Juvenile Justice – Bail for Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) – Presumption of Release – The petitioner, a juvenile, sought bail after denial by both the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the appellate court, despite the Juvenile Justice Act’s reformative stance – The High Court reiterated that, under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, bail is the rule and refusal an exception, particularly where releasing the CICL does not risk moral, psychological, or physical danger to the child – Held: Bail granted, as no clear evidence suggested the CICL’s release would lead to negative influences, and family members undertook responsibility for his care [Paras 10-14, 21-24].

Interpretation of Section 12, Juvenile Justice Act – Grounds for Bail Refusal – The Juvenile Justice Act mandates that a CICL may be denied bail only if there are reasonable grounds to believe release would (i) lead to association with known criminals, (ii) expose the juvenile to harm, or (iii) defeat the ends of justice – Held: The appellate court’s reliance on speculative risk factors without concrete evidence did not meet these criteria, and thus, bail denial was improper [Paras 17-18, 25-26].

Principle of Juvenile Justice – Reformative and Rehabilitative Focus – The Act emphasizes the reformative approach, prioritizing the CICL’s well-being over punitive measures. The Court highlighted that, in the absence of evidence of past criminal influence or risks to the CICL’s welfare, continued detention contradicted the Act’s objectives – Held: Bail for juveniles is a statutory right, aligned with reformative principles unless substantive reasons for detention are provided [Paras 22-23, 27].

Decision – The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Orders from the JJB and the appellate court denying bail are set aside. The petitioner is granted bail subject to conditions, including a bail bond and oversight by responsible family members.
 

Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings – Liberal Approach and Due Diligence – The trial court permitted the respondent’s amendment application in the suit for cancellation of a document, which the petitioner challenged based on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, citing delays and alleging intent to prolong litigation – Held: The High Court supported a liberal approach to amendments, especially where claims of fraud and undue influence were implicated, concluding that the amendment was necessary to clarify the respondent's stance – The proviso to Order VI Rule 17, barring amendments post-trial commencement, did not apply as the trial listing was adjusted due to pending interlocutory applications [Paras 12-16].

Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Applicability Post-Commencement of Trial – The Court affirmed that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, which restricts amendments after trial commencement, does not apply when the trial listing is removed to accommodate pending applications. The trial court’s allowance of the amendment was thus appropriate, as the pleadings required comprehensive articulation of alleged fraud [Paras 18-20].

Discretion of Trial Courts in Amendment Applications – The Court noted that trial courts are best positioned to evaluate the necessity and relevance of amendments in pleadings, provided they do not lead to undue delay or unfair surprise – The decision to allow the amendment was found to be within judicial discretion, aligned with the need for a fair hearing [Paras 21-23].

Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order allowing the amendment in the plaint. No costs were awarded.
 

Criminal Law - Prisoner Rights – Alleged Torture and Solitary Confinement – Abuse of Power – The petitioner, the mother of convict prisoner Sivakumar, alleged assault, solitary confinement, and denial of medical treatment to her son by prison authorities based on false accusations – Held: The Court directed the CBCID to investigate and the Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings – It was noted that employing prisoners for domestic work at officials' residences is illegal and constitutes an abuse of power [Paras 5-14].

Abuse of Power by Prison Authorities – Duty of Care – The Court emphasized that prisoners, despite being convicted, are entitled to basic human rights and should not be subjected to inhuman treatment – Held: The use of prisoners as domestic workers and infliction of torture is a violation of rights and must be addressed with stringent action against erring officials [Paras 15-19].

Investigation and Disciplinary Proceedings – Independence from Criminal Cases – The Court clarified that ongoing criminal proceedings do not bar the conclusion of departmental disciplinary action under service rules – Directed that investigations and proceedings be conducted swiftly and transparently [Paras 23-24].

Protection and Monitoring of Prisoners – The Court mandated that surprise inspections be conducted to ensure prisoners are not exploited for personal work by prison authorities – Reinforced the importance of upholding prisoner rights to prevent abuse and maintain the integrity of the justice system [Paras 20-24].

Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the following orders:
The CBCID was directed to continue the investigation under FIR No. 1 of 2024, with the trial court requested to expedite proceedings.
The respondents were directed to proceed with and conclude departmental disciplinary proceedings independently, without delay, during the pendency of the criminal case.
Surprise inspections were mandated to ensure compliance and prevent the misuse of prisoners for domestic work.
 

Service Law - Transfer of Police Personnel - Disciplinary Force - The petitioners, office bearers of the Bihar Police Association, contested their transfers under administrative orders, citing a lack of compliance with transfer protections. The Court noted that transfer is a routine aspect of service, especially in disciplined forces, and can be mandated under administrative necessity without judicial interference unless mala fide is proven [Paras 12-13].

Transfer and Representation - Rule of Prior Joining - The Court held that the petitioners must join their new posts before contesting transfers as stipulated in the transfer order. The pending representations filed without joining were thus not subject to judicial relief until compliance [Para 20].

Police Establishment Board and Transfer Policy - Judicial Restraint - The Court reiterated that judicial intervention in police transfers is limited, emphasizing adherence to the Apex Court's directives for maintaining administrative discretion in transfer decisions within disciplined services [Paras 18-19].

