Criminal Law – Evidence of Victim – Conviction based on sole testimony of victim of sexual assault without corroboration – Legal standards for reliability of victim’s testimony examined – Statements of prosecutrix must be appreciated on the principles of probabilities, broader probabilities to be examined, minor contradictions not fatal [Paras 13-17].

Chain of Custody – Forensic Evidence – Failure to connect forensic samples with commission of the offence – Discrepancies in the chain of custody – Possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out – SFSL reports unreliable due to procedural lapses [Paras 23-24].

Kidnapping – Enticement and Consent – Victim below 18 years, consent irrelevant – Accused convicted under Section 363 IPC for kidnapping from lawful guardianship – Prosecution failed to prove intent for illicit intercourse, acquittal under Sections 366, 366-A IPC [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 366, 366-A, 376(3) IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act set aside – Conviction under Section 363 IPC upheld – Appellant directed to be released forthwith as sentence already undergone [Paras 27-29].

Family Law – Restoration of Petition – Appellant’s Conduct –

Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act dismissed for default as appellant and his counsel failed to appear on the scheduled date – Appellant walked out during proceedings on the prior date and did not return – Filed for restoration under Order IX Rule 4 CPC after four months – Appellant blamed counsel for advising non-appearance – Family Court dismissed restoration application, citing lack of sufficient cause and appellant’s disrespect to the court [Paras 6-15, 23-27].

Presence of Parties in Family Court – Requirement and Consequences –

Under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, personal presence of parties typically required – Appellant failed to justify absence and walking out of court proceedings – Supreme Court emphasized importance of parties’ presence and criticized appellant for not taking responsibility for his actions [Paras 17-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed –

Family Court’s decision upheld – Appellant’s petition for restoration dismissed due to failure to show sufficient cause – Court emphasized that appellant cannot benefit from his own wrong and must take responsibility for court proceedings [Paras 25-28].

Land Partition – Mode of Partition – Finality of Unchallenged Orders: Appeal against the orders of partition was dismissed as appellants failed to challenge the foundational order establishing the mode of partition – High Court upheld the consistent reasoning of the subordinate revenue authorities and the writ court – Emphasis on statutory appeal processes [Paras 1-15].

Statutory Appeals and Revisions – Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act – Sections 14, 17, 130(2) – Proper Invocation of Legal Procedures: The appellants’ failure to challenge the mode of partition order dated 6.9.2022 precluded subsequent collateral attacks – Authorities and writ court’s decisions aligned in rejecting appellants’ challenges as per statutory requirements [Paras 8-13].

Jurisdiction of Writ Court – Limited to Patent Illegality or Perversity – Family Partition Dispute: Writ Court’s jurisdiction restricted to examining patent illegality or perversity – Claim of family partition in 1990 rejected by revenue authorities and not adequately presented before writ court – Appeals found without merit and dismissed accordingly [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – No orders as to costs – Pending applications disposed of [Para 15].

Refund of Tax – Settlement Scheme – Adjustment of Refund – Petitioner claimed refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for the year 2011-2012 which was adjusted against dues for the year 2010-2011 – Petitioner already paid the dues for 2010-2011 under the Settlement Scheme – Adjustment by Respondents made without authority – High Court ordered refund with interest [Paras 1-20].

Legality of Adjustment Orders – Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme – Rule 55 of MVAT Rules – Respondents’ adjustment of refund after the petitioner’s payment under the Settlement Scheme found illegal – Refund adjustment order quashed – Importance of adherence to statutory provisions emphasized [Paras 9-14].

Interest on Refund – Rule 88 of MVAT Rules – Petitioner entitled to interest on refunded amount from 1^st June 2019 until the date of payment – Court highlighted that state authorities must not retain excess amounts [Para 19].

Decision – Petition allowed – Orders by Respondents set aside – Respondents directed to refund Rs. 10,69,89,606/- with interest at 6% per annum from 1^st June 2019 – Petitioner to provide bank details for refund processing [Para 19].

