Bail Application – NDPS Act – The petitioner, accused under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, sought bail after being in custody for nearly four months – The Court considered that the petitioner was named in the FIR solely based on a co-accused's disclosure statement, and no contraband was recovered from him – Trial had not yet begun, and the Court highlighted the prolonged pre-conviction detention and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 [Paras 1-6].

Right to Speedy Trial – The Court emphasized that continued detention without trial constitutes a violation of the right to a speedy trial – The Court cited Supreme Court precedents, stressing that pre-conviction detention should be minimized and that undue delay in trials could impair the accused’s defense [Para 5].

Previous Convictions – While acknowledging the petitioner's involvement in other FIRs, the Court held that bail should not be denied solely on this ground – The Court referenced the judgment in Baljinder Singh alias Rock v. State of Punjab [CRM-M-25914-2022], underscoring that each case must be evaluated on its own merits [Para 5].

Decision:

The petitioner was granted regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Service Tax – Exemption for Sub-Contractors – Assessment Order Challenged – Petitioner engaged in execution of works contracts as a sub-contractor argued that the services rendered were exempt from service tax. The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to produce conclusive evidence supporting the claim of exemption and also questioned the authenticity of the agreement presented. The court highlighted procedural requirements and the necessity of substantial evidence to support exemption claims under the Finance Act [Paras 3-14].

Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedy – The court emphasized that the proper recourse for the petitioner was to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Tax and Central Excise rather than directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy [Paras 8-16].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – The High Court upheld the order of the assessing authority, emphasizing that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal process. No costs were awarded. All pending interlocutory applications were closed [Paras 15-16].

Income Tax – Draft Assessment Order – CBDT Circular No. 549/1989 – The petitioner challenged the reliance on the Circular by the AO, arguing it was outdated and inapplicable under the amended Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act as applicable for AY 2005-06 to AY 2008-09. The Court noted the changes in the statutory provisions that allow refunds post-assessment and held that the Circular was not determinative of the issue [Paras 1-9].

Tribunal Powers – Section 254 of the Income Tax Act – The Court affirmed that the Tribunal has plenary powers to entertain new claims, even if not raised in the original return, especially if a direction is framed by a Court or Tribunal. It cited the decisions in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd to underscore the Tribunal’s authority [Paras 10-14].

Revisionary Jurisdiction – Section 264 of the Income Tax Act – Emphasized that the CIT’s revisionary powers allow the introduction of new grounds not urged before lower authorities. The Court referred to past rulings in cases like Parekh Brothers v. CIT and Sneh Lata Jain v. CIT to support this position [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – The Court quashed the final assessment orders dated 30 November 2021 and the consequential demand and penalty notices. It directed the AO to reconsider the additional grounds raised by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with the law [Para 20-21].
 

Limitation Period – Article 60 of Limitation Act – Suit filed by minors – Time limit for challenging deed executed by guardian: The court held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs, who were minors at the time of deed execution, must be within three years of attaining majority. Based on evidence, the plaintiffs failed to meet this requirement, rendering their claims barred by limitation [Paras 10-15].

Validity of Deed – Legal Necessity and Benefit to Minors: The court discussed the necessity of proving legal necessity for the sale of property executed by a guardian on behalf of minors. The plaintiffs did not establish that the sale was for their benefit, and the court found the deed to be executed without the required legal necessity [Paras 16-18].

Evidence – Reliability of Documents and Testimonies: The court scrutinized the school admission register and testimonies to ascertain the dates of birth of the plaintiffs. It found that the interpolations in the school register were apparent and the testimonies were not reliable, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation [Paras 11-14, 17].

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge and affirming the dismissal order of the Trial Court, thereby dismissing the suit (T.S. No. 49 of 1974) [Paras 19-20].
 

Criminal Law – Acquittal for Attempted Murder and Assault – Respondents acquitted of charges under Sections 307, 323, 341 IPC by the trial court due to unexplained delay in lodging FIR, unreliable medical evidence, and lack of independent corroboration of the complainant’s testimony – High Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused [Paras 1-22].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of six days in filing the FIR – High Court stressed that prompt FIR filing is crucial to prevent suspicion and potential embellishment – Court highlighted the absence of any plausible reason for the delay as damaging to the prosecution’s credibility [Paras 12-13].

Medical Evidence – Contradictory and unreliable medical evidence – Complainant’s medical condition found stable and well-oriented at the time of examination, contradicting claims of unfitness to make a statement – High Court noted manipulation in medical records, undermining the prosecution’s case [Paras 14-16].

Witness Testimony – Complainant’s testimony lacked independent corroboration – Defense argued plausible alternative explanation for injuries, supported by medical witness admission – High Court found the trial court correctly disbelieved the complainant’s version due to suspicious circumstances and manipulation [Paras 17-19].

