Sexual Offences – Stalking and Sexual Harassment – Ingredients of Offence – Proof Required – Accused convicted under Sections 354A and 354D IPC and Section 12 PoCSO Act – High Court examined whether alleged acts constituted statutory ingredients of sexual harassment and stalking – Held: Mere abusive language, quarrel or threat without sexually coloured remarks, sexual overtures or sexual intent does not attract Section 354A IPC – Prosecution evidence failed to disclose any act falling under clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 354A IPC [Paras 21–22].

PoCSO Act – Sexual Harassment of Child – Sexual Intent – Proof of Minority – Conviction recorded under Section 12 PoCSO Act – Prosecution failed to conclusively establish that victim was a minor on the date of incident – School records based solely on parental disclosure without verification – No birth certificate or independent proof of age produced – Victim and father unable to state date of birth – Held: Minority not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Absence of sexual intent further negated applicability of Sections 11 and 12 PoCSO Act [Paras 18–19, 23–24].

Stalking – Section 354D IPC – Repeated Following – Credibility of Evidence – Allegation of repeated following and harassment for several months – Material contradictions between testimonies of victim (PW2), sister (PW3) and father (PW4) – Father did not support prosecution case and resiled from earlier statement – Monetary dispute between families admitted – Held: Inconsistent and unreliable evidence insufficient to sustain conviction for stalking – Ingredients of Section 354D IPC not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25–27].

Evidence – Hostile / Resiling Witness – Scope of Section 154 Evidence Act – Father of victim examined by prosecution with leave of Court under Section 154 Evidence Act after resiling from earlier statement – Court reiterated that permission under Section 154 does not amount to declaration of witness as “hostile” nor does it automatically render testimony unreliable – However, in present case, even after such examination, prosecution failed to extract material supporting charged offences [Paras 20–20.2, 27].

Criminal Trial – Benefit of Doubt – Failure to Prove Essential Ingredients – Prosecution evidence indicated that some incident or quarrel may have occurred – However, alleged acts at best suggested use of abusive language or intimidation – Accused not charged for offence of criminal intimidation – Court held that in absence of proof of essential ingredients of charged offences, conviction cannot be sustained – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 354A, 354D IPC and Section 12 PoCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. – Bail bonds cancelled – Appellant set at liberty – Pending applications disposed of.

Education Law – Higher Secondary Examination – Change of Examination Centre – Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 – Petitioner institution conducting +2 Vocational Music Course since 2011 – Institution recognized and treated as unaided (not self-financing) – Claim for continuation as independent examination centre for Higher Secondary Examination, 2026 – Examination already commenced with completion of practicals and theory examinations scheduled – Held: No interference warranted at the midst of examination process [Paras 1–4, 7–8].

Education Administration – Examination Management – Mid-course Interference – Practical examinations already concluded and theory examinations about to commence – Tagging of petitioner’s institution with another examination centre challenged – Court held that change of examination centre at an advanced stage would disrupt administration and management of examinations – Judicial restraint exercised [Paras 6–7].

Unaided Institution – Self-financing Institution – Classification Error Rectified – Petitioner’s institution initially shown as self-financing – Error corrected by competent authority prior to examination – However, correction alone does not justify alteration of examination centre during ongoing examination cycle [Paras 2, 6–7].

Judicial Review – Scope under Articles 226 and 227 – Court declined to issue mandamus for conduct of examination in petitioner’s institution for the year 2026 – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply for recognition as independent examination centre for subsequent academic years – Relief limited prospectively [Para 9].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction for change of examination centre for Higher Secondary Examination, 2026 – Opposite Parties directed to consider petitioner’s request for declaration as independent examination centre for Higher Secondary Examination, 2027 onwards [Paras 8–9].

Civil Law – Reopening of Evidence – Additional Documents – Belated Applications – Certified Copies of Sale Deeds – Discretion of Trial Court – Petitioners sought reopening of evidence and permission to mark additional documents more than three years after closure of their evidence – Applications filed under Section 151 CPC, Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC and Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Trial Court dismissed applications for failure to explain delay and absence of foundational pleadings – Held: No infirmity or arbitrariness in refusal to reopen evidence at such belated stage [Paras 2–4, 6].