Pre-arrest Bail – Economic Offences – Judicial Discretion – Petitioners, accused of breach of trust and cheating in granting loans and fixing deposit interests contrary to circulars, sought pre-arrest bail – High Court denied the bail, emphasizing the serious nature of the economic offences and the necessity for custodial interrogation – Court underscored that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly, particularly in complex economic offences with deep-rooted conspiracies [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Principles – Application for Bail – The Court noted that detailed examination of evidence is not required at bail stage, but there should be a prima facie case and consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusations – Reference made to Supreme Court’s guidelines on dealing with economic offences and judicial discretion in bail matters [Paras 9-14].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Held – Custodial interrogation necessary for thorough investigation – Granting bail could impede the investigation and affect public interest adversely [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Corruption – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellant, a clerk, convicted for accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000 to expedite the processing of a telephone PCO booth application – Trial court’s judgment affirmed with modification in sentencing – Sentences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 upheld – Sentencing reduced from two years to one year due to prolonged trial and appellant’s age [Paras 1-24].

Trap Procedure and Evidence – Verification and Trap – Detailed recounting of pre-trap and post-trap procedures – Phenolphthalein test used to establish acceptance of bribe – Recovery of tainted money corroborated by multiple witnesses – Compliance with procedural requirements confirmed [Paras 11-17.2].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Multiple witnesses including CBI officers and independent witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s case – Defense’s argument of appellant’s absence due to leave disproved by witness testimonies [Paras 9.1-9.12].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Prosecution sanction provided by competent authority – Detailed perusal of relevant documents confirmed by General Manager, Dhanbad Circle [Para 18].

Quantum of Sentence – Mitigating Factors – Appellant faced trial for over 23 years – Age of appellant considered – Sentence reduced to minimum one year prescribed under the Act [Paras 20-21.2].

Decision:

Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Affirmed – Sentence Reduced – Appellant’s bail bonds cancelled – Directed to surrender for serving remaining sentence [Paras 22-24].

Family Pension – Entitlement of Disabled Dependent – Petitioner, suffering from 60% disability, claimed family pension following the death of his mother. His claim was rejected by the Senior Accounts Officer on grounds of his prior ability to run a public call office (PCO). The High Court found the rejection improper, noting the petitioner’s entitlement under the government order dated 20.05.1997. It held that the committee assessing the claim lacked the requisite medical expertise to override the Chief Medical Officer’s disability certificate and emphasized the validity of such certificates unless questioned by a medical board or higher medical authority [Paras 1-12].

Medical Evidence – Validity and Assessment – The committee’s decision, lacking medical expertise, was deemed unsustainable. The court underscored that disability assessments for pension purposes should be conducted by qualified medical professionals and not by administrative officers without medical training [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed. The rejection order dated 12.11.2020 was set aside. The respondents were directed to grant family pension to the petitioner within one month of the presentation of a certified copy of this order [Paras 12-13].

Jurisdiction – Commercial Nature of Dispute – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court returned the plaint due to lack of jurisdiction, classifying the dispute as commercial in nature – Petitioner’s application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act dismissed – High Court emphasizes that the suit should be transferred to the appropriate Commercial Court instead of being returned – Orders of the Trial Court set aside and the suit transferred to the Commercial Court for trial from the current stage [Paras 1-23].

Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Exclusion of Time – Petitioner’s application for exclusion of time under Section 14 due to previous proceedings in a court without jurisdiction – High Court allows exclusion of time and mandates consideration of the application by the Commercial Court [Paras 20-23].

Transfer of Suit under Section 24 CPC – High Court exercises power under Section 24 to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure judicial efficiency – Emphasizes that non-compliance with special pleadings can be rectified upon transfer [Paras 20-23].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Impugned orders of the ADJ set aside – Suit transferred to the Court of learned District Judge (Commercial)-02, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, for trial from the current stage – All objections including limitation to be considered by the transferee court – Parties directed to appear before the Commercial Court on 15.07.2024 [Para 23].

Procedural Law – Application and Transition – Savings Clause – FIR registered before the enactment of BNSS, 2023, must be dealt with under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., 1973, as per Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS – Petition initially filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was converted to Section 528 BNSS due to a registry objection – High Court clarified that ongoing investigations prior to BNSS enforcement should continue under the old code – Petition treated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 2-9].

Investigation Fairness – Legal Remedies – Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the investigation – Court directed petitioner to seek remedies through Section 36 Cr.P.C. or approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for further investigation – High Court emphasized the need for procedural propriety and exploring all legal avenues before approaching higher judiciary [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forums if advised. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of [Paras 15-16].