Competence of Central Government to Impose Additional Fees – Validity of the Central Motor Vehicles (Twenty Third Amendment) Rules, 2021 – The petitioners challenged the imposition of additional fees for delayed renewal of Certificates of Registration and Fitness Certificates under the amended Rule 81 of the CMV Rules. The Court, citing the Bombay High Court’s decision in K' Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha v. Union of India, upheld the validity of the amended provisions. It reasoned that Section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the Central Government with sufficient power to levy additional fees for delayed applications, and such fees do not constitute a penalty. Therefore, the amendment was within the legislative competence of the Central Government – Held: Amendment upheld [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Comity and Divergent Decisions – Balancing Interpretations – The Court emphasized the principle of judicial comity, choosing to align with the Bombay High Court’s view, which validated the amendment, over the earlier Madras High Court decision in Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam v. Union of India. Judicial discipline and respect for precedents from other jurisdictions were highlighted as essential to maintaining judicial integrity – Held: Followed Bombay High Court’s precedent [Paras 19-20].

Harmonization with State Rules – Coexistence of Central and State Regulations – The Court dismissed the argument that the Odisha Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993, which prescribe penalties for delayed renewals, nullify the Central amendment. It held that the Central Government retains the authority to amend the CMV Rules without requiring a parallel amendment in State Rules – Held: State Rules do not override Central Rules [Para 10].

Decision:  The writ petitions challenging the validity of the Central Motor Vehicles (Twenty Third Amendment) Rules, 2021, were dismissed. The Court upheld the imposition of additional fees for delayed applications as a lawful exercise of the Central Government's powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
 

Criminal Law – Dacoity Conviction – Appeal against conviction – Appellants Mahendra Shaw and Sk. Raju convicted by the trial court for dacoity with use of firearms and deadly weapons, resulting in grievous injury to shop employees – Appellants sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000 each – Appeal dismissed, with court finding no reason to interfere with trial court's reasoned judgment – Appellants identified in Test Identification Parade, and recovery of stolen articles substantiated by evidence from witnesses and forensic reports – Held: Prosecution successfully proved the appellants’ involvement in the dacoity and injuries inflicted, justifying the conviction [Paras 1, 5-7, 12-18].

Evidence – Testimony of Medical Witnesses – PW-16 and PW-17, doctors who examined injured employees, corroborated injuries sustained due to bomb explosion and physical assault during the dacoity – Injury reports (Exhibits 10, 11, and 15/1) substantiate evidence of grievous hurt – Injuries supported by forensic evidence of low-explosive mixture remnants from the scene, validating the victims' account of events [Paras 10-11, 16].

Identification of Accused – Test Identification Parade – Appellants Mahendra Shaw and Sk. Raju identified by witnesses in Test Identification Parades conducted in 2002 and 2003, reports marked as Exhibits 14 and 20 – Identification by multiple witnesses established appellants' presence at the crime scene and involvement in dacoity [Paras 12, 17].

Recovery of Stolen Items – Chain of custody maintained – Stolen gold chain and finger rings recovered from appellants and documented through seizure lists (Exhibits 18 and 19), corroborated by testimony from seizure witnesses PW-20 and PW-22 – Recovery operations led by PW-26 of the Anti-Dacoity and Robbery Section affirmed recovery from appellants, strengthening prosecution case [Paras 13-15].

Forensic Evidence – Bomb explosion verified – Forensic Laboratory confirmed remnants of low-explosive mixture from the crime scene, providing scientific basis for bomb usage claim and supporting prosecution's sequence of events during dacoity – This evidence substantiates grievous nature of crime and threat level involved [Paras 16].

Judgment – Conviction upheld – Court concludes that trial court judiciously evaluated evidence, and the appeals lack merit – Both appellants had already served the sentence; no need for further intervention – Acknowledgment of assistance from Amicus Curiae – Appeals dismissed and trial court records to be returned for necessary action [Paras 18-20, 23].

Decision: Appeals CRA 106 of 2011 and CRA 861 of 2006 dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 395/397 IPC affirmed – Appellants confirmed to have served their sentence – No order as to costs [Paras 19, 20, 22].