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Production of Documents – Requirement of Due Diligence and Foundational Pleadings – Documents sought to be produced were not pleaded or relied upon in plaint – Petitioners had prior knowledge of documents even at time of chief affidavit – No explanation offered for non-production earlier – Held: Documents cannot be permitted to be introduced at a later stage without justification or pleadings [Paras 6–7].

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC – Limited Scope – Not Intended to Fill Lacunae – Power to recall witnesses or reopen evidence is discretionary and to be exercised sparingly – Cannot be invoked to patch up omissions or prolong litigation – Held: Applications were rightly rejected as an attempt to delay proceedings [Paras 3, 6].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Interlocutory Orders – High Court cannot substitute its view for that of Trial Court unless order is perverse or arbitrary – Petitioners failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or unreasonableness – Held: No ground made out for interference under Article 227 [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – Common order dated 07.10.2025 upheld – No costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law – Complaint Case – Mandatory Examination under Section 223 BNSS – Pre-Cognizance Notice – Illegality – Petition under Section 528 BNSS challenging issuance of pre-cognizance notice by Magistrate without recording sworn statement of complainant and witnesses – Complaint alleging reputational harm due to depiction of respondent as terrorist in feature film “Article 370” – Held: Examination of complainant on oath and reduction of substance in writing is mandatory prior to issuance of notice – Failure vitiates proceedings [Paras 5–11].

Criminal Procedure – Opportunity of Hearing to Accused – Scope of Proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS – Proviso mandates opportunity of being heard to accused only after Magistrate records sworn statement and before taking cognizance – Opportunity cannot be an empty formality – Notice must be accompanied by complaint, sworn statement and material relied upon – Issuance of notice without such material held unsustainable [Paras 6–9].

Pre-Cognizance Stage – Non-Application of Mind by Magistrate – Record revealed no sworn statements recorded and blank notice issued to petitioners – Mechanical issuance of notice without adherence to statutory procedure deprecated – Impugned order dated 30.12.2025 held prima facie illegal [Paras 8–11].

Interim Relief – Stay of Complaint Proceedings – In view of procedural illegality under BNSS, proceedings before Forest Magistrate, Srinagar stayed till next date of hearing – Liberty granted for alteration, modification or vacation on motion [Paras 12–13].

Miscellaneous Application – Dispensation of Certified Copies – Requirement of filing certified copies of impugned complaint and order dispensed with, subject to filing within two weeks – Application allowed [CrlM No. 72/2026, Paras 1–2].

Criminal Law – Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of voice recordings – Application under Section 65B, Evidence Act and Section 92, CrPC for taking a pen drive on record – Petitioner sought to introduce a voice recording of the deceased alleging lack of medical treatment to prove the accused forged medical records to cover negligence – Held: The trial court correctly dismissed the application. For electronic voice recordings to be admissible, there must be prima facie evidence or a mechanism to identify the voice of the speaker. In the absence of accepted and definite evidence identifying the voice of the deceased, the prosecution cannot prove the conversation, rendering the electronic record redundant for the trial. [Paras 6-7]

Evidence Act – Relevancy of Evidence – Distinction between charges of forgery and allegations of medical negligence – Accused charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC for forging medical documents – Petitioner attempted to bring on record a telephonic conversation regarding lack of medical treatment – Held: The questioned conversation is not relevant for the adjudication of the case. The charges framed against the respondents pertain specifically to the forgery of medical documents, not to medical negligence. Evidence regarding the quality of treatment or lack thereof does not directly serve to prove or disprove the specific act of forgery of documents. [Para 7]

Criminal Trial – Procedural Laches and Credibility – Impact of delay in producing evidence – Incident occurred in 2021; application to produce the pen drive filed in 2024 – Held: A delay of three years and three months in producing the electronic evidence creates serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the article. Furthermore, the fact that none of the family members disclosed the existence of such a telephonic conversation in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC during the investigation further weakens the petitioner's case. Such an afterthought, lacking contemporaneous corroboration, does not warrant the exercise of discretionary powers to admit evidence at a belated stage. [Paras 8-9]

Decision: The High Court found no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Trial Court. The petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act – Excess Stock of Paddy – Conviction Set Aside – Prosecution alleged storage of excess 33.50 quintals of paddy by the appellant in violation of Para 17 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 – Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act – On appeal, High Court found serious doubts regarding the actual seizure and weighment of alleged excess stock – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 11–14].

