Protection of Children from Sexual Offences – Conviction under POCSO – Credibility of Child Witness – DNA and Medical Evidence – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Appeal Dismissed.

Penetrative Sexual Assault – Minor Victim – Appellant, maternal uncle of the survivor aged 5 years, convicted under Sections 376(2)/506 IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5 of POCSO Act – Trial Court sentenced him to 11 years RI with fine under POCSO and 3 years RI under IPC Section 506 – Conviction based on consistent testimony of the child survivor (PW-1), corroborated by her medical examination (MLC) and FSL report indicating presence of appellant’s genetic material on jute bag recovered from scene [Paras 2, 17, 21-22, 42-43].

Child Witness – Competency and Tutoring Allegation – Survivor’s testimony held reliable despite minor discrepancies due to age (5 years) and time gap – Court found survivor’s version consistent on key allegation of penetrative assault – Allegation of tutoring rejected in light of corroborative evidence including MLC and FSL report – [Paras 28-29, 35].

Corroborative Testimonies – Sister (PW-2), mother (PW-6), and father (PW-3) of the survivor corroborated the sequence of events including seeing the accused in compromising position, immediate complaint and recovery – Minor discrepancies in the account regarding breaking of door/window held immaterial – [Paras 18-20, 34].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – MLC confirmed bruise and hymenal tear on survivor – DNA from jute bag matched with appellant’s blood sample – Chain of custody of forensic samples established – FSL report deemed reliable and corroborative of survivor’s allegations – [Paras 21-22, 30-33].

Presumption under POCSO – Court upheld statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act – Held that appellant failed to rebut presumption beyond reasonable doubt – Allegation of false implication due to property dispute not supported by credible evidence – [Paras 36-37].

Sentencing – Appellant was 19 years old at the time of offence – Trial Court considered mitigating factors but held offence severe, justifying 11-year sentence under POCSO – [Para 43].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Court found no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence – Directions issued to jail authorities and legal services for further assistance to appellant – [Paras 44-48].

Civil Writ - Education Law – Withdrawal of Recognition of School – Interim Protection Granted – Petitioner institution, running an English-medium school in Bengaluru for over 30 years, challenged cancellation of recognition issued under Sections 34 and 39 of the Karnataka Education Act on grounds of misrepresentation and unclear property title – Held: Institution has alternative remedy under Section 130; however, considering longstanding operation, enrolment of 1,500+ students, and lack of compliance issues, High Court stayed cancellation order to avoid disruption – Directed petitioner to file statutory appeal within four weeks [Paras 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9].

Procedural Fairness – Allegation of Pressure on Authorities – Civil and Criminal Proceedings in Background – Petitioner alleged that rival property claimants influenced education authorities through linguistic associations and failed in earlier civil and writ proceedings – Court noted seriousness of allegations and held that appellate authority must examine all facts holistically, including possible extraneous pressures, before confirming withdrawal of recognition [Paras 3, 4, 7, 9].

Appeal and Stay – Appellate Remedy Under Section 130 of Karnataka Education Act – Writ petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to appeal against the order cancelling recognition – Operation of cancellation order dated 30.05.2025 stayed until appeal is decided or varied by reasoned order of Appellate Authority – Ensured continuity of schooling without prejudicing administrative scrutiny [Para 11 – Order (A) to (C)].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Petitioner permitted to avail appellate remedy within four weeks – Cancellation order dated 30.05.2025 stayed until appeal is disposed of or modified by Appellate Authority – Directions issued to ensure uninterrupted operation of the institution in the interim [Para 11 – Order].

Bail – NDPS Act – Possession of Intermediate Quantity – Long Incarceration Without Trial – Bail Granted – The petitioner was arrested for offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, alleging recovery of 16.01 grams of heroin – He has remained in custody since 31.07.2023 – Co-accused released on bail – Trial not commenced; no witness examined despite lapse of over 1 year and 9 months – Held: Though petitioner has prior conviction, the prolonged incarceration without progress in trial amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to speedy trial paramount – Criminal antecedents not sufficient to deny bail in absence of timely trial – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1, 18-29].

Service Law – Promotion – Articles 226 and 227 – Challenge to Tribunal's direction for reconsideration of promotion – Petition Allowed – The respondent, an IRS officer, was denied promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for vacancy year 2008–09 due to “Good” grading in ACR for 2006–07 – On challenge, Tribunal directed communication of the ACR and reconsideration – Review DPC upheld “Unfit” status – Tribunal then directed consideration of ACR for 2001–02 instead of 2006–07 – Held: Such substitution of criteria was beyond the jurisdiction of Tribunal – Communication and representation processes were duly followed – Respondent had right to be considered, not a vested right to promotion – Tribunal’s order quashed [Paras 2-6, 9-15].

