions regarding the respondents’ status as "Initial Constituents" under the Staff Recruitment Rules, 2022. The Court held that such applications could not be entertained solely on the ground of an advocate's alleged misunderstanding, as it would undermine judicial discipline – Held: Recall applications dismissed [Paras 14-27].

Concessions by Counsel – Binding Nature – Cannot Be Resiled Without Valid Grounds - The Court emphasized that concessions made by counsel in judicial proceedings are binding unless proven to be unauthorized. SAI failed to demonstrate that the counsel acted beyond instructions when seeking extension of time to comply with the Tribunal’s order – Held: No valid ground to recall the earlier order [Paras 20-24].

Contempt Proceedings – Tribunal to Decide Compliance – No Opinion Expressed by Court - SAI contended that the order sought to be recalled might influence contempt proceedings pending before the Tribunal. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of compliance with the Tribunal’s directions and left the matter to be decided by the Tribunal – Held: Contempt issues to be addressed separately [Paras 28-32].

Purpose of Judicial Orders – Compliance and Finality - The Court reiterated the importance of compliance with judicial orders and cautioned against practices that disrupt judicial finality, emphasizing that recall applications should not be misused to revisit concluded issues – Held: Judicial discipline upheld [Paras 17-18].

Decision: The applications for recall of the order dated 28/02/2024 are dismissed. The right of the petitioners to contest contempt proceedings before the Tribunal remains reserved, and no opinion is expressed on the merits of the pending contempt matters.
 

Matrimonial Law - DNA Test for Paternity – Application under Section 45 and 112 of the Indian Evidence Act – The petitioner sought a DNA test of the respondent’s children to challenge their paternity – The trial court dismissed the application, relying on statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act – Decision: The High Court upheld the trial court’s order, emphasizing that mere doubt does not warrant DNA testing unless justified by compelling evidence [Paras 2-4].

Privacy and Autonomy – Limits on Ordering DNA Tests – Court reiterated that a direction for DNA testing impacts personal autonomy and the privacy of individuals, including minors – Decision: Such orders cannot be made as a matter of course, particularly when the outcome could harm the children’s future [Para 4].

Presumption of Legitimacy – Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 112 can only be rebutted by strong evidence that the husband had no access to the wife during conception – Decision: The petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and the application for DNA testing was rightly dismissed [Paras 3-4].

Decision: The criminal revision was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the trial court’s reliance on Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act and rejecting the petitioner’s request for DNA testing. Pending applications were also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(l) IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5(k), and 6 of the POCSO Act by the trial court – Sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment – Allegation of sexual assault on a deaf and mute minor girl by the appellant – High Court analyzed the inconsistencies, lacunae in prosecution evidence, and delayed lodging of the FIR – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1, 32, 34].

Age of the Victim – Minority – Proof of Age - Prosecution relied on documents including the birth certificate (Exh.67), Gram Panchayat record, and Anganwadi register – Evidence corroborated by testimonies of victim’s parents (PW6, PW13), Gram Panchayat officer (PW8), and Anganwadi Sevika (PW14) – Defense argued corrections in documents made them unreliable – Court held that evidence established the victim’s age below 18 years at the time of the incident [Paras 7-12].

Credibility of Witnesses – Victim’s Testimony - Victim’s testimony recorded with assistance of a special teacher – Victim alleged the appellant committed rape after lifting her from her cot – Lack of resistance or injuries inconsistent with her narrative – Circumstances, including proximity to a crowded area during celebrations, raised doubt – Evidence not fully supported by corroboration from other witnesses [Paras 24, 21, 29].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies - Medical examination revealed absence of external or genital injuries on the victim – Hymen absence noted, but evidence suggested prior sexual activity – Prosecution silent on victim’s prior sexual history – Medical officer (PW11) stated absence of injuries inconsistent with forcible sexual assault – Examination of appellant showed no injuries or indications of recent intercourse – Medical evidence did not corroborate prosecution’s case [Paras 25, 27].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Impact on Credibility - Incident alleged to have occurred on 18.04.2018; FIR lodged on 21.04.2018 – No satisfactory explanation for the delay by victim’s parents – Delay deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case as it raised the possibility of deliberation and embellishment – Non-examination of key independent witness (Dinesh Pawar) further weakened prosecution’s case [Paras 17, 23, 28].

Defense Argument – False Implication - Appellant claimed false implication due to prior enmity – Defense presented evidence suggesting a motive for fabrication of charges – Testimony of defense witnesses, including appellant’s mother (DW2), supported this claim – High Court observed that the prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of false implication [Paras 13, 29].

Presumption Under Section 29 of POCSO Act - Court held that presumption under Section 29 is rebuttable and applies only when foundational facts are established beyond doubt – In this case, prosecution failed to establish foundational facts, and presumption did not apply [Para 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Directed High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee to pay advocate’s fees for representing the victim [Paras 32-36].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Public Element Absent – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner sought reinstatement following his termination by Webcon Consulting (India) Limited, asserting that the entity discharged public functions and fell under the ambit of "State" under Article 12. The Court, analyzing the shareholding structure and operations of Webcon, found no deep or pervasive government control. It held that Webcon was not a government company and that internal employment matters lacked the public element necessary to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Held: Writ petition not maintainable [Paras 16-19].

