Habeas Corpus – Child Custody – No Detention Found – Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for her minor daughter allegedly detained by her estranged husband – Court held that since no judicial orders presently govern custody and respondents possessed a valid injunction restraining forcible removal of the child, no case of illegal detention exists – Petition dismissed [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Custody Framework – Remedies Under Family Law Open – Court observed that disputes relating to child custody are best addressed under the Guardians and Wards Act or similar family law mechanisms – Held: Parties may seek appropriate remedies without being influenced by observations made in this case [Paras 12-14].

Interim Arrangement – Welfare of Child Prioritized – Considering the child's comfort and welfare, the Court allowed the petitioner temporary access until 4 p.m. on 24/11/2024, directing the child to be returned to the respondents at the specified location thereafter [Paras 15-16].

Decision:  The writ petition was dismissed, holding that no illegal detention of the child was established. Interim access was granted to the petitioner for two days, with explicit directions for the return of the child to the respondents on 24/11/2024. The Court left all issues regarding custody open to be decided by appropriate family law forums.
 

Income Tax – Penalty Proceedings – Defective Notices – Penalties Quashed – Revenue appeals challenge ITAT orders deleting penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for lack of clarity in penalty notices – Court observed that notices failed to specify the exact charge of “concealment of income” or “furnishing inaccurate particulars” – Held: Defective notices violate principles of natural justice, rendering penalties invalid [Paras 7-12, 22].

Concealment vs. Inaccurate Particulars – Distinct Grounds Must Be Clearly Stated – Court reiterated that concealment and inaccurate particulars are distinct charges under Section 271(1)(c) – Notices must unequivocally state the ground being invoked, failing which penalty proceedings are vitiated – Supported by Karnataka High Court decision in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [Paras 25-27].

Penalty Proceedings – Mens Rea and Prejudice – Strict Construction Required – The Revenue argued the penalty notices’ defect was procedural and not prejudicial – Court rejected this contention, citing the principle that penal provisions must be strictly construed in favor of the assessee where ambiguity exists [Paras 30-32].

Supreme Court Precedent – Reliance Petroproducts Case Followed – Court cited CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. to emphasize that making unsustainable claims in returns does not automatically attract penalties unless false particulars are furnished [Paras 33-35].

Decision: The appeals were dismissed. The Court upheld ITAT’s conclusion that penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) were invalid due to defective notices. It confirmed that proper satisfaction and clear specification of charges are prerequisites for penalty proceedings.
 

Caste Claim – Rejection for Lack of Evidence – Validity Upheld – Petitioner’s claim for belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe was rejected due to discrepancies in ancestral records – Vigilance Cell report found tampered documents wherein "Mani" was altered to "Mana" – Court upheld Committee’s rejection, emphasizing the probative value of pre-Constitutional records over recent documents [Paras 18-20].

Probative Value of Historical Documents – Section 8 of Act of 2000 – Documents from 1918-1944 revealed caste entries as "Mani/Mane/Malgujar" for the petitioner’s ancestors – Court observed these older documents hold higher probative value than subsequent manipulated documents – Petitioner failed to rebut these findings satisfactorily [Paras 21-23].

Precedent – Scope of Entry No. 18 in Presidential (ST) Order 1950 – Citing Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad v. Deputy Director (2023), Court held "Mana" Scheduled Tribe must be read strictly and does not encompass sub-tribes like "Mani" or "Mane" – Petitioner’s reliance on Priya Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra rejected as factual context differed significantly [Paras 24-27].

Validity Certificates of Relatives – Lack of Evidentiary Weight – Petitioner relied on 12 caste validity certificates issued to relatives – Court noted these were obtained through fabricated or incomplete documentation and lacked affidavits establishing blood relations – Committee was justified in discarding them [Paras 28-29].

Decision:  The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the findings of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner failed to demonstrate belonging to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. It directed that the fabricated caste validity certificates issued to the petitioner’s relatives be reviewed afresh.
 

