Service Law – Appointment Denial – Petitioner selected for the post of Fireman, but denied appointment based on alleged suppression of criminal involvement in his application – FIR was registered against the petitioner after submission of the application – Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case due to lack of evidence – Held: There was no suppression of material facts as the FIR and arrest occurred after the application was submitted – Denial of appointment was based on erroneous appreciation of facts and improper application of law – Impugned order quashed [Paras 8.14-8.20].

Criminal Case and Acquittal – Clean Acquittal – Petitioner acquitted due to prosecution’s failure to prove the charges, with key witnesses turning hostile – Court held that the clean acquittal required the appointing authority to objectively reconsider the petitioner’s suitability for the post – Employer’s focus on alleged suppression of facts in the application form was misplaced as the petitioner disclosed the information in the verification roll prior to appointment [Paras 9.8-9.20].

Judicial Review – Quashing of Administrative Orders – The Court held that the Director General of Police had failed to apply judicious discretion when rejecting the petitioner’s appointment – The Court set aside the rejection and directed the authority to reconsider the petitioner's application based on facts and law [Paras 9.1-9.20].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2020 quashed – Director General of Police to reconsider the petitioner’s representation and issue a fresh decision within eight weeks.

Anticipatory Bail – Non-Bailable Warrant and Proceedings under Section 82 CrPC – Exceptional Circumstances for Granting Bail – The applicant sought anticipatory bail after non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Section 82 CrPC were issued against him in a fraud case involving the sale of government land. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court held that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail after issuance of a proclamation if exceptional circumstances warrant it. Considering that the applicant was not in possession of the disputed land and had initiated civil proceedings for cancellation of the sale, the Court granted anticipatory bail – Held: Anticipatory bail granted in the interest of justice, subject to conditions [Paras 19-25].

Fraud in Land Sale – Victim of Fraud – Anticipatory Bail Granted – The applicant was alleged to have been involved in a fraudulent transaction concerning government land. However, the Court found that the applicant had paid part of the sale consideration and initiated proceedings for cancellation of the fraudulent sale agreement. The co-accused, including the seller, had already been granted bail. In light of these facts, the applicant was deemed to be a victim of the fraud, and anticipatory bail was granted – Held: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 22-24].

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail – The Court imposed several conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail, including regular appearance before the trial court, non-interference with the investigation, and not leaving the country without permission. The Court emphasized that the anticipatory bail was subject to compliance with these conditions – Held: Bail granted with conditions [Paras 26].

Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, subject to conditions to ensure the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation and compliance with court orders [Paras 25-26].

Excise Law – Exemption Notification – Rebate Claim on Exported Goods – The petitioner challenged the rejection of their rebate claim on biscuits exported out of India – The petitioner had voluntarily paid excise duty on the goods exported, arguing that since the biscuits did not bear a retail sale price in rupees, they were not covered by the exemption notification – Held: Goods exported without a retail sale price in rupees are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2006 – The petitioner was entitled to pay duty and claim a rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 [Paras 13-14, 20].

Article 265 of the Constitution – Retention of Duty Paid Without Authority of Law – The revenue contended that the goods were exempt under Notification No. 3/2006 and that the petitioner was not required to pay duty, thereby not entitled to a rebate – The Court held that if goods were exempt, retaining the duty paid without the authority of law would violate Article 265 of the Constitution – The Court rejected the revenue’s argument, emphasizing that duty paid without legal obligation cannot be retained [Paras 15-16].

Cenvat Credit and Tribunal Decision – Consistency in Rebate Claims – The petitioner’s earlier rebate claims had been allowed by appellate authorities and accepted by the revenue – The Court noted that the revenue could not take a contrary position after accepting similar claims in the past – The tribunal’s order allowing the petitioner’s appeal was also accepted by the revenue, further supporting the petitioner’s claim for a rebate [Paras 17-19, 23-24].

