Criminal Law – Acquittal in Murder Case – Section 302 IPC – Appeal Against Acquittal Allowed – The trial court acquitted the accused based on alibi and lack of motive, finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient – The High Court, upon re-evaluating the testimonies and the material evidence, including the recovery of the weapon, held that the trial court erred in relying on unproven documents and incomplete defense evidence – The plea of alibi was not substantiated adequately [Paras 10-20].

Plea of Alibi – Burden of Proof – Defense Failed to Prove Alibi – The defense presented photocopied military records to prove the presence of certain accused at Roorkee at the time of the crime – The Court rejected the plea of alibi, emphasizing that primary documents and author testimony were not provided to validate the defense's claim [Paras 15-17].

Witness Credibility – Eye Witness Testimony – The Court restored the conviction based on the consistent and corroborated testimony of the eyewitness, PW-13, which matched the events described in the FIR – The Court found no contradictions in the witness's account, and his testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination [Paras 21-22].

Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the acquittal was set aside. The case was remanded for sentencing of the accused in light of the restored conviction under Sections 302, 149 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Motor Accident – Negligence and Compensation – Petition Dismissed – The appellant, Harbans Kaur, was injured when a scooter driven by Darshan Lal allegedly struck her leg, causing crush injuries and a blunt head injury – The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) dismissed her claim, finding insufficient evidence to link the accident with the scooter driven by Darshan Lal – On appeal, the High Court upheld the MACT's decision, emphasizing the lack of immediate police reporting, delayed complaint, and contradictory statements regarding the transfer of vehicle ownership [Paras 10-15].

Delay in Filing Claim – Adverse Impact – The claim petition was filed more than three years after the accident, raising doubts about the credibility of the incident – The delay in filing, combined with the absence of a timely police report and the eventual registration of a complaint only after the petition was filed, contributed to the Court's decision to dismiss the claim [Paras 14-16].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision to deny compensation was upheld.

Anticipatory Bail – SC/ST (PoA) Act – False Implication – Bar Under Section 18 - The appellants sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the charges were filed as a counterblast to an incident involving political rivalry and that they were falsely implicated – Held: Based on the material, including the FIR, the parties were found to be living in inimical terms, raising doubts about the veracity of the complaint – False implication cannot be ruled out, and anticipatory bail granted despite the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act – Decision: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 6-8, 12-14].

Custodial Interrogation – No Need Established – Bail Granted - The prosecution did not establish the need for custodial interrogation, and the accused in a connected case were already granted bail – Anticipatory bail granted with conditions – Decision: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 9-10, 18].

Evaluation of Prima Facie Case – SC/ST Act – No Bar on Anticipatory Bail - In evaluating whether a prima facie case under the SC/ST (PoA) Act existed, the court found insufficient evidence to apply the statutory bar under Section 18, following precedents such as Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Subhash Kashinath Mahajan – Bail granted – Decision: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 11, 16-17].

Trade Mark – Passing Off – Use of Identical Mark – Interim Injunction Upheld – The Appellant, Wipro Enterprises, used the mark "EVECARE" for a female hygiene wash, while the Respondents, Himalaya Wellness Company, used the same mark for an Ayurvedic uterine tonic – Held: Both parties are registered proprietors of the mark in different classes (Class 3 and Class 5, respectively). However, the court upheld the interim injunction restraining the Appellant from using the mark, as a prima facie case of passing off was established – The products, though different, target the same set of consumers (women) and are related to female reproductive health, which could lead to confusion – The court found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s order of injunction and dismissed the appeal [Paras 15-21].

Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat – Public Utility Services – Passport Issuance Not Within Ambit – Petition Allowed – The petitioners challenged the orders of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) directing the issuance of passports and imposing penalties for delays – The Court held that issuance of passports is a sovereign function governed by the Passports Act, 1967, and does not fall within the definition of "immigration services" or "public utility services" under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – The Permanent Lok Adalat exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders [Paras 16-18].

Sovereign Function – Passport as Property of the Central Government – The Court reiterated that a passport is a sovereign document and remains the property of the Central Government as per Section 17 of the Passports Act, 1967 – The issuance of passports involves scrutiny related to national security and foreign relations, making it a non-commercial, sovereign function [Paras 16-17].

Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the awards passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Ludhiana (dated 20.10.2023) and Sangrur (dated 30.11.2023), were set aside.

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Departmental Inquiry – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a Bulldozer Operator, was compulsorily retired following a departmental inquiry for misbehaving with committee members during an interview process, being intoxicated during work hours, and other charges – On appeal, the dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement – The Court upheld the order, noting that the inquiry was conducted per the rules and natural justice principles, and all dues had been released to the petitioner [Paras 7-12].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court Not an Appellate Authority – The Court reiterated that in disciplinary matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to ensuring compliance with procedural rules and natural justice – The Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence [Paras 9-13].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the order of compulsory retirement was found to be valid, and all admissible dues had been released.

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Long Pre-trial Incarceration – Speedy Trial – The petitioner, charged with offenses under Sections 302, 307, 324, 379, 411, 483, 506, 34, and 120-B of the IPC, sought bail after being in custody for over 4 years. Only 5 out of 21 witnesses had been examined in that period – Held: The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, coupled with the absence of any strong indication that the petitioner would tamper with witnesses, justified the grant of bail. The protracted incarceration without meaningful trial progress was deemed unjustifiable – Bail granted, subject to strict conditions to ensure the petitioner’s attendance at trial and to prevent witness tampering [Paras 6-11].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution of India – The right to speedy trial, embedded in Article 21, requires that an accused should not be subjected to indefinite pre-trial detention. Relying on judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the court reiterated that prolonged delay without justifiable reasons infringes upon personal liberty. In this case, the petitioner’s long detention of over 4 years warranted his release on bail in the absence of trial progress [Paras 7-9].

Decision:
The bail petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. Stringent conditions, including reporting to the police and restrictions on influencing witnesses, are imposed to ensure the petitioner’s compliance during the trial. The State is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if any of these conditions are violated or if the petitioner engages in further criminal activity [Paras 12-13].
 

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Discharge – Absence of Sexual Intent – Revision Petition Allowed – The petitioner, a college student, was charged under the POCSO Act for allegedly entering the victim's house and attempting to force her to revive a past relationship – The Trial Court rejected his discharge plea – Held: Upon examination of the evidence, including the victim’s and her mother’s statements, it was found that no sexual intent or assault occurred – The Court further noted that the petitioner and the victim had been in a consensual relationship during their school years, and the case arose from a failed attempt by the petitioner to revive the relationship – The victim and her family expressed a lack of interest in pursuing the case, and no credible evidence of house trespass or harm was presented – The petitioner was discharged from the case [Paras 5-7].

Victim’s Consent to Withdraw Case – No Sexual Assault Proven – The Court observed that both the victim and her mother appeared before the Court and confirmed that they were not inclined to proceed with the case – Given the absence of evidence indicating sexual assault or trespass, and the victim’s and her family's statements, the case against the petitioner was dismissed [Paras 8-9].

Impact on Petitioner’s Future – The Court held that the case and its outcome would not affect the petitioner’s future employment or prospects, as no substantive offence was proven against him – The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Petitioner discharged – The case and its record shall not be used against the petitioner in any future context, including employment [Para 11].
 

Liability of Directors – Section 179 of the Income Tax Act – Natural Justice – Order Set Aside - The petitioner, a director of a private company, challenged the order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, which held him personally liable for the company's tax dues. The Court held that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to prove that non-recovery of the tax was not due to any gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty on his part, which violated the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was quashed [Paras 9-12].

Principles of Natural Justice – Necessity of Hearing Directors Before Imposing Liability - The Court emphasized that Section 179 imposes a reverse burden on directors, but this burden can only be discharged if the director is given a fair opportunity to present evidence. The absence of a show cause notice and failure to follow principles of natural justice rendered the order unlawful [Paras 11-13].

Remand to Revenue Authorities – Fresh Consideration with Notice to the Petitioner - The Court set aside the impugned order, granting liberty to the Revenue to issue a fresh notice and follow due process in accordance with law before passing any final order [Paras 15-16].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Order Quashed - The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the Income Tax Department to reconsider the case after issuing proper notice to the petitioner [Para 16].