Jurisdiction – Show Cause Notice – Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act – Quashed – Appeal against the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 41-A by the District Registrar of Assurances, Ananthapuram, demanding deficit stamp duty – High Court held that Section 41-A applies only to registered instruments and cannot be invoked for unregistered documents – As the document in question was unregistered, the show-cause notice was found to be without jurisdiction – Notice quashed [Paras 14-15, 21].

Stamp Duty – Secondary Evidence – No Validation Allowed – The impugned notice demanded stamp duty on copies of documents seized by the Vigilance Department – Court held that the Indian Stamp Act applies only to original instruments, and copies cannot be impounded or subjected to deficit stamp duty – Held: Copies of documents are not instruments under the Indian Stamp Act and cannot be used for imposing stamp duty [Paras 21-22].

Role of Vigilance Department – Lack of Authority – Ultra Vires Action – The Vigilance and Enforcement Department directed the District Registrar to collect deficit stamp duty – Court held that such executive actions without statutory authority contravene the Indian Stamp Act – Vigilance Department lacks jurisdiction to act as a statutory authority under the Act [Para 14].

Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act – Applicability Limited to Original Instruments – The District Registrar relied on Section 33 to justify the demand – Court held that Section 33 empowers impounding of only original instruments voluntarily produced before the authority – Seized or secondary documents do not fall within its purview – Held: Section 33 does not apply in the present case [Para 22].

Writ Petition – Maintainability Against Show Cause Notice – Whirlpool Corporation Principle – Dismissing the writ petition as premature, the Single Judge failed to consider the lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice – High Court relied on Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks to hold that writ jurisdiction is maintainable when a notice is issued without jurisdiction – Appeal allowed [Paras 11-13].

Decision:  The writ appeal was allowed, and the impugned show-cause notice dated 05/06/2015 was quashed for being issued without jurisdiction. The High Court ruled that Section 41-A does not apply to unregistered documents and that copies of documents cannot be impounded for the purpose of collecting deficit stamp duty. The role of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department in initiating proceedings was also found to be without legal authority.

No costs were awarded, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
 

Writ Jurisdiction – Judicial Orders of Civil Courts – Scope Under Articles 226 and 227 Distinguished – Petitioners challenged rejection of an amendment application by a civil court under Article 226 – Court clarified that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 but can be reviewed under Article 227, as reiterated in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath – Held: Petitioners to convert writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 [Paras 2, 10-18].

Rejection of Amendment Application – No Interference Without Manifest Injustice – The Trial Court rejected an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, citing lack of diligence and potential prejudice to the respondents – Court observed that amendment applications in pending suits require strict scrutiny to prevent procedural abuse – Held: Trial Court’s rejection did not disclose any patent error or perversity warranting interference [Para 19].

Procedural Reforms – High Court Rules Amended Post Supreme Court’s Clarification – Court noted amendments to Patna High Court rules aligning with Supreme Court decisions, directing petitions challenging civil court orders to be filed under Article 227 as Civil Miscellaneous Petitions – Registry directed to facilitate conversion and prioritization of the case [Paras 20-22].

Judicial Discipline – Avoidance of Overreach in Writ Jurisdiction – Citing Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, the Court underscored that routine interference in property disputes through writ jurisdiction undermines the administration of justice – Held: High Courts must exercise restraint in such cases unless significant statutory violations are evident [Paras 17-18].

Decision: The Court granted the petitioners four weeks to convert the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227. The registry was directed to prioritize the listing of the case, considering its pendency for over ten years.
 

Criminal Law - Robbery – Identification Without TIP – Conviction Upheld – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted and that the complainant identified them in court for the first time – Court noted the complainant’s testimony was consistent and trustworthy, and TIP is not mandatory where the court finds the witness’s testimony reliable – Held: Conviction under Section 397 IPC upheld [Paras 11-15, 20].

Use of Deadly Weapon – Non-Recovery Not Fatal to Prosecution – Appellants contended non-recovery of knives rendered the prosecution’s case weak – Court observed that recovery of the weapon is not mandatory for a conviction under Section 397 IPC if the use of the weapon is proven through credible testimony – Cited Aas Mohd. @ Ashu v. State (2021 DHC 4339) as precedent [Paras 18-19].

