Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction - Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Essential Ingredients Not Established – Acquittal Ordered – The prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of an illegal gratification to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act – In the present case, the complainant's testimony was uncorroborated by independent witnesses – Shadow witness (PW-2) did not accompany the complainant or hear any demand – The accused had already processed 75% of the complainant's bill before the alleged demand was made – No substantive evidence proving demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt – Mere recovery of tainted currency, without clear proof of demand, is insufficient to convict – Held: Conviction set aside, accused acquitted [Paras 54-64].

Criminal Law – Standard of Proof in Bribery Cases – Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof – Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – If the prosecution fails to establish demand and acceptance, the accused is entitled to acquittal – The Court must not convict based on mere suspicion or recovery of tainted money without proving a voluntary acceptance of bribe – Held: The prosecution evidence failed to meet the required standard, leading to acquittal [Paras 65-73].

Defence of False Implication – Burden of Proof on Accused – Preponderance of Probability Sufficient – When an accused offers an explanation for handling tainted money (e.g., that it was forcibly thrust upon him), the burden to disprove it is not as high as proving beyond reasonable doubt – Accused successfully demonstrated that complainant, a contractor and son of a union leader, had motive to implicate him falsely – The Court found the defence plausible – Held: Acquittal justified [Paras 69-71].
 

Preventive Detention – Procedural Safeguards – Compliance with KAAPA – The petitioner, wife of the detenu, challenged the detention order issued under Section 3(1) of KAAPA on the ground that legible copies of relied-upon documents were not furnished to the detenu – The detaining authority argued that all documents were duly provided – The Court, upon verifying the original records, found that some of the crucial documents, including the FIR and mahazar, were illegible – Held: Non-furnishing of legible documents deprived the detenu of his right to make an effective representation, violating Section 7(2) of KAAPA and Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention order unsustainable [Paras 5-9, 13].

Constitutional Law – Article 22(5) – Right to Representation in Preventive Detention Cases – The detenu’s right to make an effective representation before the Advisory Board and the Government is a constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) – The failure to provide legible copies of relied-upon documents hindered the detenu from exercising this right – Held: The constitutional mandate was violated, justifying the quashing of the detention order [Paras 9-10, 13].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Validity of Last Crime Considered – The last prejudicial activity cited in the detention order was still under investigation – The petitioner contended that mere registration of an FIR is insufficient for preventive detention and that additional materials are required to establish prima facie involvement – The Court found that the detaining authority had relied on illegible documents, undermining both its subjective and objective satisfaction – Held: The detention order was vitiated due to lack of proper material evidence and improper recording of satisfaction [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Power Under Article 226 – Interference in Preventive Detention Matters – The respondents argued that all procedural formalities were followed – The Court reiterated that procedural lapses in preventive detention cases warrant strict scrutiny – Held: The illegibility of relied-upon documents was a serious procedural lapse that justified judicial intervention under Article 226, leading to the quashing of the detention order [Paras 12-13].
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Rule Against Reopening Same Issue Twice – The petitioner’s income for AY 2017-18 was previously reassessed under Section 147 read with Section 144B based on allegations of undervaluation of shares – The assessment order passed on 29.03.2022 accepted the petitioner’s explanation and made no additions – The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated fresh reassessment proceedings on 28.03.2024, relying on the same facts and assumptions – Held: Reopening the assessment for the same issue is impermissible – The impugned order and notice are quashed [Paras 1-7, 19-21, 24-25].

Income Tax – Reassessment Based on New Information – Absence of Fresh Tangible Material – The AO claimed that fresh information was received indicating that the petitioner had transferred the entire Friends Colony property through a sale of shares – The petitioner demonstrated that TREPL, the company in question, owned only two floors and not the entire property – No new material was provided by the AO to contradict the petitioner’s position – Held: In absence of new tangible material, reopening of assessment is invalid [Paras 16-22].

Income Tax – Requirement to Consider Assessee’s Reply Before Passing Reassessment Order – Section 148A(d), Income Tax Act – The petitioner provided detailed replies to both the earlier and latest reassessment proceedings, explaining that TREPL owned only two floors of the Friends Colony property – The AO disregarded this explanation and proceeded with reassessment – Held: Failure to consider the assessee’s reply before passing an order under Section 148A(d) renders the reassessment order unsustainable [Paras 23-24].

Decision: The impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and the impugned notice dated 22.04.2024 issued under Section 148 are set aside – Reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 quashed as they were based on the same issue previously adjudicated – Court refrains from examining the limitation issue [Paras 25-27].
 

Civil Law - Permanent injunction - Land Assignment – Cancellation of DKT Patta – Validity of Cancellation Process – Procedural Irregularity – Rejection of Claim – The Plaintiff challenged the cancellation of a DKT Patta and sought a permanent injunction against dispossession – The First Appellate Court found that the cancellation was done after due notice and that the Plaintiff failed to cultivate the land as per the conditions – Held: Substituted service of cancellation notice was justified as the Plaintiff was not residing in the village – No legal infirmity in the cancellation process [Paras 19-21].