Double Presumption of Innocence – High Court reaffirmed the principle of double presumption of innocence for acquitted individuals – Emphasized that acquittal warrants interference only for compelling reasons, which were not present in this case [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – Leave to appeal declined [Paras 22].
 

Live-in Relationship – Protection of Minor – The petitioners sought protection for their life and liberty, as they were in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their families – Petitioner No.2 is a minor aged 17 years – The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to ensure the safety of the minor by producing her before the Child Welfare Committee, as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [Paras 1-7].

Juvenile Justice – Directions for Minor – The Court issued directions based on the precedent set in the case of P. Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana and another [CRWP-2139-2022], ensuring the minor's protection and appropriate placement by the Child Welfare Committee – The Committee was instructed to conduct an inquiry and take decisions regarding the minor’s safety and well-being [Paras 6-7].

Decision:

The petition was disposed of with directions to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad, to ensure the minor’s safety and to consider the petitioners' representation for protection. The ongoing investigation was not to be hindered by this order.

Criminal Law – Conviction under Gangsters Act – Appellant convicted under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act – Trial court sentenced appellant to four years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine – Prosecution’s evidence primarily based on a single FIR and witness testimonies – High Court examines procedural lapses, evidence admissibility, and credibility of witnesses [Paras 1-88]. 

Evidence Act – Hostile Witnesses and Corroborative Evidence – Court scrutinizes the testimony of key witnesses, including hostile witnesses – Emphasis on corroborative evidence linking appellant to the gang activities – Court addresses the legal standards for invoking Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act [Paras 62-70, 57-61]. 

Acquittal in Base Case and Impact on Gangsters Act Conviction – Appellant previously acquitted in a related murder case – Appellant’s acquittal used to challenge the Gangsters Act conviction – Court discusses the implications of acquittal on subsequent convictions under the Gangsters Act [Paras 34-48]. 

Procedural Lapses in Gangsters Act Application – Examination of procedural requirements under the Gangsters Act – Collector’s mechanical approval without proper enquiry – Importance of reasoned decisions by authorities highlighted [Paras 75-82]. 

Decision – Appeals partially allowed – Conviction under Gangsters Act set aside due to procedural deficiencies and lack of sufficient evidence – Appellant acquitted of charges under the Gangsters Act – High Court emphasizes need for proper procedural adherence and reliable evidence in such convictions [Para 14-15]. 

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC for offences under Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act – Contention that petitioner was not directly involved in the contravention, merely being the owner of a drug license and a medicine shop – Alleged procedural lapses in seizure and inventory preparation – Prosecution's reliance on co-accused's statements inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act – Supreme Court precedent in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu applied – Court held that mobile call records and other prima facie evidence justified continuation of proceedings [Paras 1-29].

Evidence Law – Admissibility – Co-accused Statements – Statements made by co-accused to customs officers deemed inadmissible as confessions under Section 25 of the Evidence Act – However, such statements can be corroborative – Court upheld the prima facie establishment of conspiracy through call records and corroborative evidence [Paras 24-25].

Procedure – Seizure and Inventory – NDPS Act Compliance – Allegations of procedural non-compliance in seizure and inventory under Section 52 of the NDPS Act – Court observed such procedural issues to be decided during trial – Emphasized that prima facie evidence warranted trial [Paras 28-29].

Decision:

Criminal revision petition dismissed – Prima facie material sufficient to proceed with trial – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings without unnecessary adjournments [Paras 29-31].

Senior Citizen Law – Voidance of Gift Deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – High Court quashes order of the Assistant Commissioner dismissing the mother’s petition – The Court held that the absence of a clause in the Gift Deed obligating the donee (son) to take care of the donor’s (mother’s) basic needs does not preclude the application of Section 23 of the Act. The petition was maintainable, and the son’s failure to provide for his aged mother, despite her having gifted him the property, warranted declaring the Gift Deed void [Paras 1-19].

Legal Principles – Interpretation of Section 23 of the Act – The Court rejected the argument that the donor must have been a senior citizen at the time of executing the Gift Deed for Section 23 to apply. The focus is on the donor’s status as a senior citizen at the time of filing the petition, not at the time of the property’s transfer. The Court emphasized that the Act aims to ensure the welfare of senior citizens, regardless of the specific terms of the Gift Deed [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Allowance of Writ Petition – Held – The Writ Petition was allowed, the Gift Deed declared void, and the son was directed to return the gifted property to his mother within sixty days. The Court upheld the legislative intent to protect senior citizens’ welfare, ensuring that adult children fulfill their obligations to their elderly parents [Paras 18-19].