Criminal Law - Electricity Theft – Prima Facie Evidence and Proceedings – Revision Against Charge-Sheet – The petitioner challenged the proceedings under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, claiming that he was a legitimate consumer of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., paying regular bills, and that no submersible pump or unauthorized connections were found during inspection – Held: The inspection report and seizure list documented 20 ft. of copper wire and hooking device from the premises, establishing prima facie evidence for trial – Court dismissed the application, stating that further inquiry on electricity usage nature and claim of fabrication should be addressed during trial, not in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 5-7].

Tampering and Unauthorized Connection – Electricity Act Scope and Interpretation – Section 135(1)(a) encompasses various offenses, including unauthorized tapping or tampering with electricity lines and misuse for unauthorized purposes. The court underscored that such allegations warrant a full trial for verification of facts, especially regarding the petitioner’s claim of solely domestic electricity use and alleged threats by electricity officials [Paras 6-8].

Prima Facie Case – Seizure of Hooking Device and Wire – Grounds for Trial – The seizure of hooking device and direct hook connection noted in inspection substantiated the initial charge, justifying the case proceeding to trial. The court noted that procedural redress is available to the petitioner if allegations are proven false during the trial [Para 9].

Final Decision – Criminal revision application dismissed. Court affirmed that procedural justice requires evidence to be evaluated in a full trial, with directions to return case records to the trial court for continuation [Paras 10-12].

Decision: C.R.R. 3457 of 2011 dismissed – Case to proceed to trial based on prima facie findings of unauthorized electricity use and tampering – No costs awarded.

Elections – Pre-Election Interference – Illegality of Cancellation During Ongoing Process – The cancellation of elections during the polling phase was challenged. The court held that any interference with the election process must occur post-election through statutory remedies. – Held: Cancellation of elections during the ongoing process is against the principles of election law and precedents. – Outcome: Impugned order quashed; election schedule directed to resume [Paras 16-19].

Statutory Remedies – Disqualification – Post-Election Adjudication Required – The petitioner was accused of being an encroacher, disqualifying him under Section 208(k) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act. The court emphasized that such disqualification must be determined post-election through the prescribed statutory mechanism. – Held: Pre-election disqualification assessment is invalid; remedy lies post-election. – Outcome: Cancellation order invalidated [Paras 25-28].

Conflict Between Election Laws – Harmonious Interpretation – The court reconciled the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act and Punjab State Election Commission Act. It clarified that while both provide for adjudicating disqualification, they must be invoked post-election to preserve the sanctity of the electoral process. – Held: Election laws mandate post-election resolution of disputes. – Outcome: Election process reinstated; disputes to be addressed subsequently [Paras 30-35].

Right of Electorate – Preservation of Democratic Choice – The court highlighted that arbitrary cancellation of elections disenfranchises voters and undermines democratic principles. – Held: Electoral choice must not be curtailed through pre-election interventions. – Outcome: Elections restored; only the original candidates allowed to contest [Paras 36-38].
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order canceling the election was quashed. The court directed the respondents to immediately resume the election process with the same candidates and schedule polling. It was clarified that disqualification disputes must be addressed post-election through the remedies provided under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act and the Punjab State Election Commission Act.
 

Examination Malpractice – Proportionality of Punishment – Regulation 5(a) and Regulation 8 of Panjab University Calendar Volume II, 2007 – Writ dismissed - The petitioner challenged a two-year disqualification imposed for being caught with handwritten notes during the Law of Contract examination – The petitioner argued that the punishment was disproportionate and detrimental to his career – The Court held that the punishment prescribed under the Regulations is clear and mandatory, and no lesser punishment can be substituted – Emphasis was placed on the integrity expected of an LL.B. student, considering the legal profession's ethical standards [Paras 7-8].

Narcotics Law – Bail Application for Commercial Quantity of Cannabis – Extended Detention Under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Petition for regular bail under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS due to procedural lapses in handling detention beyond 180 days and irregular sample verification – Petitioner alleged that procedural violations, including failure to involve a Magistrate in sample verification, rebutted the statutory presumption against him – Held: The Court found substantial procedural lapses, including improper handling of contraband samples and issues in extending the detention, meriting bail despite commercial quantity of cannabis seized; petitioner had been in custody for 296 days, beyond the default period, without sufficient cause for further detention [Paras 4, 10, 11].

