Bail Application – PMLA – Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 – The applicant, accused of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, sought bail citing prolonged incarceration of more than 3 years and 10 months – The applicant has already served more than half of the maximum punishment prescribed under the PMLA (7 years) – The Bombay High Court held that prolonged detention violates the fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: Applicant entitled to bail under Section 436A of the CrPC despite non-fulfillment of twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA [Paras 13-15, 22-25].

Section 436A CrPC – Supremacy Over Section 45 PMLA – The Court noted that Section 436A CrPC, being a subsequent law enacted by Parliament, overrides the stringent provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA in cases of prolonged incarceration – The Court observed that detention for more than half the prescribed punishment, without conclusion of trial, violates constitutional protections under Article 21 – Held: Section 436A CrPC is applicable, and the applicant cannot be denied bail on account of Section 45 of the PMLA [Paras 16, 22-24].

Seriousness of Offence – Safeguarding Liberty – While the allegations against the applicant involved the laundering of public funds amounting to ₹147.30 crores, the Court noted that a substantial portion of the embezzled amount was recovered or secured, and stringent conditions could safeguard public interest – Held: Applicant released on bail with stringent conditions, ensuring no risk of flight or tampering with evidence [Paras 30-33].

Speedy Trial – Right Under Article 21 – The Court emphasized that the State and investigating agencies are constitutionally obligated to ensure timely trial in cases involving strict bail provisions like Section 45 of the PMLA – The failure to ensure speedy trial cannot justify prolonged incarceration – Held: Constitutional courts must uphold the rights of undertrials by granting bail in cases of unjustified detention [Paras 21-24, 27].

Decision: Bail granted under Section 436A CrPC – Applicant directed to comply with stringent conditions to ensure attendance during trial and prevent tampering with evidence – Trial court to decide the case on merits, uninfluenced by observations made in the bail order [Paras 33-36].
 

Criminal Law - Corruption Law – Appeal against conviction – Acquittal - Demand and Acceptance – Proof of Guilt – Essential Requirements – The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, contending absence of credible evidence to prove demand and acceptance of bribe – Held: Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non for establishing the offence – Prosecution failed to establish these elements through oral or documentary evidence – Conviction cannot be sustained on mere recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand and acceptance [Paras 29-31].

Electronic Evidence – Compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act – Admissibility – The prosecution relied on recorded conversations as evidence of demand for bribe but failed to provide the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act – Witnesses did not identify the appellant's voice, and no voice samples were collected for comparison – Held: In the absence of compliance with Section 65B and corroborative evidence, the transcripts are inadmissible and cannot be relied upon for conviction [Paras 26-28].

Hostile Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution Case – Material witnesses, including the complainant and witnesses to the trap proceedings, turned hostile and denied allegations of demand and acceptance – Complainant stated that the bribe money was forcibly put into the appellant’s pocket under pressure from Anti-Corruption Bureau officials – Held: Testimonies of hostile witnesses create doubt about the prosecution’s case, and benefit of doubt must go to the accused [Paras 13-16].

Trap Proceedings – Procedural Lapses – Trap proceedings conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau were marred by procedural irregularities – Prosecution failed to establish a clear signal for trap activation or corroborate the presence of demand or acceptance – Recovery of tainted money without corroborative evidence is insufficient for conviction [Paras 22-24].

Judicial Interpretation – Burden of Proof in Corruption Cases – Reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction cannot be based on surmises, conjectures, or probabilities – Held: Trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on inadmissible evidence and uncorroborated testimonies [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04/01/2016 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged, subject to compliance with Section 437-A of CrPC [Paras 41-44].
 

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted under Sections 364, 376, 379, 411, 302, and 201 IPC – Trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for each of the offences under Sections 364, 376, and 302 IPC, along with imprisonment under Sections 201, 379, and 411 IPC – Prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellant to the crime – Held: Circumstantial evidence was consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, leaving no reasonable ground for innocence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 38-40].