Possession Rights – Injunction Suit Without Declaratory Relief – Maintainability – The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction without challenging the cancellation of the patta – The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove possession at the time of filing the suit – Mere past possession and kist receipts until 1980 did not establish possession in 1987 – Injunction suit without a declaratory relief challenging patta cancellation is not maintainable – Held: Plaintiff had no possessory rights as of the suit date, and an injunction could not be granted [Paras 22-24].

Jurisdiction – Authority of Mandal Revenue Officer to Cancel Assignment – Board Standing Order No. 15 – The Plaintiff contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer lacked the authority to cancel the assignment after 20 years – The First Appellate Court rejected this argument, holding that the Plaintiff violated conditions of the assignment and was not cultivating the land – Held: Cancellation was within jurisdiction and followed due process – Plaintiff failed to take legal steps to challenge the cancellation order in proper forums [Paras 17-18].

Substituted Service – Validity of Notice – Awareness of Cancellation Proceedings – The Plaintiff argued that substituted service of cancellation notice was impermissible under Board Standing Orders – The Court held that as the Plaintiff’s whereabouts were unknown, substituted service was justified – Evidence indicated that the Plaintiff was aware of the cancellation but failed to challenge it in a timely manner – Held: No procedural irregularity in the service of notice [Paras 19-20].

Burden of Proof – Plaintiff's Failure to Prove Possession – Adverse Findings by First Appellate Court – The Plaintiff relied on kist receipts from 1962 to 1980 but failed to show continuous possession beyond that period – The First Appellate Court observed that revenue records did not support possession after 1980, and the Plaintiff failed to pay kist after that year – Held: Inference drawn by the First Appellate Court that the Plaintiff was not in possession at the time of suit was correct – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-23].

Findings of First Appellate Court – No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court held that the First Appellate Court properly appreciated evidence and found that the Plaintiff was neither in possession nor had challenged the patta cancellation in appropriate legal forums – No substantial question of law was involved in the Second Appeal – Held: Second Appeal dismissed, and injunction relief denied [Paras 24-26].
 

Civil Law - Will – Burden of Proof – Right to Lead Rebuttal Evidence – The petitioner, as defendant No.1, claimed ownership based on a Will dated 29.06.2000 – The onus to prove the execution of the Will was on the petitioner – Once the defendant led evidence, the plaintiff had the right to rebut the same – Held: The plaintiff’s affidavit in rebuttal was correctly admitted by the trial court – No ground to discard the same [Paras 6, 9].

Civil Procedure – Order of Leading Evidence – Plaintiff’s Right to Rebut Evidence of Will Execution – It is a settled law that the propounder of a Will must first prove its execution before the burden shifts to the objector – The trial court correctly relied on judicial precedent to allow rebuttal evidence – Held: The trial court’s order does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution [Paras 7-8].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference Under Article 227 – The High Court’s power of supervision under Article 227 is to correct jurisdictional errors and gross injustice – Held: The impugned order is well-reasoned and does not suffer from legal infirmities – No interference warranted [Paras 10].

Decision: The impugned order dated 13.09.2024, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, is upheld – The present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for lack of merit [Para 10].

Criminal Law - Quashing of the arrest - Arrest Without Notice – Applicability of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. – Petitioner alleged that his arrest violated Section 41-A Cr.P.C., as the maximum punishment for the offenses alleged was seven years – Held: Where the police are satisfied that the arrest is necessary under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C., issuance of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. is not required – Investigating Agency duly recorded reasons for arrest in compliance with statutory provisions – No violation of procedural safeguards found [Paras 9-11].

Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Requirement Under Article 22 of the Constitution – Petitioner contended that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of his apprehension – Held: The arrest memo, duly signed by the petitioner, stated that he was arrested based on disclosures made by co-accused – Petitioner’s wife was informed of his arrest – Thus, constitutional and procedural requirements under Article 22 and Section 50 Cr.P.C. were complied with [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Satisfaction in Remand Orders – Magistrate’s Duty to Scrutinize Compliance with Law – Petitioner alleged that the remand order was passed mechanically without application of mind – Held: Magistrate satisfied himself regarding compliance with Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. and recorded reasons before granting police remand – Furthermore, subsequent remand orders were passed with the petitioner being duly represented by counsel – No procedural illegality found [Paras 12-13].

Prolonged Evasion of Arrest – Conduct of Petitioner Considered – Petitioner’s conduct in evading arrest by frequently changing locations and refusing to accept notices was considered – Held: Investigating Agency had valid reasons to arrest the petitioner under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. without issuing notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. – Arrest was not arbitrary or illegal [Paras 9-10].

Scope of Judicial Review in Arrest and Remand Matters – Limited Interference Warranted – Petitioner sought to quash arrest and remand orders citing alleged procedural lapses – Held: Courts must exercise restraint in interfering with police investigations unless there is a blatant violation of fundamental rights – As procedural requirements were substantially met, no case for quashing the arrest or remand orders was made out [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Finding no illegality in the arrest or remand order, the High Court dismissed the petition – Observed that the petitioner’s arrest complied with constitutional and statutory mandates – No grounds for interference [Para 14].
 

