Income Tax Law – Assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Appeals against ITAT’s deletion of additions under Section 68 – Assessments based on voluntary disclosure of unaccounted income during a search operation – ITAT quashed additions due to lack of incriminating material found during the search – Held, assessment cannot be based solely on statements recorded under Section 132(4) without corroborative evidence – AO’s failure to provide cross-examination of witnesses amounts to a violation of natural justice, rendering the assessment invalid – Reliance on Section 292B to cure jurisdictional defects found unmerited – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-37]

Evidence Evaluation – Statements under Section 132(4) – Mere admissions by the assessee during search insufficient for assessment without corroborative material – Statements recorded under Section 132(4) can only constitute information and must be corroborated by evidence discovered during the search – Courts reaffirmed that assessments should be based on tangible evidence found during search operations, not solely on admissions. [Paras 20-23, 25]

Principles of Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examination – Failure to provide cross-examination of key witnesses violates natural justice – Supreme Court’s precedent in Andaman Timber Industries reaffirms that denial of cross-examination renders orders null and void – Jurisdictional AO must provide an opportunity for cross-examination when requested by the assessee – Assessments based on statements without cross-examination deemed invalid. [Paras 30-32]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – Appeals dismissed due to lack of incriminating material and violation of principles of natural justice – ITAT’s order setting aside assessments and deleting additions upheld – The assessment proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities and lack of substantiated evidence. [Para 37]

Labour Law – Implementation of Wage Board Award – Applicability of Exemption Clause – The appellant challenged the enforcement of the Majithia Wage Board Award, which mandated revised wages for newspaper employees. The primary contention was that the appellant was exempt from making such payments due to “heavy cash losses” incurred in the preceding three financial years. The court evaluated the factual matrix and balance sheets provided by the appellant and concluded that the appellant failed to establish continuous crippling losses necessary for the claimed exemption. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the Wage Board Award upheld by the Supreme Court. Held: The appellant is not entitled to exemption from paying revised wages as per the Majithia Wage Board Award. [Paras 1-56]

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitation – Reiteration of Legal Principles – The appellant sought review of the initial order dismissing their plea for exemption under the Wage Board Award. The court reiterated that the scope of review is limited and cannot be used to reargue the same points already decided or to introduce new grounds not raised initially. The appellant’s acquiescence to jurisdiction and participation in proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections at earlier stages precludes raising such objections in review. Held: Review petitions dismissed; no new grounds for reconsideration found. [Paras 36-56]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Both the impugned judgment and the review order passed by the learned Single Judge were upheld. The appellant is directed to comply with the Majithia Wage Board Award and pay the arrears to the respondent employees within four weeks. No order as to costs. [Paras 57-59]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Vicarious Liability – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Azim Premji seeking quashing of complaint proceedings and related orders. The complaint involved alleged violations of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, by G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., a third-party security service provider for Wipro Ltd. The applicant, as Chairman and Managing Director of Wipro Ltd., was not directly involved in the operations of the Wipro office at Lucknow or the management of G4S. Supreme Court precedents on vicarious liability of corporate directors were extensively considered.

Held – The Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind and ensure compliance with legal provisions. No direct role or criminal intent of the applicant in the alleged violations was established. Summoning order and bailable warrant against the applicant quashed. The continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. [Paras 1-40]

Vicarious Liability – Directors of Company – Legal Principles – Court reiterated that directors or senior officers of a company can be made vicariously liable only if specific statutory provisions exist and sufficient material proves their active role coupled with criminal intent. References were made to Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI and Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State of NCT of Delhi regarding vicarious liability. [Paras 21-25]

Judicial Application of Mind – Requirement for Issuing Process – need for Magistrates to apply judicial mind before issuing summons, ensuring the sufficiency of allegations and evidence. Mechanical issuance of orders without proper reasoning is contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence. [Paras 31-34]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Order and Bailable Warrant – complaint proceedings, summoning order dated 03.09.2016, and bailable warrant dated 08.02.2017 were quashed. The Court found the actions against the applicant to lack legal and factual foundation, recognizing the applicant’s impeccable reputation and distinguishing career. [Paras 39-40]

NDPS Act – Conviction and Sentence – Recovery of poppy husk – Appellants not apprehended at the scene – Identification issues – Procedural lapses – Independent witness not examined – Case property not produced – Appeals allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 1-16].

Adverse Inference – Case property destruction due to flood – Allegation deemed unsupported – Trial court's reliance on uncorroborated testimony criticized [Paras 10-11].

Identification – No test identification parade conducted – Prosecution's reliance on witness claiming prior knowledge of appellants deemed insufficient – Absence of local witnesses to corroborate presence at crime scene noted [Paras 12-13].

Investigative Bias – Investigating Officer also the complainant – Potential for bias highlighted – Supreme Court precedents referenced [Para 15].

Relief – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 16-18].

Prevention of Corruption – Acquittal Appeal – State challenged acquittal of accused for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act – High Court upheld acquittal, noting discrepancies in prosecution's case and lack of credible evidence against respondent No.2 – Highlighted importance of consistency and corroboration in evidence for conviction [Paras 1-13].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Material Contradictions – Court noted significant contradictions in witness testimonies and evidence – Prosecution's case weakened by hostile witnesses and inconsistent statements regarding demand and acceptance of bribe – Emphasized need for clear and consistent evidence in corruption cases [Paras 9-10].

