POCSO Offences – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Petition to quash proceedings for rape and penetrative sexual assault under IPC and POCSO Act, based on an affidavit by the victim’s mother retracting the allegations and attributing the case to retaliation. Held: Allegations of serious sexual offences cannot be quashed solely on the basis of subsequent withdrawal of allegations – The accusations must be tested through a trial – No case for quashing made out under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 5-6, 13-14].

Serious Offences – Withdrawal of Allegations – Section 482 CrPC – In cases involving heinous offences like rape or offences under POCSO Act, the victim's or complainant's subsequent retraction or settlement does not justify quashing criminal proceedings – The trial process is essential for judicial scrutiny of allegations. Held: The Trial Court to consider all aspects, including retraction, during discharge hearing or trial [Paras 6, 13-15].

Decision – Petition dismissed. Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 845/2019 not quashed. Trial Court directed to consider the petitioner’s discharge plea on merits, including the victim's mother’s affidavit. Petitioner permitted to appear through counsel except when personal presence is necessary [Paras 14-15].
 

Temple Surplus Funds – Utilization for Religious and Charitable Purposes – Non-Compliance with HR & CE Act – The surplus funds of the temple cannot be utilized for purposes beyond those specified in Section 66(1) or Sections 36-A and 36-B of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Held: Construction of a shopping complex does not align with the purposes outlined in the Act, such as propagation of religious tenets or other prescribed religious or charitable activities – Decision to construct the complex quashed [Paras 10-19].

Use of Partially Constructed Building – Repurposing for Charitable Objectives – Since a portion of the shopping complex was already constructed, the Court allowed its completion but restricted its use to charitable activities permissible under Sections 36-A and 36-B, such as feeding the poor or conducting Hindu marriages for those in need – Clarified that this should not set a precedent for constructing marriage halls using temple surplus funds [Paras 23-27].

Trusteeship – Lack of Appointment and Oversight – The absence of trustees for the temple meant that the decision to construct the shopping complex lacked legitimacy – Directed the authorities to expedite the appointment process while allowing the petitioner to challenge the appointments if dissatisfied [Paras 7-8, 14].

Violation of Interim Orders – Apologies and Assurance Accepted – Respondents breached an interim stay order but offered apologies and assurances to halt further construction – Contempt proceedings disposed of upon acceptance of the apologies [Paras 20-21].

Decision: The Court quashed the decision to construct a shopping complex using temple surplus funds, restricting its use to charitable purposes under Sections 36-A and 36-B of the HR & CE Act. The contempt petition was disposed of after apologies were accepted.
 

Service Law - Recruitment - Disclosure of Pending Criminal Case - Bona Fide Mistake - Candidate failed to disclose pendency of criminal case due to lack of awareness - Not construed as suppression or fraud - Candidate acquitted honorably - Discharge order set aside - Reinstatement directed [Paras 3-16, 18].

Nature of Offence - Triviality of Alleged Crimes - Offences under Sections 341, 504, and 506 IPC held not to constitute serious crimes - Employer’s obligation to evaluate trivial cases for possible condonation - Non-disclosure found to lack dishonest intent [Paras 12-13, 17].

Employment in Disciplined Forces - Role of Character Verification - Mere omission or minor errors in disclosure cannot tarnish suitability for disciplined forces - Requirement to exercise discretion and consider the facts and circumstances holistically [Paras 14-16, 18].

Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents - Flexibility in Assessing Lapses - Principles in Avtar Singh v. Union of India applied - Omission due to bona fide error held not to disqualify the candidate [Paras 12-14, 16-17].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Discharge order and Single Judge's decision set aside - Reinstatement of appellant with directions for continuation of service within eight weeks [Paras 18-19].
 

NDPS Act – Recovery of Charas – Appeal by the State challenging the acquittal – Conviction  - Compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act – Case of Chance Recovery – Not Attracted – It was argued that non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act rendered the prosecution's case invalid as the investigating officer suspected contraband before conducting the search. However, the court held that the recovery was a case of chance recovery, not requiring prior compliance with Section 42, as the police did not have specific information regarding narcotics and acted upon suspicion when stopping the vehicle. The term “contraband” does not solely refer to narcotics but includes other illegal items, which does not trigger Section 42. – [Paras 20–25].