Contradictions in Testimony – Minor and Non-Material – Court addressed alleged contradictions in the complainant’s account regarding the seating arrangement of accused persons in the TSR and the location of his discovery post-robbery – Held: Minor contradictions do not undermine the overall credibility of testimony [Paras 16-17].

Procedural Deficiencies – No Prejudice Found – Alleged lapses, including discrepancies in the presence of members in the raiding party, were held immaterial as recovery of the stolen TSR and personal belongings was adequately proven by corroborative evidence [Para 21].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of appellant Manish Kumar under Section 397 IPC was upheld. His bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to serve the remaining sentence. The appeal of co-convict Rajeev @ Sonu was declared abated due to his demise during the proceedings.

Sexual Assault – Bail Refused – Prima Facie Case Established - The appellant, a police officer, was accused of aggravated sexual assault on a minor girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste, during an SPC (Student Police Cadet) training program – Court examined the case diary and charge sheet, concluding that the evidence prima facie supported the prosecution’s case – Held: Considering the gravity and heinous nature of the offense, bail denied [Paras 2-6, 14].

Factors for Granting Bail – Guiding Principles – Applied to Deny Relief - Court reiterated established principles for bail decisions: nature and severity of accusations, potential witness tampering, risk of flight, and broader public interest – Held: The gravity of the offense outweighed the appellant’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, necessitating continued custody [Paras 7-9].

Heinous Nature of Offense – Public Confidence Considered – Bail Denied - Offense involving sexual exploitation of a minor by a public official warranted stricter scrutiny – Court emphasized the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system when dealing with heinous crimes [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Bail denied, with liberty to reapply upon changed circumstances [Para 15].
 

Civil Law - Recovery of Dues – Burden of Proof – Absence of Proof of Service – Invoice Terms Prevail – Payment Liability Affirmed - The appellant argued non-delivery of courier consignments and failure to provide proof of delivery absolved payment obligations – Respondent claimed proof was to be provided only upon request per invoice terms, which was never sought – Courts held the respondent discharged the initial burden by producing invoices and other evidence, while appellant failed to prove service deficiency or request for proof – Liability affirmed for unpaid invoices with interest [Paras 1-8, 17-19, 28-30].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Scope of Section 100 CPC - Appellant sought interference with concurrent factual findings citing procedural and evidentiary flaws – Held: High Court interference under Section 100 CPC limited to substantial questions of law; no perversity or material irregularity in findings demonstrated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-25, 36-37].

Electronic Evidence – Section 65B of Evidence Act – Compliance Essential – Documents Excluded - Appellant produced an email alleging undelivered packages but failed to comply with Section 65B certification requirements – Trial Court rightfully excluded the email, and appellant could not rely on it to prove claims [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Trial Court and First Appellate Court decrees affirmed. Appellant directed to pay the outstanding amount of ₹1,76,128/- with interest at 12% per annum from the invoice date until realization, along with suit costs [Para 38].

Parole – Premature Release Pending Governor’s Decision – Granted – Petitioner, serving life imprisonment, sought release on parole pending the Governor’s decision on premature release – Court relied on Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, where premature release policies were deemed applicable without arbitrary delays – Held: Parole granted for 90 days to prevent undue incarceration during pendency of the Governor’s decision [Paras 10-15].

Premature Release Policies – Timely Processing by Committees Mandated – Advisory Committee recommended premature release, yet the final decision was delayed – Court directed the Life Convicts Release Committee to meet bi-monthly to expedite pending applications, following Rashidul Jafar principles – Held: Delay in convening meetings cannot deny eligible convicts their rights under remission policies [Paras 12-13].

Parole Conditions – Accountability and Conduct – Court imposed conditions for parole: no involvement in criminal activities and liberty to seek extension if required – Directed jail authorities to communicate compliance via electronic means [Para 18].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The petitioner was granted parole for 90 days, with liberty to seek an extension. The court directed the respondents to ensure the parole conditions were complied with and ordered the Registry to communicate the decision electronically to the jail authorities.