Customs Law – Burden of Proof – Seizure of Gold and Currency – Voluntariness of Statements – Section 123 of Customs Act – Appeal by Revenue challenging CESTAT order which reversed confiscation of gold and Indian currency from respondent – Tribunal held the seized gold to be made from old jewellery and not smuggled – Tribunal accepted respondent’s retraction of statements made under Section 108 of Customs Act – Supreme Court’s principles on burden of proof and voluntariness of retracted statements examined – High Court reinstates adjudicating authority’s order, confirming confiscation and penalties, as respondent failed to prove lawful acquisition of seized gold and currency – Tribunal’s findings held to be perverse and contrary to Section 123. [Paras 1-27]

Statements under Section 108 of Customs Act – Retraction and Evidentiary Value – Analysis – Tribunal erred in dismissing respondent’s initial statements as involuntary without proper examination of retraction timing and consistency – Statements recorded in vernacular by respondent were voluntary – Reliance on Vinod Solanki’s case regarding the examination of retractions – Held, Tribunal’s acceptance of retraction without thorough scrutiny flawed. [Paras 17, 21-25]

Decision – Confiscation and Penalty – Upheld -  Restoration of Adjudicating Authority’s Order – High Court allows Revenue’s appeal – Sets aside Tribunal’s order – Restores the adjudicating authority’s order of confiscation and penalties – Confirms substantial questions of law in favor of Revenue – Respondent’s claim of gold sourced from old jewellery deemed unsubstantiated. [Para 27]

Income Tax Law – Appeal against ITAT order – Submission of Audit Report – High Court dismisses Revenue's appeal challenging ITAT's decision to allow assessee's exemption under Section 11 of Income Tax Act despite late filing of audit report in Form 10B – Tribunal's reliance on CBDT Circulars clarifying deadlines for returns accepted – No substantial question of law found.

Exemption Eligibility – Filing Deadline – CBDT Circulars F. No.173/193/2019-ITA-I and Circular No. 8 of 2021 provided extensions for filing belated and revised returns – Tribunal's application of Circulars upheld by High Court – Held: Assessee entitled to exemption despite late filing as Tribunal's decision aligned with CBDT guidelines .

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Appeal by Revenue dismissed – Tribunal's decision to treat return as filed within time affirmed – Stay application also dismissed – High Court concurs with Tribunal's interpretation of CBDT Circulars and concludes no substantial question of law arises for consideration .

Criminal Law – Abetment to Suicide – Appeal against the acquittal – Respondents acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Jamnagar – Allegations of mental and physical torture leading to suicide of the victim by burning – Dying declaration and witness testimonies considered – High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no manifest illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment – Emphasized the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in cases of acquittal [Paras 1-18].

Presumption under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act – Applicability discussed – Court held that the mere fact of suicide within two years of marriage and allegations of cruelty do not automatically lead to conviction without corroborative evidence – Dying declaration suggesting accidental cause of death considered significant [Paras 4, 17].

Appellate Court’s Scope – Reiterated principles for interference with acquittal – High Court reviewed evidence, confirming trial court’s findings as plausible and not suffering from perversity – Cited precedents emphasizing reluctance to overturn acquittal unless evidence overwhelmingly supports conviction [Paras 6-10, 13-14].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal judgment affirmed – No interference warranted as trial court’s decision was found just, legal, and proper [Para 18].

Maintenance – Revision of Maintenance Order – Petitioner challenged the Family Court’s order to pay Rs. 30,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife – Contention included existing maintenance obligations totaling Rs. 22,000 per month and his deteriorating health and income capacity – High Court modified the maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month – Emphasized the need to consider all existing maintenance orders and petitioner’s age and health [Paras 1-17].

Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance – Assessment – Court noted the Family Court’s failure to consider existing maintenance orders from other proceedings – Highlighted guidelines from Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. 2021 (2) SCC 324 on maintenance assessment – Directed consolidation of all maintenance amounts to ensure fair evaluation of petitioner’s obligations [Paras 3, 16].

Age and Health Considerations – Maintenance – Court acknowledged the petitioner’s age (over 70 years) and health issues – Reduced maintenance amount in light of his diminished income capacity – Reinforced the need to balance the petitioner’s financial ability with the dependent’s needs [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Revision allowed in part – Family Court’s order modified to reduce maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month – Directed adjustment of amounts already paid – Ensured compliance with principles of fair maintenance assessment [Paras 15-17].

Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by Husband – Petitioner convicted for subjecting his wife to cruelty demanding additional dowry – Trial court sentenced petitioner to 2 years R.I., reduced to 1 year R.I. on appeal – High Court finds prosecution evidence contradictory and insufficient – Petitioner’s conviction set aside and acquitted [Paras 1-20].