Witness Testimony – Consistency and Identification – PW-6 (tempo driver) and PW-8 (another driver) identified the appellant traveling with the victim on the day of the incident – PW-6 corroborated that the appellant persuaded him to stop the tempo at a lonely place (Panar Bridge), where both alighted – PW-9 (husband of the deceased) confirmed the victim’s mobile was switched off after her departure – Identification of appellant at trial corroborated by witnesses – Defense's claim of coercion was denied by witnesses and deemed baseless [Paras 25-35, 38].

Recovery of Evidence – Mobile Phones and Dead Body – PW-10 (Investigating Officer) confirmed the recovery of the victim’s Nokia mobile (IMEI No. 351948/05/556302/2) from the appellant – Confessional statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act led to the recovery of the victim's body from a riverbed (Khataghat) – Forensic and medical evidence (PW-7) corroborated rape and strangulation as the cause of death – Held: Recovery evidence and appellant’s confessional statement admissible and corroborated by other witnesses [Paras 36-38].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – PW-7 (doctor) conducted the post-mortem and found injuries consistent with rape and strangulation – Ligature marks, fracture of the hyoid bone, and dislocation of cervical vertebra confirmed asphyxia as the cause of death – Swabs taken from the victim suggested sexual assault, corroborating the prosecution’s case [Paras 32-33].

Chain of Circumstances – Consistency with Guilt – Evidence established that the appellant traveled with the victim, misled the tempo driver to drop them at an isolated place, and subsequently killed her – Recovery of the body based on the appellant's confession corroborated the chain of events – Held: Circumstantial evidence satisfied principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 39-40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 364, 376, 379, 411, 302, and 201 IPC upheld – Prosecution proved the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant to serve sentences as directed by the trial court [Paras 40-41].
 

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Maintainability of Civil Suit Against Partition Proceedings – The petitioners sought rejection of the plaint contending that the suit challenging partition proceedings was barred under Section 158(2)(xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – The respondents contended that the partition proceedings were vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice, including lack of notice and ex parte orders – Held: A civil suit is maintainable where allegations of violation of natural justice are raised, and such questions are triable issues – Trial Court's decision rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC upheld [Paras 4-7].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Challenge to Revenue Proceedings – Violation of Natural Justice as a Ground for Civil Suit – While Section 158(2)(xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act bars civil suits against partition proceedings, an exception exists where the proceedings are challenged on the ground of lack of notice or procedural infirmities – Held: The Civil Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the revenue authorities acted in violation of principles of natural justice [Para 5].

Precedent – Punjab and Haryana High Court – Applicability of Joginder Singh v. Pritam Singh (2023) – The Court relied on Joginder Singh v. Pritam Singh and others, Civil Revision No. 6186 of 2018 (decided on 19.07.2023), which held that when partition proceedings are challenged on the ground of lack of due service or violation of natural justice, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is not barred – Held: The case falls within the exception outlined in Joginder Singh, allowing the Civil Court to adjudicate the matter [Para 6].

Civil Procedure – Narrow Interpretation of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – The Court reiterated that for considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be examined – Since the plaint alleged violation of natural justice, the question of maintainability was a matter of trial – Held: The rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was justified [Para 7].

Land Disputes – Civil Suit for Permanent Injunction and Title Disputes – The plaintiffs also sought relief of permanent injunction and claimed discrepancies in land allocation in partition proceedings – Held: Since issues related to title and possession were also involved, the civil suit was maintainable [Para 8].

Decision: – Civil Revision dismissed. The trial court's order dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC upheld.
 

PIL - Tax Governance – Challenging modifications in the utility for e-filing income tax returns - Filing Utilities – Section 87A Rebate – Modifications to the e-filing utility restricted assessees from claiming a rebate under Section 87A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, during the assessment year 2024-25 – Petitioners argued that such restrictions violated Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution – Held: Revenue cannot impose administrative restrictions through utility modifications that deny claims at the threshold – Tax computation must allow bona fide claims for adjudication under the IT Act’s framework [Paras 34-36, 43, 51-53].