Decision – The petitioner’s claim for a rebate of excise duty paid on exported biscuits was allowed – The order of the Revisional Authority was quashed – The respondents were directed to grant the rebate claims [Paras 30-31].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – The prosecution alleged that the respondent, driving a tipper, failed to notice the turn signal given by the deceased bicyclist and caused a fatal accident – The trial court convicted the respondent for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC – The appellate court, however, acquitted the respondent, holding that the accident occurred on a busy national highway, and the deceased could have avoided the collision by exercising caution while crossing the road – Held: The appellate court's view was reasonable as the deceased was turning at a road junction and the evidence, including skid marks, suggested that the respondent had attempted to stop the vehicle [Paras 6-8].

Road Safety Regulations – Duty of Driver and Bicyclist – Under Rule 8 of the Rules of the Road Regulation, 1989, drivers must slow down at road junctions to ensure safety – The court observed that both the deceased and the driver had duties under the law, and in this case, the deceased's negligence in entering the junction was a contributing factor – The appellate court's finding that the deceased bicyclist should have exercised caution was upheld [Paras 10-12].

Appellate Review – Scope of Interference in Acquittal – The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable – In this case, the appellate court's decision to acquit the respondent was found to be a plausible view based on the evidence, and no interference was warranted [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The appellate court's judgment acquitting the respondent is upheld as the view taken was reasonable and supported by the evidence [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Anticipatory Bail – Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(k), 354(A), 354(B), 354(C), 506 IPC and Section 66E of the IT Act – Petitioner accused of repeated sexual assault on a maid working at his house – Alleged crimes include sexual advances, assault, recording without consent, and threats – Sessions court rejected anticipatory bail, and the High Court upheld the decision, citing prima facie evidence and risk of absconding [Paras 1, 11, 16].

Delay in Filing Complaint – Explanation and Legal Precedents – Petitioner argued that the complaint filed in May 2024 for incidents occurring in 2021-2022 is delayed, rendering it unreliable – Defense referred to precedents where delay in sexual assault complaints led to acquittals – However, the court found the delay explained, as the victim feared societal stigma and her daughter's marriage prospects, and rejected the argument based on prior case law [Paras 5, 9, 14].

Prima Facie Case – Forensic Evidence and Video Recordings – The charge sheet included Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports confirming that videos of the alleged incidents had not been tampered with – Both the petitioner's and victim's voices were matched in the recordings – The court held that the evidence satisfied the ingredients of offences under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 376(2)(k) (dominance), 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (intent to disrobe), and 354C (voyeurism) IPC [Paras 9, 10].

Risk of Absconding and Witness Tampering – Petitioner stayed in Germany for 35 days, avoiding investigation – Court expressed concern over flight risk and potential threats to witnesses if released – Based on the petitioner’s prior attempts to block circulation of incriminating videos, the court concluded that the petitioner had the propensity to repeat the offense and influence witnesses [Paras 6, 11, 15].

Court's Discretion in Denying Bail – The High Court referenced the Supreme Court’s guidelines for bail in serious offenses, including the gravity of the accusations, severity of punishment, and risk of flight – Citing Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, the court held that the petitioner’s influence and prior conduct made him ineligible for anticipatory bail [Paras 11, 12].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail denied – Court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the strong prima facie evidence, and the potential risks associated with releasing the petitioner on bail – Observations made for the purpose of bail will not influence pending proceedings [Paras 15, 16].
 

Criminal Law - Section 498-A IPC – Acquittal - Cruelty – Mental and Physical Harassment – Dowry Demand – The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 498-A IPC for allegedly subjecting the deceased to cruelty through dowry demands and taunting her character – The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt – Held: The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were vague and inconsistent, and no substantial evidence of dowry harassment was provided – The appellate court noted discrepancies in the witnesses' statements and found that the demand for dowry, including a refrigerator and television, was introduced late during the trial, lacking credibility [Paras 10-14].

Dowry Harassment – Lack of Evidence – Witness Credibility – The court observed that key prosecution witnesses contradicted each other, and the allegations of dowry harassment were not substantiated by any independent evidence – Furthermore, the deceased’s Ward Punch had not received any complaint of dowry demand, weakening the prosecution’s case – Held: The learned Trial Court erred in convicting the appellants based on uncorroborated and exaggerated claims [Paras 15-19].