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The petitioners, a bishop and a priest of the Jacobite faction, sought quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 99/2014 alleging unlawful entry into St. Ignatius Church, Kanjiramattom, in violation of court and administrative orders – The petitioners contended false implication and non-applicability of alleged offences – Held: The court cannot exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings where prima facie evidence exists and the prosecution has gathered sufficient material to substantiate the allegations [Paras 1-3, 7].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 143, 147 IPC – Effect of Non-Cognizance Under Section 188 IPC – The petitioners argued that since the Magistrate did not take cognizance under Section 188 IPC, the charges under Sections 143 & 147 IPC could not be sustained – The Court held that the exclusion of Section 188 IPC does not absolve the petitioners from liability under Sections 143 & 147 IPC if they were part of an unlawful assembly violating judicial and administrative orders – The prosecution’s evidence, including photographs, indicated prima facie commission of the offence – Held: The Magistrate's omission to take cognizance under Section 188 IPC does not preclude prosecution under Sections 143 & 147 IPC where there is independent evidence of unlawful assembly [Paras 6-7].

Church Dispute – Violation of Court Orders – Criminal Liability – The petitioners were accused of entering the church and conducting rituals in violation of prior High Court and Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) orders – The petitioners argued that their actions did not constitute criminal offences but were part of religious practice – Held: Since the prosecution produced evidence of unauthorized entry and violation of existing orders, the allegations, if proved, could establish criminal liability under Sections 143, 147 IPC – The trial court must assess evidence without being influenced by observations in this order [Paras 6-8].

Judicial Review – Exercise of Inherent Powers – High Court’s Limited Interference in Quashing Petitions – The petitioners sought quashing of the case on the ground of false implication – The Court reiterated that where there is prima facie material supporting the charges, the High Court should not interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held: The inherent power of the High Court should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the prosecution is manifestly frivolous or an abuse of the process of law [Paras 7-9].
 

Limitation Law – Condonation of Delay – Family Court Appeal – Held: Delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is not inordinate – The explanation provided by the applicant is reasonable – Courts must adopt a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach in matrimonial matters – Delay condoned [Paras 10, 13, 24].

Limitation Law – Family Courts Act vs. Hindu Marriage Act – Inconsistency in Limitation Period – Held: The period of limitation for filing an appeal under the Family Courts Act remains 30 days, while under the amended Hindu Marriage Act, it is 90 days – Lack of uniformity causes prejudice to litigants – Desirable for a uniform limitation period for appeals in matrimonial matters [Paras 18-21].

Legal Interpretation – Supreme Court and High Court Precedents – Held: Courts should adopt a liberal approach in matrimonial disputes – Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (AIR 2002 SC 591), the inconsistency in limitation periods needs legislative intervention – The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shivram Dodanna Shetty v. Sharmila Shivram Shetty (2017(1) Mh.LJ) held that the 90-day limitation should apply uniformly [Paras 16, 22-23].

Decision – Delay condoned – Appeal directed to be registered and listed for admission – Recommendation for legislative intervention to harmonize limitation periods under the Family Courts Act and Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 24-26].
 

Service Law – Appointment as Aanganwadi Worker – Eligibility for BPL Bonus Marks – Petitioner’s appointment was annulled by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, on the ground that she erroneously received 10 bonus marks for BPL Category – The petitioner relied on a BPL card issued in the name of her co-sister (Jethani), which was later found to contain overwriting – Held: BPL status must be proved by documents prior to the advertisement date, and the petitioner failed to establish eligibility at the relevant time – No interference warranted [Paras 10-16].

Service Law – BPL Category Proof – Acceptable Documents – As per guidelines dated 10.07.2007, an applicant must establish BPL status through (i) BPL Survey List, (ii) BPL Ration Card issued in the name of husband, father, or father-in-law, or (iii) certificate issued by SDM/Tahsildar – The petitioner’s reliance on a co-sister’s BPL card was not acceptable evidence under the guidelines – Held: Petitioner not entitled to bonus marks based on such a document [Paras 11-12].

Administrative Law – Overwriting in BPL Card – Credibility of Documents – The Scrutiny Committee initially denied BPL status to the petitioner due to overwriting in the BPL card – The Commissioner found that the modifications were suspicious and lacked official authentication – Held: Documentary manipulation cannot be the basis for claiming bonus marks [Paras 4-5].

Administrative Law – Validity of Documents Issued After Advertisement – As per Sunita Yadav (supra), documents generated after the advertisement date (06.10.2016) cannot be considered – The petitioner’s Samagra ID was updated post-advertisement (on 17.10.2016), making it ineligible for proving BPL status – Held: Selection committee correctly disqualified petitioner [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The order of the Commissioner, Rewa Division, is upheld – Petitioner not eligible for BPL bonus marks – Writ petition dismissed [Para 17].