Judicial Review – Bona Fide Claims – Whether rebate under Section 87A can be claimed alongside taxes computed under Chapter XII of the Income-tax Act, including Section 115BAC, deemed debatable and contentious – Held: Restricting such claims through administrative measures, like utility design, exceeds executive authority – Legislative intent or judicial interpretation must resolve disputes, not unilateral administrative decisions [Paras 40-44, 50-51].

Constitutional Mandate – Article 265 and 300A – Prohibition against collecting tax beyond statutory authority – Taxpayers entitled to raise debatable claims for relief – Revenue's action to tweak e-filing utilities breached constitutional boundaries, as it deprived taxpayers of access to justice and adjudication mechanisms under the IT Act [Paras 33, 46-48].

Precedents on Filing Claims – Courts have held that taxpayers cannot be denied the right to make claims at the threshold – The filing utility cannot override substantive rights to claim deductions or rebates under statutory provisions – Reliance placed on Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas, and others [Paras 56-58].

Outcome – Utility must be modified to allow claims under Section 87A for AY 2024-25 and beyond – Tax authorities must adjudicate such claims in due course without executive preclusion [Paras 64(i), 64(iv)].

Decision
Rule Made Absolute: Authorities directed to modify the utility for e-filing returns, permitting claims under Section 87A【64(i)】.
Relief Granted: Petitioners entitled to relief; interim orders made absolute.
Prayer Clause (c): Relief regarding broad procedural changes left open for future cases【64(iii)】.
Adjudication on Merits: Determination of Section 87A claims referred to quasi-judicial authorities【64(iv)】.
 

Permanent Injunction – Co-sharers – Right to Possession – Encroachment – Plaintiffs, a registered management committee, claimed exclusive possession of the suit property and sought a permanent injunction against Defendant No.1 from interfering in its management, possession, and structures – Defendant No.1 argued that the plaintiffs had encroached upon public land – The lower courts found that the plaintiffs were in exclusive settled possession and had a valid electricity connection in their name – Defendant No.1 admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of 14 marlas – Held: A co-sharer cannot dispossess another co-sharer by force, and any dispute regarding possession must be resolved through legal proceedings – Injunction upheld, and the second appeal dismissed [Paras 15-21] – Decision: Appeal dismissed.

Encroachment – Right to Remove – Defendant’s Lack of Locus Standi – The Defendant contended that plaintiffs had encroached on public land – However, the passage land was gifted to plaintiffs via a resolution, and even assuming encroachment, the Defendant had no right to remove it – Held: Any action regarding alleged encroachment must be taken by the competent municipal authorities and not by private individuals – Courts restrained the defendant from interfering with possession except in due course of law [Paras 19-22] – Decision: The decree of permanent injunction upheld, and appeal dismissed.
 

Service Law – Recruitment – Two-Child Norm – Relaxation for Widows – The petitioner's candidature for the post of School Lecturer was rejected due to having more than two children after 01.06.2002 – The petitioner contended that a disabled child should not be counted under the two-child norm as per the notification dated 28.02.2011 – The respondents argued that even excluding the disabled child, the petitioner still had three children, exceeding the permissible limit – Held: The amendment introduced vide notification dated 16.03.2023 extended relaxation to all widows, not just those under compassionate appointment, making the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature unjustified [Paras 5-7, 13.3, 19-22].

Constitutional Law – Right to Equality – Articles 14 & 16 – Discriminatory Treatment of Widows – The petitioner argued that widows applying under compassionate appointment were granted relaxation from the two-child norm, while those applying on merit were not – The Court held that such differential treatment was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Held: All widows must be treated equally regarding recruitment relaxations, and the petitioner’s exclusion was unconstitutional [Paras 6, 17, 19-20].