Burden of Proof – Section 498A IPC – Prosecution failed to prove specific instances of cruelty or demand for dowry – High Court emphasized need for precise evidence to establish cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Conviction based on vague allegations without corroborative evidence deemed unsustainable [Paras 14-20].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner’s Examination – High Court criticized lower courts for posing general questions in Section 313 examination – Omnibus questions without detailing specific acts of cruelty insufficient to sustain conviction – Courts must ensure thorough examination to afford fair opportunity to accused [Paras 20-21].

Decision:

Criminal Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC set aside – Petitioner acquitted and discharged from bail bond liabilities [Paras 20-21].

Marriage and Divorce – Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Appellant claims wife deserted him and was in an adulterous relationship – Trial court dismissed suit finding no evidence of desertion or adultery – Appellant failed to prove allegations with substantive evidence – Desertion requires animus deserendi and absence of reasonable cause – Allegations of dowry demand and ill-treatment beyond pleading – No criminal complaint or substantive evidence provided – Findings of trial court affirmed [Paras 1-16].

Cruelty – Mental and Physical Torture – Appellant alleged mental and physical cruelty – No substantial evidence to support claims – Respondent denied allegations and stated she was sent away by appellant – No proof of continuous and willful conduct constituting cruelty – Trial court’s findings upheld [Paras 6-9].

Adultery – Allegation and Evidence – Appellant’s claim of wife’s adultery with co-respondent – Trial court found no proof of adultery – Appellant conceded ground of adultery during appeal – Court found no evidence to support claims – Findings of trial court affirmed [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – No interference with trial court’s judgment – Appellant failed to prove grounds of divorce – Allegations of desertion, cruelty, and adultery not substantiated with evidence – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed [Paras 13-16].

Criminal Procedure – Restoration of Complaint – Petitioners challenged restoration of complaint dismissed for non-appearance of the respondent – High Court ruled that once a complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution, the trial court becomes functus officio and cannot restore the complaint – No provision in Cr.P.C. allows such restoration – Reference made to Supreme Court’s decision in A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur – Orders of restoration and summoning set aside [Paras 1-19].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court has inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to ensure justice – Subordinate courts do not possess such inherent powers – Orders restoring dismissed complaints by trial courts without jurisdiction are nullities – Inherent powers do not extend to such restorations by trial courts [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Orders dated 13.08.2019 and 16.04.2022 set aside – Restoration and summoning deemed without jurisdiction – Liberty granted to respondent to seek appropriate remedy under law [Paras 19-20].

Income Tax – Assessment Order – Natural Justice – Petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 7th March 2024 and the demand notice issued under the Income Tax Act – Contended that the assessment was based on evidence from third parties without allowing the petitioner to cross-examine them – Court observed that the petitioner had responded to the notices and participated in proceedings but did not make a specific request for summoning the third party for cross-examination – Held that mere statement in response without formal application for cross-examination does not vitiate the order – Appeal before the appellate authority was considered an adequate remedy despite the delay caused by the writ petition – Directions issued to the appellate authority to consider the appeal and the request for cross-examination based on Supreme Court precedents [Paras 1-16].

Opportunity to Cross-Examine – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner claimed violation of natural justice as the authorities did not allow cross-examination of Amit Kumar Agarwal, whose statements were crucial for the assessment – Court noted that petitioner did not specifically request issuance of summons for cross-examination during the assessment proceedings – Held that failure to specifically request cross-examination cannot invalidate the assessment order, but the appellate authority should consider such request in light of Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 10-13].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal – Despite the availability of an appellate remedy, petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction citing denial of natural justice – Court permitted petitioner to approach the appellate authority within 15 days, condoning the delay due to pendency of writ petition – Appellate authority directed to consider the appeal on merits and decide on the cross-examination request [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed of – Petitioner allowed to file appeal with appellate authority – Directions to appellate authority to consider appeal and request for cross-examination in accordance with law and precedents [Paras 14-16].
 

Property Law – Redemption of Mortgage – Appeal challenging the judgment reversing the trial court's decision on the respondents' suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding property mortgaged in 1946 – Respondents claimed the property and challenged its mutation as evacuee property – Trial Court dismissed the suit, ruling the property vested in the custodian after the mortgagee's migration – Appellate Court reversed, declaring respondents' ownership due to non-redemption within 30 years and no limitation on redemption – High Court upheld Appellate Court's decision, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of usufructuary mortgage rights under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 1-11].

Mortgage Redemption – Limitation – Conflicting judicial views on redemption rights under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act – High Court affirmed no limitation period applies for redemption under usufructuary mortgages where possession remains with the mortgagee until mortgage money is recovered – Appellants' right to auction property as per Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act dismissed [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – First appellate court's decree upheld – Respondents declared owners in possession of the suit property – Mutations in favor of custodian department invalid [Para 11].