Procedure in Extension of Detention – Failure to Secure Accused’s Physical or Virtual Presence – Court reviewed requirements under Section 36A(4), emphasizing the mandatory nature of the accused’s physical or virtual presence during hearings for detention extension – Held: The Special Judge’s order extending detention was flawed due to lack of accused’s presence, constituting a procedural violation that justified bail on merits, even without default bail – Petition granted [Paras 7, 8, 12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Bail granted on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including bi-monthly police check-ins, prohibition on witness tampering, and assurance to participate in trial without fail [Para 13].
 

Taxation Law - Expenditure Classification – Current vs. Capital Expenditure – Income Tax Act - The appellant, operating a 5-Star hotel, sought deductions for expenses incurred on replacing carpets, mattresses, and lampshades, claiming them as allowable under Section 31 as “current repairs.” The Tribunal denied the claim, categorizing the expenses as capital rather than revenue – The Court, examining similar precedents and the nature of items, held that replacement of damaged items does not constitute an enduring asset and falls under “current expenditure,” allowing deduction under Section 37(1) as revenue expenditure – Held: Expenditure on replacing carpets, mattresses, and lampshades classified as current, allowable under Section 37(1) as revenue expenditure [Paras 21-26, 32].

Tribunal’s Error – Non-Adjudication under Section 37(1) – Appeal Allowed - The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in ignoring the alternate claim for deduction under Section 37(1) despite citing relevant precedents – The Court agreed, emphasizing that while an expenditure may not qualify under Section 31 as current repairs, Section 37(1) can apply if it serves business purposes without creating a new asset – Held: Appeal allowed, expenses deductible under Section 37(1) [Paras 8-10, 32-34].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the Tribunal’s order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to claim deductions under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act for expenses incurred on replacement of carpets, mattresses, and lampshades, treated as current expenditures.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Prolonged Detention and Presumption of Innocence – The petitioner, charged under Section 22 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing intoxicating tablets, sought bail, citing extended incarceration and the lack of further evidence recovery – Co-accused had already been granted bail, and only a third of the prosecution witnesses had been examined – Held: Granting bail is the general rule, detention the exception; with trial delay and no further recovery required, continued detention serves no purpose [Paras 1-4].

Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Detention Not Justified – The Court stressed the constitutional mandate for a fair and speedy trial, noting that extended pre-conviction detention undermines justice and violates Article 21 – Referencing Supreme Court guidelines, the Court affirmed that excessive pre-trial incarceration contravenes principles of human dignity and legal fairness [Paras 4-6].

Decision:

Petition for regular bail allowed. Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. This decision does not influence the merits of the case [Paras 5-7].

Non-Registration of Tenancy – Grounds for Eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of TNRRRLT Act – The Court upheld eviction based on non-registration of tenancy agreements under the TNRRRLT Act – Held: Compliance with statutory mandates is imperative, and non-registration of tenancy agreements constitutes a valid ground for eviction [Paras 18-19].

Applicability of Section 3 of TNRRRLT Act to Religious Properties – The petitioner argued Section 3(c) of the TNRRRLT Act barred eviction, asserting that the land belonged to HR&CE – Court held that dual ownership principles under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, apply – The building's ownership by the landlord and land's ownership by HR&CE did not preclude eviction as long as HR&CE rights were unaffected [Paras 22-26].

Estoppel and Tenant’s Challenge to Landlord’s Title – Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act – The Court reaffirmed that a tenant is estopped from denying the landlord’s title once inducted into tenancy – Arguments regarding mortgage and ownership were deemed unsustainable without evidence [Paras 12-14].

Decision- Relief and Undertaking – Grant of Time to Vacate Premises – Petitioner sought six months to vacate premises voluntarily – Court allowed the time frame based on the petitioner's undertaking affidavit, preventing execution proceedings within the stipulated period [Paras 28-29].