Directive for Expedited Decision - Given the delay in addressing pending representations and consequent denial of salary since February 2024, the Court directed the Director General of Police to resolve the petitioners’ representations within one week, balancing administrative rigor with Article 21 rights [Paras 20-21].

Decision: The writ petition is disposed of, with directions for timely decision on representations.

Speedy Trial – Right under Article 21 of the Constitution – Inordinate delays in FSL report preparation impacting criminal trials, especially under the NDPS Act – Court constituted Committees for systemic reform – Recognizing the constitutional right to a speedy trial, this Court took suo moto cognizance of delays in the preparation and filing of Forensic Science Laboratory reports in Punjab and Haryana. This delay has exacerbated pendency in trials, particularly under NDPS cases, violating the right to a timely trial for under-trials and victims – Held: Delay in criminal justice processes infringes upon fundamental rights under Article 21, necessitating judicial intervention to ensure effective reforms [Paras 3-6].

Infrastructural Deficiencies in FSL – Insufficient space and outdated equipment – Impact on timely completion of forensic analysis – Committees highlighted infrastructure limitations such as cramped space and obsolete equipment in FSLs, including Punjab’s FSL Mohali and Haryana’s DNA division. These limitations impede efficient forensic work and contribute significantly to backlog in cases. The Court emphasized the urgent need to upgrade infrastructure, citing examples from other states with larger FSL facilities – Held: Space and equipment upgrades are crucial to resolving forensic backlogs and maintaining justice system efficiency [Paras 7-10].

Personnel Shortages – Impact on forensic processing timelines – Need for streamlined recruitment and adequate staffing norms – FSLs in both states face severe personnel shortages, including absence of full-time Directors and high vacancy rates, limiting capacity for timely analysis. Existing staff face added burdens of court appearances and handling unnecessary exhibits. The Court mandated urgent recruitment efforts and suggested contractual staffing as a stop-gap – Held: Proper staffing is essential to timely FSL reports; administration must ensure prompt hiring and staffing alignment with workload needs [Paras 11-15].

Financial Constraints – Inadequate budgets and utilization issues – Budget empowerment of FSL authorities – Committees revealed financial constraints limiting FSLs' procurement of essential chemicals and equipment, crucial in cases under the POCSO Act and NDPS Act. Punjab’s budget restrictions, due to limited financial powers of the FSL Director, led to lapsing of funds despite unmet needs – Held: Financial empowerment of the FSL Director is essential for timely resource allocation and uninterrupted forensic operations [Paras 16-18].

Judicial Recommendations – Reforms for FSL efficacy – Structural, operational, and procedural enhancements – The Court, acting under Article 226, endorsed specific Committee recommendations for immediate and effective FSL reform, including appointing a full-time Director, implementing SOPs, updating equipment, and improving infrastructure. Additional measures include video conferencing for court appearances, QR-coded record systems, prioritization protocols, and monitoring mechanisms for case pendency – Held: States must act swiftly to implement these reforms to uphold justice, prevent delays, and ensure the integrity of forensic reports [Paras 19-25].

Judicial Oversight – Directive under Article 226 – Mandate for compliance – Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court directed Punjab and Haryana to prioritize the outlined measures, emphasizing the constitutional imperative to uphold the right to a speedy trial. Copies of Committee reports were ordered to be sent to the Chief Secretaries of both states to ensure timely implementation – Held: The Court’s directives are essential to enforce fundamental rights and promote fair judicial processes [Paras 26-29].
 

Dishonor of Cheque – Acquittal - Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act – Leave to Appeal Denied – The petitioner appealed an acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case, asserting that the respondent issued a dishonored cheque to repay a loan. Held: Section 139 of the NI Act creates a presumption in favor of debt or liability. However, this presumption is rebuttable, and the accused need only raise a defense on the balance of probabilities. The trial court found credible inconsistencies in the petitioner’s financial capacity, deeming her claim improbable and allowing the respondent to rebut the presumption sufficiently, leading to acquittal [Paras 6-8].

Financial Capacity and Rebuttal of Presumption – Burden of Proof – Referencing Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa and Rajaram Through LRs v. Maruthachalam Through LRs, the Court emphasized that an accused can counter the presumption under Section 139 by presenting a probable defense or challenging the complainant's financial capacity. The respondent successfully highlighted discrepancies in the petitioner’s evidence, raising a plausible defense that negated the presumption of liability without needing to establish conclusive proof [Paras 9-10].

Scope of Appellate Review on Acquittal – Section 378(4) CrPC – The Court affirmed that revisional jurisdiction demands restraint in appeals against acquittal, barring evidence of perverse findings. The trial court’s findings were grounded in a rational assessment of the petitioner’s claims and did not warrant appellate interference, upholding the respondent’s acquittal [Para 11].