Taxation Law - Income Tax Search and Seizure – Challenge to Warrant of Authorization under Section 132 – Search Held Illegal – Petitioners, senior citizen promoter-shareholders of India Pesticides Ltd., challenged the validity of search and seizure operations conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a notice under Section 131(1A) – Petitioners contended that the search was conducted without any prior notice or summons and in absence of requisite “reason to believe” as mandated under clause (b) of Section 132(1) – The search was based on retrospective amendment to Section 55(2)(ac) concerning valuation mechanism for capital gains, but no actionable material existed prior to search – Held: There was no valid information or justification under Section 132(1)(b); search and subsequent notice were declared illegal [Paras 1-4, 9-13, 34-42, 48-56].

Search and Seizure – Section 132 of the Income Tax Act – Search Held Illegal – The petitioners challenged the warrant of authorization and consequent search operations under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act – The Court held that the ‘reason to believe’ required under clause (b) of Section 132(1) was wholly absent, and no material existed in the satisfaction note justifying such belief – The Revenue could not rely on post-search materials or vague allegations – Held: Search was arbitrary and illegal, being unsupported by requisite jurisdictional facts [Paras 34-42].

Capital Gains Tax – Retrospective Amendment and Fair Market Value – Petitioners’ Claim of Bona Fide Interpretation Accepted – The petitioners had not offered capital gains on share sale under OFS due to lack of valuation mechanism prior to amendment of Section 55(2)(ac) – They claimed refund of advance tax already paid – Court accepted that tax could not be paid due to statutory lacuna in law before the retrospective amendment and held this could not justify a search under Section 132 [Paras 9-13, 38].

Section 139(8A) – Bar on Updated Returns – Search Prevents Statutory Right – Petitioners argued that after the unlawful search, they were prevented from filing updated returns under Section 139(8A) due to statutory bar – Held: Petitioners were placed at an irreversible disadvantage due to illegal action by Revenue, reinforcing the need to strike down the search [Paras 13, 43].

Post-search Justifications – Invalid Basis for Search – Supplementary Documents Ignored – The Court emphasized that the validity of search must be judged on pre-search information – Supplementary material and satisfaction note additions post-search were irrelevant and inadmissible – Held: Search authorization cannot be retroactively justified [Paras 44-46].

Notice under Section 131(1A) – Issued by Authorized Officer Post-search – Notice Quashed – The impugned notice dated 27.01.2025 under Section 131(1A) was issued by the same officer who conducted the search under Section 132 – Held: Authorized Officer under Section 132 cannot invoke powers under Section 131(1A) post-search as it violates statutory safeguards – Notice was declared invalid [Paras 49-54].

Final Decision – Warrant of Authorization and Search Proceedings Quashed – The Court held that the search conducted under Section 132 and the notice issued under Section 131(1A) were unsustainable in law – Petitions allowed – Revenue was granted liberty to proceed under other applicable provisions of the Act, including Section 148, if warranted [Paras 48, 55-56].

Civil Law - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Delay Condonation – Exorbitant Delay – Lack of Bona Fides – Delay Not Condoned – The petitioner sought to condone a delay of 4864 days in filing a revision petition against the dismissal of an application to implead legal heirs in a suit for specific performance – The only ground cited was ignorance of earlier proceedings due to residing at her matrimonial home – Held: No sufficient cause was made out – Delay attributed to a casual and negligent approach without due diligence or urgency to pursue legal remedy [Paras 2–6].

Specific Performance Suit – Legal Heirs and Procedural Diligence – Dismissal for Delay – Earlier revision filed by co-legal heirs was dismissed in 2020 for non-compliance of court directions – The petitioner, despite knowledge, did not act promptly even post-dismissal – Held: The conduct revealed a callous and indifferent attitude – Relief in equity-based suits like specific performance demands timely, diligent participation – Petition dismissed [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court held that the explanation offered for the inordinate delay was unsatisfactory and indicative of negligence – Delay of over 13 years (4864 days) was not condonable in the absence of genuine reasons – The petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and the unnumbered revision suit stood dismissed without costs [Para 6].

Criminal Law – Section 406, 420, 34 of the IPC - Debit Freeze of Bank Account – Power Under Section 102 CrPC – Applicability of BNSS Sections 106 and 107 – Debit Freeze Lifted – The petitioner challenged the debit freeze of its bank account imposed by the police during investigation of a cheating case involving transfer of money allegedly from the proceeds of crime – Held: While Section 106 of BNSS (similar to Section 102 CrPC) empowers police to seize property for investigation, attachment or freezing of bank accounts suspected to be proceeds of crime must follow the procedure under Section 107 of BNSS, requiring Magistrate’s order – Police cannot unilaterally impose debit freeze without such order – Debit freeze set aside, liberty granted to police to proceed under Section 107 BNSS if warranted [Paras 6-14].