Seizure of Contraband – Credibility of Seizure Witnesses – Both independent seizure witnesses (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) categorically stated that they signed blank papers at the instance of the Investigating Officer and did not witness actual seizure or weighment of paddy – Witnesses not examined by Investigating Officer during investigation – Such evidence rendered seizure doubtful and unreliable [Paras 6–7, 11–12].

Evidence – Weighment of Seized Paddy – Failure to Examine Material Witnesses – Prosecution failed to examine any person who actually weighed the paddy – Weighment chart did not disclose who conducted the weighment – No evidence as to source of weighing machine – In a case alleging excess stock, absence of proof of proper weighment held to be fatal to prosecution case [Paras 8, 10–12].

Investigation – Procedural Lapses – Non-recording of General Diary Entry – Investigating Officer failed to record GD entry regarding departure for raid and return – Could not disclose jeep number or driver’s name – When raid itself was under challenge, such lapses created serious doubt about prosecution version – Held: Though not always fatal, in present facts such lapses assumed significance [Paras 8, 12].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Time and Manner of Seizure – Prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent versions regarding time of preparation of seizure list and presence of witnesses – Evidence showed seizure list was possibly not prepared at the spot – Prosecution failed to reconcile material inconsistencies – Doubt as to genuineness of seizure sustained [Paras 6, 8, 12].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence – Standard of Proof – Trial Court itself observed scope of doubt regarding seizure of 75 quintals of paddy but still convicted appellant on ground of improper maintenance of stock register – Held: Once reasonable doubt exists, conviction cannot be sustained – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and not on surmises or conjectures [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 30.03.1993 passed by the Special Court (E.C.), Suri in Special Case No. 33 of 1992 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act – Appreciation recorded for assistance of Amicus Curiae [Paras 14–15].

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Concurrent Findings – Article 227 Jurisdiction – Tenant challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by Rent Court (RLTOP No. 402 of 2020) and confirmed by Rent Tribunal (RLTA No. 52 of 2025) – Defence raised that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and that landlord’s claim as legatee/foster son under unprobated Will was unsustainable – Held: Identical defence already rejected by Court in connected revisions relating to same premises – No ground to interfere under Article 227 – Revision dismissed [Paras 2–3, 7].

Jural Relationship – Challenge by Tenant – Tenant questioned locus of landlord on ground that Will remained unprobated and landlord was not sole legal heir – Court declined to re-examine issue in view of earlier decision in connected matters confirming landlord’s entitlement to maintain eviction proceedings [Paras 2–3, 7].

Arrears of Rent – Distress Proceedings – Tenant admittedly in arrears of Rs.2,62,300/- representing 43 months’ rent @ Rs.6,100/- per month – Earlier distress application allowed and partial payment made – Continued default noted by Court while considering grant of time [Paras 5–6].

Equitable Relief – Time to Vacate – Though revision dismissed, considering that petitioner was carrying on non-residential jewellery business, Court granted time till 30.06.2026 to vacate, subject to conditions: filing affidavit of undertaking, clearing arrears within stipulated time, and not inducting third parties [Para 7].

Conditional Order – Modification on Mention – On mention, Court recorded payment of Rs.62,300/- and permitted balance Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid in four equal monthly instalments of Rs.50,000/- each in March, April, May and June 2026 – Directed regular monthly rent from January 2026 to be paid in advance on or before 10th of every month [Order dated 05.02.2026, Paras 3–5].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – In absence of perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent eviction orders, High Court declined to interfere under Article 227, granting only equitable time to vacate [Paras 3, 7].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Time granted to vacate premises on or before 30.06.2026 subject to conditions regarding affidavit of undertaking, payment of arrears and regular payment of rent – Subsequent order permitting instalment payment of arrears – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Partition – Joint Sale Deed – Presumption of Co-Ownership – Suit property purchased under registered sale deed (Ex.A1) dated 08.05.1995 in joint names of plaintiff and defendant – Defendant contended entire consideration paid by him and plaintiff was a name lender – Held: When sale deed stands in joint names, parties are presumed to be co-owners – Mere plea of payment of entire sale consideration insufficient to dislodge presumption without cogent evidence – Plaintiff entitled to seek partition and separate possession of half share [Paras 2, 11–12].