Decision: The petition is dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding that the respondent had successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 NI Act. Consequently, the court denied leave to appeal, concurring with the trial court’s assessment of the petitioner’s inconsistent evidence.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Section 138 of the NI Act  - Vicarious Liability of Non-Signatory Directors – Liability Under Section 141 NI Act – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a company director, sought quashing of a summoning order under Section 138 NI Act, contending she had no role in financial transactions or issuance of the dishonored cheque. Held: Under Section 141 NI Act, vicarious liability extends to all individuals in charge of a company’s operations. Here, the petitioner failed to provide conclusive evidence negating her involvement. Summons upheld on the grounds that the complainant’s averments and the petitioner’s role as one of three directors in the accused company warranted trial on responsibility for company affairs, despite her non-signatory status [Paras 16-17, 69:15].

Principles for Quashing Proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – High Threshold for Quashing – Emphasizing caution in quashing at preliminary stages, the Court applied precedents from S.P. Mani & Mohan Dairy v. Snehalatha Elangovan and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque. The Court ruled that quashing requires clear, incontrovertible evidence proving the director’s lack of involvement, which was absent here [Paras 10-14, 69:8].

Decision: The petition is dismissed. The High Court ruled that the trial court’s summoning order should stand, allowing the petitioner’s role and responsibility in company affairs to be assessed at trial. The petitioner’s inability to provide unassailable proof of non-involvement barred quashing at this stage.
 

Criminal Law - Section 307 IPC – Acquittal Set aside - Requirement of Grievous Injury – Not Essential – The trial court's view that grievous injury is an essential requirement for conviction under Section 307 IPC is incorrect – Held: To convict under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the injury should be capable of causing death. The intent or knowledge with which the act was committed and overt acts demonstrating such intent are sufficient. The evidence showed repeated assaults by the respondents, supporting a conviction under Section 307 IPC [Paras 33-38].

Assessment of Medical and Eyewitness Evidence – Consistent Testimonies – The trial court erred in overlooking the consistent and credible testimonies of the informant and supporting witnesses – Held: The informant's testimony, corroborated by medical evidence (Exhibit-2), confirmed repeated blows and significant injuries. The minor discrepancies did not affect the overall credibility of the prosecution's case [Paras 20-27].

Nature of Injury – Impact on Conviction – Even Simple Injuries Sufficient – The informant's injuries were simple yet inflicted with a weapon capable of causing serious harm (farsa) – Held: The use of a potentially lethal weapon and the infliction of repeated blows indicate an intention that satisfies Section 307 IPC. The nature of the injuries alone is not decisive [Paras 16, 33-38].

Compensation to Victim – Section 357 CrPC – Courts' Duty – The trial court failed to award compensation to the victim despite a conviction under Sections 323, 341, 447/34 IPC – Held: Awarding compensation is a duty of the court to ensure victim relief. The appellant is entitled to compensation from the convicted respondents [Paras 43-45].

Appellate Review – Conviction for Lesser Offences – Court's Role – The appellate court can review and modify judgments when the evidence on record supports a higher conviction – Held: The respondents' actions warranted conviction under Sections 307 and 324 IPC. The trial court's acquittal for these charges was set aside [Paras 39-42].

Decision: The trial court's acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 307 and 324 IPC was overturned. Respondent No. 2 was convicted under Sections 307/34 and 324 IPC, and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were convicted under Section 307/34 IPC. The appeal was allowed to this extent. The respondents were taken into custody, and the case was scheduled for sentencing and compensation orders on 30/10/2024 [Paras 46-49].
 

Taxation Law - Faceless Scheme of Assessment – Legislative Intent and Evolution – With the advent of technological advancements, the Revenue aimed to modernize the tax assessment process by reducing direct taxpayer-officer interaction to prevent undesirable practices – Budget Speech 2019 underscored these issues, advocating for the faceless scheme to enhance transparency and efficiency – The scheme was formalized with the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 and expanded through amendments in 2020 and the Finance Act 2022, which included reassessment and recomputation under Sections 143(3), 144, and 147 [Paras 46-54].

Technological Infrastructure – RMS, CASS, and Insight Portal – The Revenue implemented sophisticated data tools like RMS, CASS, AIR, and Insight Portal to aggregate, cross-check, and analyze taxpayer information – RMS used for automated case selection based on risk parameters to minimize human bias – Insight Portal provided JAOs with comprehensive data for informed preliminary evaluations [Paras 57-64].

JAO's Concurrent Jurisdiction and Role – Despite the faceless assessment framework, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) retains concurrent jurisdiction – This allows the JAO to verify data and initiate reassessment based on gathered information – Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust case reinforced that the JAO's powers coexist with NFAC’s automated system, ensuring comprehensive assessments [Paras 82-85].

Reassessment Procedure – Beyond Faceless Allocation – The reassessment process under Sections 147, 148, and 148A involves JAO's discretion to act on data from RMS, audit reports, or court directives – The Gujarat High Court in Talati and Talati LLP confirmed that the JAO’s role in initiating reassessment is essential and distinct from the automated allocation for final assessments under Section 144B [Paras 86-103].

Conclusion – Complementary Framework – The faceless scheme does not eliminate JAO’s role but supplements it, providing a dual-layered system ensuring transparency and efficiency – Petitions challenging reassessment by JAOs were dismissed, affirming that JAOs maintain lawful authority for initial reassessment actions [Paras 104-105].