Beneficial Legislation – Liberal Interpretation – Welfare-Oriented Approach – The 2023 amendment removing the restriction of relaxation only to compassionate appointees was considered a beneficial provision – The Court emphasized that welfare provisions should be interpreted liberally to achieve their intended objective – Held: The petitioner, being a widow from an SC community and the sole breadwinner for her children, including a disabled child, deserved the benefit of the amendment [Paras 13.3, 14, 18-20].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Power under Article 226 – Interference in Recruitment Matters – The respondents argued that the recruitment process had already concluded – The Court held that under Article 226, it had the power to rectify arbitrary and unconstitutional actions – Held: The petitioner’s exclusion was contrary to constitutional principles and required judicial intervention to uphold fairness and justice [Paras 16, 21-22].

Humanitarian Consideration – Socio-Economic Hardship – Parens Patriae Doctrine – The petitioner, as the sole earner, was responsible for raising four children, including a specially-abled son – The Court took a sympathetic approach, stating that the judiciary must act as a guardian for vulnerable citizens – Held: The petitioner’s financial instability warranted judicial relief, and denying her appointment would cause irreparable hardship [Paras 23-25].
 

Arbitration – Challenge to Award – Scope of Interference under Sections 34 and 37 of Arbitration Act – The appellant challenged an arbitral award granting compensation to the respondent for project delays and related claims – Held: The Court’s jurisdiction under Section 37 is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence – The Arbitral Tribunal’s findings will not be interfered with unless they violate public policy or the fundamental policy of Indian law – Award upheld except for an adjustment of prior payments [Paras 16-17].

Double Payment – Public Policy Violation – Need for Set-Off – Appellant contended that an Expert Committee had assessed the claim and directed payment of ₹6.01 crores, out of which ₹3.5 crores had already been paid – The Tribunal failed to account for this payment, leading to a risk of double payment – Held: A failure to adjust prior payments towards the same claim would violate public policy and fundamental principles of justice – The matter is remitted to the Commercial Court for reconsideration of this aspect [Paras 22-25].

Limited Judicial Review – Commercial Court’s Role in Arbitration Proceedings – The Commercial Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge under Section 34 without recording findings on the prior payment issue – Held: While courts must exercise minimal interference in arbitral matters, they are duty-bound to prevent unjust enrichment – The Commercial Court should have examined whether the ₹3.5 crore payment was towards the same claim and whether an adjustment was necessary [Paras 24-26].

Decision: The appeals are partly allowed. The judgment and order of the Commercial Court dated 03.08.2024 in Com.A.P. Nos. 106 to 117 of 2023 are set aside to the limited extent of reconsidering the prior payment of ₹3.5 crores. The matter is remitted to the Commercial Court, which shall determine whether this payment was related to the claims before the Arbitral Tribunal and, if so, ensure an appropriate set-off. Other findings of the Arbitral Tribunal and Commercial Court remain undisturbed. Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of as not surviving.
 

Rent Law - Eviction – Willful Default in Payment of Rent – Tenant’s Knowledge of Ownership – Eviction Upheld – The petitioners challenged their eviction, claiming lack of knowledge of the landlord's ownership and absence of attornment notice. The Court held that the tenants were aware of the partition and ownership rights, as evidenced by admissions in cross-examination. Failure to pay rent since 2002 was deemed willful default. Findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld as not perverse (Paragraphs 19 to 22).

Right to Immediate Possession – Landlord Aged Above 65 – Section 10C of the Act – The Court invoked Section 10C, introduced via Amendment Act No. 17 of 2005, which grants a landlord aged 65 or more the right to immediate possession. The landlord, being 68 at the time of filing the eviction petition, was entitled to invoke this statutory right. The Rent Controller was statutorily obligated to take steps for possession without requiring separate applications from the landlord (Paragraphs 14 to 18).

Evidence – Tenant's Receipts for Rent Payment – Claim Rejected – The petitioners presented money order receipts and postal acknowledgments to show regular rent payment. However, the Court found that these documents did not disprove the willful default, especially in light of the tenant’s cross-examination admissions acknowledging knowledge of the landlord’s ownership (Paragraphs 8 to 22).

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Orders of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld – Tenants granted six months' time to vacate the premises – No order as to costs (Paragraphs 23 to 24).