Adverse Possession – Between Co-Owners – Ouster – Defendant pleaded exclusive possession since 1995 and perfection of title by adverse possession – Held: Mere long or exclusive possession by one co-owner does not amount to ouster – To establish adverse possession against co-owner, clear proof of hostile animus, open and exclusive possession to knowledge of other co-owner for statutory period is required – No evidence adduced by defendant to prove ouster or animus possidendi – Plea rejected [Paras 3, 11–12].

Benami Plea – Bar under Benami Transactions Act – Defendant contended plaintiff was only a name lender and transaction was benami – Held: In absence of specific pleadings and proof, and in view of bar under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, plea not sustainable – Burden heavily lies on person alleging benami nature – Not discharged in present case [Para 12].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Adduce Evidence – Defendant neither examined witnesses nor produced documentary evidence to substantiate claim of exclusive payment of sale consideration or adverse possession – Revenue records (Ex.A2 & Ex.A3) reflected joint possession – Non-reply to legal notice demanding partition leads to adverse inference – Concurrent findings of fact by courts below justified [Paras 4, 12].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Questions of Law – Questions framed relating to payment of consideration and adverse possession answered against appellant – No perversity or misapplication of law shown in concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts – No ground for interference in second appeal [Paras 6, 12].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – No costs – Decree and judgment dated 23.08.2016 in A.S. No. 9 of 2013 confirming decree dated 12.08.2013 in O.S. No. 140 of 2010 upheld – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Revenue Records – Plaintiff relied primarily on kist receipts (Exs.A3 to A15) and mutation entries to establish ancestral title – Patta and chitta not produced – No proof of alleged partitions between plaintiff’s father and uncle or between plaintiff and his brothers – Courts below decreed suit mainly on failure of defendants to prove title – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiff must independently prove his title by clear and cogent evidence and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Revenue records and kist receipts do not confer title – Findings of Courts below held perverse and contrary to settled law [Paras 34–37, 42–45, 50(i), (iv)].

Ex Parte Decree – Restitution – Retention of Benefit – Plaintiff obtained ex parte decree and took delivery in execution on 25.01.1985 – Ex parte decree set aside on 20.03.1991 – Courts below granted injunction relying heavily on delivery taken pursuant to ex parte decree – Held: Once ex parte decree is set aside, parties are restored to original position – Plaintiff cannot retain benefit obtained under decree which ceases to exist – Section 144 CPC embodies principle of restitution ex debito justitiae – Reliance on delivery pursuant to nullified decree held erroneous and perverse [Paras 32–33, 50(iii)].

Delivery of Possession – Presumption of Official Acts – Plea of Paper Delivery – Court officer’s report of delivery attracts presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act that official acts are regularly performed – Such presumption rebuttable only by specific plea of fraud complying with Order VI Rule 4 CPC – No such plea raised by defendants – Plea of paper delivery rejected – However, benefit of delivery lost upon setting aside of ex parte decree [Paras 28–29].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent Findings – Interference Permissible – Though High Court ordinarily does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, ignore material evidence, or proceed on fundamental errors of law – Present case falls within such exceptions [Paras 26–27].

Transfer of Property – Better Title – Nemo Dat Principle – Defendant relied on Ex.B1 and Ex.B2/Ex.B3 to claim title through Sanjeeviraya Reddy – Parent deed (Ex.B1) did not cover suit survey numbers – Will not proved in accordance with law – Held: One cannot transfer better title than one possesses – Defendant also failed to establish better title – Neither party proved exclusive title – Plaintiff left to seek partition if so advised [Paras 46–48, 49].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court in OS.No.575 of 1983 dated 30.06.1994 and First Appellate Court in AS.No.71 of 1994 dated 13.11.1998 set aside – Suit dismissed – Trial Court directed to ensure re-delivery of property to third defendant in view of setting aside of ex parte decree – Liberty reserved to plaintiff to file properly framed suit for partition – No order as to costs [Paras 50–51].