Independent Witnesses – Not Essential in Chance Recovery Cases – The non-association of independent witnesses does not vitiate the prosecution case, especially in chance recovery. The Court emphasized that when an incident occurs during routine patrolling, association of independent witnesses becomes impractical or irrelevant. The testimonies of police officials, if credible, can form the basis for conviction. – [Paras 26–33].

Contradictions and Omissions in Witness Testimonies – Minor Variations Do Not Affect Core of Prosecution Case – Discrepancies in witness statements regarding the recovery of a black bag and its omission from certain documents were deemed immaterial. The court held that witnesses are not expected to recall minute details after a significant lapse of time, and minor inconsistencies cannot be the sole basis to discard their testimonies if the overall evidence has a ring of truth. – [Paras 34–39].

Report of Chemical Analysis – Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish Nature of Contraband – The analysis report confirming the presence of cannabis resin (41.63% w/w) was sufficient to establish that the substance recovered was charas. Minor omissions in the description of packaging (e.g., failure to mention the black bag) did not affect the validity of the report or the prosecution case. – [Para 40].

NDPS Act – Recovery of Charas – Ownership of Vehicle – Conviction Upheld – Ownership of the vehicle carrying contraband is irrelevant under the NDPS Act – Recovery of charas (1.88 kg) was duly established through consistent prosecution evidence – Accused Pardeep Kumar and Pradeep Saini failed to rebut the statutory presumption of conscious possession under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act – Held: The acquittal of the accused was unsustainable; conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act recorded [Paras 45, 62, 64].

Evidentiary Standards – Previous Inconsistent Statements – Section 145 of Evidence Act – Testimony Considered Valid – The defense’s failure to comply with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding prior inconsistent statements does not discredit the testimony of Mukesh Kumar (PW-11) – Trial Court erred in discarding his evidence – Testimony upheld [Para 44].

Seal Production – Not Fatal to Prosecution – Evidence of Intact Seals Sufficient – Non-production of physical seals during trial does not vitiate prosecution case if the seals on case property match specimen impressions – NCB-1 Form and FSL report confirmed seal integrity – Acquittal on this ground reversed [Paras 47-51].

Expert Analysis – Proof of Charas – Tetrahydrocannabinol Percentage Not Essential – The presence of resin in the sample was sufficient to establish that the substance was charas – Trial Court's finding requiring mention of tetrahydrocannabinol percentage was erroneous – Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that the entire mass containing resin must be treated as charas under the NDPS Act [Paras 60-61].

Conscious Possession – All Occupants of Vehicle Liable – Based on consistent evidence and the Supreme Court precedent in Madan Lal v. State of H.P., all occupants of a vehicle transporting contraband are presumed to be in conscious possession unless rebutted – Accused Pardeep Kumar and Pradeep Saini failed to rebut this presumption [Paras 62-64].

Arms Act – Recovery of Pistol – Mandatory Testing Not Done – Acquittal Upheld – Conviction under the Arms Act set aside due to the prosecution’s failure to prove that the recovered pistol was in working condition – Expert testing or demonstration of working condition required to sustain charges under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act – Sanction under Section 39 was also absent, rendering prosecution impermissible [Paras 71-76].

Disclosure Statements – Recovery of Electronic Weighing Scale – Inadmissible Under Section 27 Evidence Act – Disclosure by accused Anuj Kumar regarding weighing scale used for measuring contraband was inadmissible as it did not lead to the discovery of any new fact – Conviction could not be sustained solely based on the disclosure of a co-accused [Paras 67-69].

Reversal of Acquittal – Trial Court’s Reasoning Held Perverse – The Trial Court's findings were based on conjectures and misinterpretations of law – Acquittal of Pardeep Kumar and Pradeep Saini reversed; conviction recorded – However, acquittal of Raman Kumar upheld due to lack of sufficient evidence [Paras 66-77].
 

