Wildlife Protection – Conviction for Hunting and Unauthorized Entry – Revisionist convicted under multiple sections of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Trial and appellate courts’ decisions affirmed conviction based on recovery of a weapon and intent to hunt tigers – High Court finds lack of substantial evidence to prove the charges – Prosecution failed to establish that the place of incident fell within a declared sanctuary or buffer zone [Paras 1-20].

Evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. – Examination of Witnesses – Prosecution examined six witnesses, including arresting officers and site plan preparers – High Court notes inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of concrete evidence linking revisionist’s actions to defined statutory offenses [Paras 4-7].

Legal Definitions and Applicability – Sections 2(16) and 9 of the Act – Definition of ‘hunting’ under Section 2(16) found inapplicable to revisionist’s actions – No direct evidence of hunting or attempt to hunt presented – Section 27 regarding restriction on entry into sanctuary also not proven due to unclear demarcation of sanctuary boundaries at the incident site [Paras 10-17].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Held – Conviction and sentence set aside – High Court mandates release of revisionist, emphasizing need for precise evidence when charging under wildlife protection laws [Paras 18-22].
 

Criminal Law – Attempted Rape and Assault – Appellant convicted under Sections 376/511 and 354 IPC – Allegations of the appellant and others unlawfully entering the premises, assaulting the victim, and attempting to commit rape – Conviction based on the evidence of the victim and other witnesses, seizure of blood-stained items, and medical reports confirming injuries consistent with the victim’s account – Trial court’s conviction affirmed [Paras 1-29].

Evidence – Delay in FIR – No delay in lodging FIR; incident occurred on 28.05.2011 at about 8:30 PM and the case was registered at 2:15 AM on 29.05.2011 – Timely registration of the case considered in evaluating the credibility of the prosecution’s case [Para 29(i)].

Medical Evidence – Injuries Confirming Assault – Medical documents and witness testimonies confirmed severe injuries to the victim’s private parts requiring surgical intervention and blood transfusion – Evidence supported the prosecution’s narrative of a brutal assault [Paras 29(iv)-(v)].

Seizure of Evidence – Blood-stained items and liquor bottles seized from the appellant’s premises – Seizures corroborated the victim’s account of the assault and the presence of the appellant at the crime scene [Paras 29(ii)-(iii)].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender within 30 days to serve the sentence – Bail bonds canceled [Paras 30-31].

Service Law – Pay Re-fixation and Recovery – Petitioner served on an ad-hoc basis as a Research Officer for over 14 years – Reverted to the original position of Senior Research Assistant – Tribunal upheld reversion and recovery of excess salary paid – High Court observed long service in higher position justifies protection of higher salary for terminal benefits – Recovery of excess salary deemed unfair as there was no misrepresentation by the petitioner – Directed respondents to calculate terminal benefits based on higher salary drawn as a Research Officer – Recovery of excess salary from 13.07.2010 to 06.03.2013 quashed [Paras 1-8].

Administrative Tribunals Act – Challenge to Tribunal’s Order – High Court reviewed Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing fairness in service benefits and protections for long service in higher positions without misrepresentation – Tribunal's order partially set aside – Relief granted based on precedent from Apex Court [Paras 2-7].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Recovery of excess salary quashed – Directed fixation of terminal benefits considering higher salary – No entitlement to pay of Research Officer post-reversion – Ensured fair consideration of long service in higher position for pension and other terminal benefits [Paras 6-8].

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].
 

Service Law – Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence – Appellant, a police constable, dismissed for absence from duty without leave from 25.12.1989 to 28.12.1989 and from 22.01.1990 to 27.03.1991 – Appeal contends dismissal was illegal and not in compliance with principles of natural justice and Punjab Police Rules – Lower courts upheld dismissal based on misconduct – High Court affirms, emphasizing the importance of discipline in the police force [Paras 1-20]​​.

Procedural Compliance – Punjab Police Rules – Rule 16.38 regarding concurrence of District Magistrate not applicable as the absence did not involve a criminal offense with the public – Rule 16.2 justifying dismissal for gravest acts of misconduct upheld – High Court rejects contention that departmental enquiry was flawed [Paras 8-12]​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Dismissal upheld – Court finds no substantial question of law, affirms lower courts' findings on misconduct and procedural adherence [Paras 17-19]​​.

Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters – Interpretation and Application – Forensic Audit Report – Validity and Reliance – Writ petitions challenging the decision of the Willful Defaulter Identification Committee and the Review Committee (RC) of the Central Bank of India declaring the petitioners as willful defaulters. The main evidence relied upon by the First Committee was a Transaction Audit Report (TAR) prepared by M/s. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India, LLP. The TAR contained disclaimers regarding its conclusiveness, and its findings were not independently verified. NCLT and NCLAT had previously dismissed the reliance on the TAR in related insolvency proceedings. – Held that reliance solely on the TAR, which itself was inconclusive and discredited by judicial authorities, was improper and untenable. The Central Bank of India could not independently declare the petitioners as willful defaulters when the lead Bank, Punjab National Bank, had dropped the charges. – Decisions of both the First Committee and the RC set aside and quashed. [Paras 2-36]

Reliance on Forensic Audit Report – Inadequate Basis for Willful Defaulter Declaration – Analysis – Held – The sole reliance on the TAR by the First Committee and RC was unjustified. The TAR itself contained multiple disclaimers, stating that it was not conclusive, not independently verified, and not suitable for legal proceedings. The NCLT and NCLAT had rejected the TAR’s findings in related insolvency proceedings, making it untenable for the Central Bank to rely on it for declaring the petitioners as willful defaulters. [Paras 6-14, 15-18, 20, 22-24]

Procedural Irregularities – Natural Justice – Review Committee’s Decision – Held – The RC’s decision was grossly mechanical, clubbing twenty-one entities together without individualized reasoning, and was primarily based on the discredited TAR. The Supreme Court’s guidelines in State Bank of India vs. Jah Developers Private Limited were not followed, as no reasoned order was provided to the petitioners. – RC’s decision set aside for lack of adherence to due process and principles of natural justice. [Paras 31-34]

Decision – Quashing of Willful Defaulter Declaration – Court quashes the decisions of the Willful Defaulter Identification Committee and the Review Committee declaring the petitioners as willful defaulters. All consequential actions, including the uploading of the petitioners’ names as willful defaulters, to be reversed immediately. [Paras 35-36]

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. - Conviction upheld by Special Judge (NDPS), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi - Petitioner convicted under Section 138 N.I. Act for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs.5,26,785/- - Sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.8,50,000/- with default clause - Fine amount directed to be paid to respondent.

Complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act - Allegation of dishonour of cheque issued in discharge of legal liability - Cheque issued for payment of goods received - Petitioner contested stating cheque particulars filled by clerical staff and goods returned due to defect - Legal notice served but payment not made.

Evidence and Trial Court Findings - Respondent presented evidence including bill, cheque, bank return memo, legal notice, and postal receipt - Petitioner admitted signatures on cheque but contested liability - Defence of return of goods not substantiated - No examination of transporter to confirm return - Trial Court presumed service of notice under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and held cheque issued for legally enforceable debt - Appellate Court upheld conviction and sentence.

Decision - Petitioner's defence of defective goods and return not proven - Failure to stop cheque payment or respond to legal notice considered indicative of liability - Distinguished from cases where cheques issued as advance payments for undelivered goods - Revisional Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent findings - Revision petition dismissed.

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Section 506 IPC, and Section 323 IPC – Appeal against Trial Court’s Acquittal – High Court Reversal of Acquittal based on Victim's Testimony and Corroborative Evidence – Victim's consistent testimony, supported by medical evidence and corroborative witnesses, held sufficient for conviction despite delay in FIR – Reversed acquittal due to Trial Court’s misinterpretation of evidence and undue emphasis on minor contradictions [Paras 1-23, 25-106].

Delay in Reporting – High Court held delay in filing FIR not fatal – Explained delay due to victim’s fear and familial pressure – Victim’s testimony found credible and consistent despite delay – Case law cited to support that delay in sexual assault cases, particularly involving family members, can be condoned if satisfactorily explained [Paras 24-43].

Credibility of Testimony – High Court found victim to be a witness of sterling quality – Testimony consistent with initial statements and corroborated by mother and brother – Minor discrepancies considered trivial and not undermining the overall credibility – Legal precedent cited supporting reliance on victim’s sole testimony in sexual assault cases [Paras 44-96].

Acquittal Reversed – High Court found Trial Court’s judgment based on conjectures and misinterpretation of evidence – Guilt of accused established beyond reasonable doubt based on credible and corroborative testimony of the victim – Appeals allowed and respondent convicted under relevant sections [Paras 97-106].

Decision – Conviction Ordered – Held – The appeal is allowed, and the acquittal is reversed. Respondent convicted under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Sections 506 and 323 IPC. Sentencing arguments scheduled – Directions for victim impact report and confirmation of interim compensation [Paras 107-111].