Legal Principles and Standards – Presumption of Innocence – Court reinforced the principle that acquittal should not be overturned unless findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous – Referenced Supreme Court rulings underscoring cautious approach in reversing acquittals [Paras 8, 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Trial court's judgment upheld due to lack of compelling evidence and contradictions in prosecution’s case [Paras 13].

Administrative Law - Doctrine of Pleasure - Validity of Removal – Writ Petition challenging removal from the post of Chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission – Petitioner contended removal was arbitrary, capricious, and without following principles of natural justice – Respondent argued removal was per the doctrine of pleasure as stated in Section 4 of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 – Court held that doctrine of pleasure allows removal without assigning reasons and without adhering to principles of natural justice – Petitioner's removal held valid as the statute provides for such action under the doctrine of pleasure. [Paras 10-13]

Judicial Review - Scope and Limitations – The scope of judicial review in cases of removal under the doctrine of pleasure – Court held that the power to remove is inherent under Section 4 of the Act, and judicial review is limited unless the removal is proven to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable – In this case, the petitioner's removal did not warrant interference as it was per statutory provisions. [Para 13-14]

Statutory Interpretation - Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 – Interpretation of terms "subject to the pleasure of the Government" – Court observed that Section 4 explicitly states the tenure is subject to the pleasure of the Government, distinguishing it from Section 5 which deals with disqualification for misconduct – No violation of statutory or constitutional rights found in the removal process. [Paras 8-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the removal of the petitioner from the position of Chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission – Confirmed that the removal was within the legal framework of the doctrine of pleasure and did not require adherence to the principles of natural justice. [Para 20]

Criminal Law – Offences under Sections 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Section 4(1)(i) of Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Amendment Act, 2023 – Petition for transfer of investigation and anticipatory bail – High Court’s dismissal of bail application and writ petition – Importance of custodial interrogation emphasized by Court – Judicial scrutiny upheld the need for arrest to ensure thorough investigation – Dismissal of anticipatory bail based on severity of allegations and existing evidence [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Evaluation – Court evaluated statements and case diary indicating prima facie evidence supporting the complainant’s allegations – Court found allegations credible and necessitated further investigation, rejecting anticipatory bail – Judicial scrutiny confirmed investigation was conducted appropriately without bias, but with an emphasis on necessity for arrest and custodial interrogation [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Dismissal of Bail Application and Disposition of Writ Petition – Held – Bail application was dismissed due to serious nature of allegations and necessity for custodial interrogation – Writ petition for transfer of investigation dismissed as current investigation was deemed satisfactory – Defacto complainant given liberty to re-approach the Court if further issues with investigation arise. [Para 13].

Criminal Law - Writ of Mandamus and Transfer of Investigation -  Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to transfer investigation of Crime No. 212/2024 from Mannanthala Police Station to a higher-ranking officer, preferably of IPS cadre - Petitioner, a healthcare professional, alleges biased investigation due to political influence - Court finds ongoing investigation without bias, despite delay in arrest - Directs Investigating Officer to conduct fair and unbiased investigation - Petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to re-approach if investigation seems improper. [Paras 1-4, 13]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail -  Bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the accused in the same crime - Allegations of molestation and abuse of a doctor in her clinic - Prosecution provides substantial evidence including victim's statement and CCTV footage - Court emphasizes necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation - Anticipatory bail denied considering seriousness of allegations and the non-bailable nature of offences under amended Healthcare Act. [Paras 5-12]

Trend of Violence Against Healthcare Professionals -  Court notes increasing instances of violence against doctors and hospital staff - Refers to legislative amendment making such offences non-bailable - Highlights the need for strict enforcement to deter such crimes - Upholds importance of custodial interrogation in serious cases involving healthcare professionals to ensure thorough investigation. [Paras 11-12]

Decision:- Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3364 of 2024 dismissed.- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 385 of 2024 disposed of, directing current Investigating Officer to continue investigation fairly.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Expeditious Trial - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction for expeditious conclusion of trial - Complaint filed in 2021 but trial not concluded - Emphasis on statutory mandate under Section 143(2) and 143(3) N.I. Act for day-to-day trial and conclusion within six months - Apex Court directions in Indian Bank Association v. Union of India (2014) and In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act (2021) for speedy disposal of cases reiterated - Court directs trial court to conclude trial within six months from receipt of order copy. [Paras 1-8]

Directions for Expeditious Disposal - Section 138 N.I. Act - Supreme Court Directions - Court reiterates necessity for expeditious trial and disposal of cases under Section 138 - Magistrates directed to follow procedures ensuring speedy trials as per guidelines from Supreme Court - Directions include day-to-day hearings, proper service of summons, and adherence to statutory timelines - Application disposed of with directions for trial court. [Paras 3-7]

Decision: The court directs the 5th Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Basti, to conclude the trial of Complaint Case No. 23545 of 2021 expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, in accordance with Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the N.I. Act, subject to no legal impediments. [Para 8]