Default Bail – Extension of Detention under UAPA – Prosecution sought an extension of investigation beyond 90 days—Trial court granted the extension without providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused—Held: Mandatory notice and presence of accused are required while considering an extension under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA—Denial of default bail on the basis of an invalid extension violates Article 21 of the Constitution—Appeal allowed, and bail granted [Paras 8, 14, 18].

Investigation Delay – Right to Liberty – Prosecution failed to demonstrate due diligence in completing the investigation within the statutory period—Held: The right to liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed arbitrarily—Extension of detention cannot be granted mechanically—Prolonged detention without substantial progress in investigation unjustified—Bail granted [Paras 11, 25, 26].

Judicial Review of Prosecution’s Conduct – Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA – The trial court failed to record specific reasons justifying the need for further detention—Held: Extension under Section 43D(2)(b) is an exception and must be based on valid grounds—The court must be satisfied that further detention is necessary for completing the investigation—Failure to record specific reasons renders the extension order unsustainable—Bail granted [Paras 13, 31].

Constitutional Safeguards – Procedural Fairness – Accused was neither notified nor given an opportunity to object to the extension application—Held: Violation of the principles of natural justice—An accused’s right to default bail is a fundamental right under Article 21—Denial of such bail due to procedural lapses is illegal—Bail granted [Paras 16, 29].

Failure to Conduct Prompt Investigation – The prosecution delayed crucial steps such as witness examination and forensic analysis—Held: Prosecution cannot seek an extension if investigation proceeds at a sluggish pace—Arbitrary delay in investigation cannot justify continued detention—Default bail granted [Paras 24, 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed—Orders extending investigation and denying default bail set aside—Appellants granted bail on execution of personal bonds and sureties—Court reaffirms that procedural safeguards under UAPA must be strictly adhered to.

Taxation Law - Direct Tax – Computation of Disputed Tax – Applicability of 100% Rate – Section 3, DTVSV Act – Circular No. 21/2020 – Petitioner’s case mistakenly treated as a “search case,” and disputed tax computed at 125% instead of 100% – Respondents conceded the error, acknowledging it as a "non-search case" – Held: Tax to be computed at 100%, and revised Form-3 must be issued – Directions issued for compliance [Paras 37-40].

DTVSV Act – Inclusion of Additional Grounds in Disputed Tax – Section 3, Section 4, and Circular No. 21/2020 – Petitioner sought inclusion of an additional ground challenging LTCG additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act – Attempt made after 31/01/2020, the specified date under the DTVSV Act – Held: Inclusion of such grounds post facto is impermissible, as the Petitioner failed to appeal the additions in time and paid tax voluntarily – Claim for benefits under the DTVSV Scheme rejected [Paras 28-34, 36].

Income Tax – LTCG under Section 68 – Voluntary Disclosure – Addition of Rs. 2,02,50,919/- towards LTCG by Petitioner voluntarily conceded in 2016 – No appeal filed against such additions till the specified date under the DTVSV Act – Held: Petitioner’s belated attempt to create a dispute is inconsistent with the scheme’s objectives – Challenge dismissed [Paras 29-33].

CBDT Circulars – Binding Nature – Circular No. 21/2020 – Respondents failed to timely issue revised Form-3 reflecting the correct tax computation at 100% – Held: Circulars are binding on tax authorities – Directions issued for compliance with the undertaking given in the affidavit [Paras 39-41].

Decision – Rule Partly Absolute – Petition dismissed as regards inclusion of additional grounds in disputed tax – Petition allowed as regards computation of tax at 100% – Revised Form-3 to be issued within 30 days, with consequential benefits [Para 42].
 