Termination of Service – Staff Rules Validly Applied – No Contravention Found - The petitioner alleged that the Managing Director lacked authority to terminate his employment and that the termination contravened Staff Rule 5. The Court found that the termination complied with the staff rules, which allowed dismissal for disciplinary or integrity issues without notice. The petitioner failed to provide evidence contradicting the grounds of termination. Additionally, the authority of the Managing Director was validated by shareholder approval in proceedings before the NCLT – Held: Termination upheld; no grounds for interference [Paras 19-20].

Jurisdiction Under Article 226 – Scope Limited to Public Law Element - The Court reiterated that while bodies performing public functions are amenable to writ jurisdiction, internal decisions involving private employment contracts, absent statutory governance, fall outside the ambit of Article 226. Actions lacking a public law element cannot invoke constitutional remedies – Held: Writ jurisdiction not applicable to purely private contractual matters [Para 19].The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The termination of the petitioner is upheld as per valid application of the company's staff rules.

Labour Law – Accident Compensation Employer-Employee Relationship – Determination by Commissioner – The Court upheld the finding of the Employees' Compensation Commissioner regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the first opposite party. Evidence such as receipts, accommodation bills, and cheques provided sufficient basis for this conclusion – Held: Employer-employee relationship established [Paras 7-9].

Validity of Insurance Cover Note – Extent of Liability – The insurance company contested its liability, arguing that the cover note lacked essential details such as engine and chassis numbers and had expired before the accident. The Court rejected this argument, holding that under Section 145(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a duly issued cover note is equivalent to a certificate of insurance. The appellant failed to notify the authorities about non-issuance of a policy post cover note issuance, as mandated by Section 147(5) – Held: Cover note deemed valid; insurer liable [Paras 10-14].

Burden of Proof – Responsibilities of Insurer – The Court clarified that the insurer bears the burden of proving cancellation of the cover note and refund of premiums if the policy is not issued. Failure to produce such evidence rendered the cover note enforceable – Held: Appellant's failure to discharge its burden confirms liability [Para 14].

Interest on Compensation – Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 – Compensation of Rs. 2,74,938/- with 12% annual interest and Rs. 2,500/- as funeral expenses, as ordered by the Commissioner, was upheld by the Court.

Decision: The appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed. The Court directed the appellant to pay the compensation awarded by the Employees' Compensation Commissioner to the respondents promptly.
 

Conviction for Kidnapping – Failure to Prove Threat or Demand for Ransom under Section 364-A IPC – Essential elements under Section 364-A IPC include kidnapping, threat of death, and demand for ransom – Prosecution failed to provide call records or evidence linking cell phones to ransom calls – Decision: Conviction under Section 364-A IPC was set aside; appellants convicted under Section 363 IPC (simple kidnapping) [Paras 10-12, 16-18].

Test Identification Parade – Delay and Reliability – Identification of accused occurred after 70 days in a Test Identification Parade – Prosecution failed to explain delay or provide corroborative evidence to support identification – Decision: Court held that delayed TIP reduces evidentiary reliability, though circumstantial evidence supported conviction under Section 363 IPC [Paras 8-9].

Evidentiary Gaps – Non-production of Call Records and Forensic Evidence – Prosecution did not present call logs, service provider data, or forensic evidence from cell phones alleged to be used for ransom calls – Decision: Prosecution's failure to prove threats and demands led to modification of charges to Section 363 IPC [Paras 13-15].

Sentence Adjustment – Substitution of Life Imprisonment with 7 Years' Rigorous Imprisonment – Appellants' sentence modified as elements of Section 364-A IPC were not established – Decision: Sentence adjusted to 7 years under Section 363 IPC; appellants released as they had already served 7 years in custody [Paras 20-22].

Decision: The appeals were allowed in part. Conviction under Section 364-A IPC was set aside and substituted with conviction under Section 363 IPC. The appellants, having served 7 years of imprisonment, were ordered to be released immediately unless required in another case.

Land Acquisition – Compensation under 2013 Act – Disputes on Advance Payment – State's Demand for Refund Quashed – Petitioners challenged the State's demand for refund of advance compensation paid for land acquired under the 2013 Act – CIDCO and State authorities contended the land was under Court Receiver's possession and acquisition lapsed – Court ruled the Court Receiver's discharge in 2003 covered the land, negating the refund claim – Advance compensation upheld; State directed to complete acquisition proceedings and pay balance compensation within six weeks [Paras 25-26, 32(b)].

Family Property Dispute – Ranjit's Claims on Ancestral Property – Dismissed as Vexatious – Ranjit sought quashing of acquisition alleging ancestral joint family property rights – Court noted earlier family settlements, orders discharging Court Receiver, and lack of Ranjit's locus in Ashok and Atul's shares – Held: Ranjit's claims baseless and disruptive; petitions dismissed with costs imposed on Ranjit [Paras 30-31, 32(c), 32(d), 32(f)].

Court Receiver – Discharge and Possession – Settlement Binding – Court held that a 1996 settlement agreement, discharging the Court Receiver, covered the disputed property despite incomplete acquisition – Subsequent possession by the State in 2018 deemed valid; disputes over Receiver's possession declared conclusively resolved [Paras 14-18, 25].

Costs and Accountability – Vexatious Litigation and Official Misconduct – Repeated frivolous claims by Ranjit and conflicting affidavits by State officials criticized – Ranjit ordered to pay Rs. 5 lakh each to Ashok and Atul as costs – Chief Secretary of Maharashtra directed to investigate officials' conduct and report within six months [Paras 31, 32(f), 32(g)].