Appellate Review – Reversal of Conviction – The court found that the appellants were wrongly convicted under Section 498-A IPC, as the prosecution failed to establish continuous harassment or cruelty related to dowry demands – Held: The appellants are acquitted, and the judgment of the Trial Court is set aside [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A IPC, and their personal bonds are to be furnished in compliance with Section 437-A of the CrPC [Para 22].

NDPS Act – Non-compliance with Section 52A – Conviction Set Aside – The appellants were convicted under Sections 8/22 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act for possessing and trafficking Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which requires the presence of a Magistrate during the inventory, sampling, and certification process of seized contraband. Since the samples were drawn and seized without the Magistrate's supervision, the trial was held to be vitiated – Held: Conviction set aside, appellants acquitted [Paras 12-16].

Search and Seizure – Lack of Independent Witnesses – Prosecution Case Doubtful – The search and seizure operation was conducted by the police without ensuring the presence of independent witnesses, as mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The entire operation relied solely on police witnesses, raising doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case, particularly given the absence of any justification for not securing independent witnesses – Held: Non-compliance with procedural safeguards further weakens the prosecution's case [Paras 7-8, 17-18].

Delay in Sending Samples to FSL – Tampering Suspected – The Court noted that the samples of the contraband were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) with significant delay, violating the guidelines that require dispatch within 72 hours of seizure. The delay in sending the samples created a strong suspicion of tampering, further undermining the reliability of the prosecution's evidence – Held: Delay in sending samples raises doubts about the integrity of the contraband [Para 20].

Violation of Legal Safeguards – Trial Vitiated – The prosecution failed to ensure compliance with key provisions under the NDPS Act, such as Section 52A, and procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The failure to follow these safeguards undermined the fairness of the trial – Held: Trial vitiated due to procedural lapses; conviction quashed [Paras 19-20].

Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants, having already served 4.5 years in jail, were ordered to be released immediately on the execution of bonds [Paras 21-22].
 

Civil Procedure – Grant of Leave Under Section 92 CPC – Judicial or Administrative Order – The petitioners challenged the grant of leave by the Principal District Judge for filing a suit under Section 92 of CPC, arguing that the respondents failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the trust – Held: The court examined the nature of orders under Section 92 CPC and held that such orders are judicial, not administrative, as they affect substantive rights – Consequently, such orders are subject to revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC or Article 227 of the Constitution [Paras 2-5, 15].

Necessary Parties – Failure to Implead the Trust – The petitioners argued that the suit was defective as the Madha Trust, the subject of the litigation, had not been made a party – Held: The failure to implead the trust is a fundamental flaw, as the trust is a necessary party in suits concerning its administration – The grant of leave was therefore erroneous [Paras 2-14].

Revision Jurisdiction – Maintainability – The court distinguished earlier decisions which treated the grant of leave as an administrative order and noted that such decisions have been impliedly overruled by subsequent Supreme Court judgments – Held: The revision petition is maintainable, and the order granting leave is set aside [Paras 9-16].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – The impugned order of the Principal District Judge granting leave under Section 92 CPC is set aside – Connected miscellaneous petition is closed [Para 16].

Contempt of Court – Alleged Violation of Court Orders – Demolition of Structures – The 1st respondent filed a contempt petition alleging that the appellants violated a court order by demolishing structures on his land without following due process – The learned Single Judge convicted the appellants under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, directing imprisonment and fines – Held: The conviction was based solely on the respondent's affidavit and lacked corroborating evidence – The appellants denied involvement in the demolition, and the court found that the burden of proof was not discharged by the respondent – In contempt proceedings, where penal consequences are involved, the evidence must be sufficient to support the conviction, which was absent in this case [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Contempt – Burden of Proof – The court emphasized that in criminal contempt proceedings, the burden of proving the allegations lies with the party alleging contempt – Without substantial evidence, it is unsafe to convict individuals of contempt charges, especially where the allegations are denied and not substantiated beyond the respondent’s affidavit [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The conviction and sentencing order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.04.2024 is set aside, and the appellants are acquitted of contempt charges [Para 16].