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Applicability of Rules of 2018 and Rule 28 of Management Rules of 1969 – Convent of Our Lady of Providence Girls High School, a Christian minority unaided school, initiated disciplinary proceedings against two teachers alleging misconduct – Petitioners challenged the proceedings citing non-compliance with the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct and Discipline of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2018 and Rule 28 of the Management Rules of 1969 – Supreme Court clarified that Rules of 2018 are inapplicable to unaided minority schools and directed the school to proceed further after serving the enquiry report – High Court reiterated that Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules applies only to the extent of ensuring reasonable facilities for defense and does not mandate prior approval of the Board in unaided minority institutions [Paras 15.5, 16.5-16.8, 17.4-17.5].

Minority Institution – Autonomy in Administration – School argued that as a Christian minority institution, it enjoys autonomy under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and is not bound by provisions interfering with its administration – High Court upheld this position, relying on precedents including Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India (1986) and Chandana Das (Malakar) v. State of West Bengal (2020), which invalidated provisions requiring prior approval for disciplinary actions in unaided minority institutions as violative of Article 30(1) [Paras 16.5-16.7].

Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners’ earlier writs challenging the enquiry report were disposed of without quashing the report – Supreme Court allowed the school to proceed further based on the same report – Renewed challenge to the enquiry report barred by constructive res judicata as the prior proceedings amounted to a deemed refusal to grant the relief sought [Paras 17.5].

Decision:

WPA 7329 of 2023: Dismissed – Petitioners directed to respond to the enquiry report within two weeks – School may continue disciplinary proceedings [Para 17.5].

WPA 7894 of 2022 and WPA 7897 of 2022: Dismissed as not pressed, as the school did not pursue its challenge to the constitutional validity of Rules of 2018 [Final Paragraph].

Rectification – Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act – Cancellation of Mark – Petitioner successfully demonstrated prior use, goodwill, and reputation of the mark "RPG" – Respondent’s mark held to be an infringement of the petitioner’s well-known trademark – Held: Registration No. 2778255 in Class 23 canceled for bad faith adoption and likelihood of confusion [Paras 22-23].

Well-Known Marks – Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act – Protection Against Dissimilar Goods – Petitioner’s mark "RPG" deemed well-known – Protection extended beyond similar goods – Held: Even if goods differ, the identical mark can cause confusion, warranting rectification [Paras 12-14].

Passing Off – Bad Faith and Dishonest Adoption – Respondent derived the mark "RPG" from petitioner’s established goodwill – Evidence of intentional adoption to leverage petitioner’s reputation – Held: Honest adoption not proven; mark liable for cancellation [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Registration No. 2778255 canceled – Directions issued to Trade Marks Registry for notification and compliance [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Offence of Mischief under IPC – Section 430 read with Section 34 – Petitioners, as office bearers of an apartment owners’ welfare association, were accused of wrongfully disconnecting water supply to the defacto complainant's rental flat for non-payment of arrears. Held: The alleged disconnection of water supply, which was reconnected after arrears were paid, does not constitute mischief under Section 425 of IPC as defined for Section 430 IPC. No unlawful or dishonest intention to diminish water supply was established – Proceedings quashed [Paras 14-23].

Role of Associations in Water Supply Management – Reasonable Actions – The Court acknowledged that an association managing apartments has the right to collect water charges from members and take necessary actions, such as disconnection for non-payment, provided procedural safeguards are followed. Held: Disputes over water charges are civil in nature and do not attract criminal liability under IPC in this case [Paras 19-20].

Mischief under IPC – Temporary Interference vs. Permanent Diminution of Water Supply – Court reiterated that temporary stoppage of water supply does not amount to "mischief" under IPC unless it is done with dishonest or unlawful intent to cause injury or loss. Reference made to Uttam Basu v. Geeta Mullick [(1987) 1 Crimes 512 (Cal)] to emphasize this principle [Paras 21-23].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Court examined whether prima facie materials existed to sustain the prosecution. Held: Allegations in the FIR and subsequent evidence did not justify continuation of proceedings – Quashing allowed [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 687/2023 quashed – Defacto complainant directed to pay pending water charges to ensure uninterrupted supply – Association permitted to take lawful action for non-payment if required [Para 25].