Attachment vs Seizure – Distinction Clarified – Section 106 BNSS deals with seizure of property related to the offence or under suspicious circumstances for investigation purposes – Section 107 BNSS governs attachment of properties deemed to be proceeds of crime, requiring judicial oversight through Magistrate’s orders – Debit freezing of bank accounts amounts to attachment rather than mere seizure and must comply with Section 107, not Section 106 – Impugned action without following this procedure is invalid [Paras 10-13].

Proceeds of Crime – BNSS Section 107 – Mandatory Judicial Process – Court explained that proceeds of crime as defined under Section 111(c) BNSS can only be attached by a Magistrate after issuing notice, hearing parties, and satisfying statutory conditions – Interim attachment possible only if delay defeats the object – In this case, police acted without initiating such process, rendering the action illegal [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Debit Freeze Order Set Aside – Petition Allowed – The order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery in C.M.P. No.739/2025 is quashed – The debit freeze imposed on the petitioner’s account is lifted – Police at liberty to proceed under Section 107 of BNSS if necessary [Para 14].

Service Law – Regularisation – Omission from Earlier List – Entitlement Established – The Travancore Devaswom Board sought permission to regularise the services of three additional respondents who had completed five years of service as on 31.03.2012 – Their omission from the list regularised pursuant to judgment dated 31.05.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 6021/2011 was inadvertent – Held: The omission was administrative in nature and did not affect their entitlement to regularisation – Petition allowed [Paras 1–9, 22–23].

Irregular vs Illegal Appointments – Application of Uma Devi Doctrine – Irregular Appointments Covered – The Court considered the doctrine in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and clarified that the appointments of the applicants were not illegal but irregular – Citing Supreme Court rulings in Jaggo (2024 SCC OnLine 3826), Vinod Kumar (2024) 1 SCR 1230, and Shripal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221), the Court held that long-serving employees on sanctioned posts are entitled to regularisation – Backdoor entries distinguished from legitimate irregular appointments [Paras 10–16, 22–23].

Constitutional Principles – Parity and Fairness – Equal Treatment Mandated – Other similarly situated employees were already regularised pursuant to the 2012 judgment – Held: Denial of regularisation to the petitioners while others were regularised constitutes violation of the principle of parity and equal treatment – The constitution of the Devaswom Recruitment Board post-2012 cannot retrospectively affect their claims [Paras 10–12, 21–23].

Decision – Application Allowed – Regularisation Directed – The Court allowed the Travancore Devaswom Board to regularise the services of additional respondents 3 to 5 – Their appointments, being on sanctioned posts with more than five years’ continuous service as of 31.03.2012, were held to be irregular but not illegal – Omission from the earlier list was inadvertent – Regularisation ordered in parity with 28 others previously regularised under the same criteria [Paras 22–23].

Criminal Law - Dishonor of Cheque – Acquittal by Trial Court – Opportunity to Examine Bank Manager Denied – Matter Remanded – The complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the NI Act which was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the dishonor memos (Exts.P2 and P3) did not contain the cheque number – Held: As per Section 146 of the NI Act, bank’s dishonor memo is prima facie evidence, but it must contain the cheque number and related details – Trial Court erred in denying the complainant’s request to examine the Bank Manager to prove this crucial fact – Acquittal set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal after granting the complainant opportunity to examine the Bank Manager [Paras 6, 9-13].

Section 146 NI Act – Presumption of Dishonor – Applicability Explained – The Court clarified that while Section 146 creates a presumption based on the bank’s slip or memo, the memo must contain specific details like the cheque number, date, and amount to be effective evidence – In absence of these details, oral evidence through the Bank Manager is necessary to prove dishonor – Failure to permit such evidence amounts to violation of fair trial principles [Paras 9-11].

Natural Justice – Denial of Right to Adduce Evidence – Judgment Unsustainable – The dismissal of the complainant’s petition to summon the Bank Manager deprived him of a fair opportunity to prove his case – Held: Such denial vitiates the trial – Appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and remand the case for proper adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Judgment of Acquittal Set Aside – Matter Remanded – The judgment dated 06.02.2014 in S.T. No.10 of 2012 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Karunagappally is set aside – The complainant is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 01.07.2025 at 11:00 a.m. – Trial Court to dispose of the case afresh after permitting examination of the Bank Manager – Appeal allowed [Paras 13].