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].

Criminal Law – Acquittal under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC – Leave to appeal dismissed by High Court – Prosecution failed to establish motive and link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – Alleged harassment for dowry not substantiated by evidence – No eye witnesses, case relied on circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory and recovery of material exhibit (chunni) deemed unreliable – Medical evidence indicated hanging, not strangulation – Delay in FIR registration unexplained [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court upheld trial court’s finding of doubt on the testimony of key witnesses – Material improvements and inconsistencies in statements – Medical evidence did not conclusively support prosecution's theory of strangulation – PMR indicated hanging as cause of death – No supporting forensic evidence to link accused with the crime [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Application for leave to appeal is dismissed – High Court found no illegality or perversity in trial court’s judgment – Prosecution’s evidence insufficient to overturn acquittal – Appellate court emphasized on limited scope of interference with acquittal unless findings are perverse or wholly unsustainable [Paras 14-16].

Service Law – Acquittal and Departmental Proceedings – Impact of Criminal Acquittal on Disciplinary Actions – Petitioners acquitted in criminal trial seek reinstatement with same rank and benefits – Petition dismissed – Petitioner seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and office order imposing penalties on the petitioners – Petitioners contended that their acquittal by the criminal court should impact the disciplinary proceedings – Court held that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically affect the outcome of departmental proceedings, as the standard of proof differs between the two [Paras 1-13].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Impact of Criminal Acquittal – Petitioners argued that their acquittal in a criminal case should lead to the setting aside of penalties imposed in departmental proceedings – Court relied on Supreme Court judgments to affirm that disciplinary proceedings can proceed independently of criminal proceedings and an acquittal in the latter does not necessarily lead to nullifying the former – Reiterated that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is based on the preponderance of probabilities, unlike the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The petition was dismissed on grounds that the disciplinary proceedings were valid despite the criminal acquittal, and the court found no reason to interfere under Articles 226/227 – Confirmed that the penalties imposed during the departmental inquiry were within the legal framework and supported by substantial evidence [Paras 11-13].

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]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Appellants sought permanent prohibitory injunction against interference with possession of suit land declared as evacuee property – Trial court rejected plaint citing lack of jurisdiction under J&K State Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 – Rejection upheld by First Appellate Court – High Court examined the applicability of the Act and the maintainability of the suit in light of substantial questions of law framed under Section 100 CPC – Held that civil courts are barred from entertaining suits involving evacuee property, and appellants must seek remedy under relevant jurisdiction as per the Act [Paras 1-16].

Civil Law – Substantial Question of Law – Applicability of Evacuee Property Act – High Court framed substantial question of law regarding trial and appellate court's error in dismissing suit without considering the nature of property and applicability of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act and J&K Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 – Concluded that trial court’s reference to evacuee property status of suit land barred jurisdiction – Affirmed dismissal of suit under Section 31 of the Evacuees’ Property Act [Paras 9-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Second appeal dismissed – Civil suit barred under Section 31 of J&K State Evacuees’ (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 – Appellants advised to seek remedy under the Act – Contempt petition also closed [Paras 16-18].

Commercial Dispute – Recovery of Payments – Appeal against Commercial Court’s decree ordering appellant to pay ₹8,49,385 with 18% p.a. interest from the date of suit filing for goods supplied to appellant – Dispute involves recovery of payments for 2500 T-shirts supplied under invoice dated 30.06.2018 (Ex.PW-1/2A) – Appellant challenges correctness of transactions, claims of defective goods, and pre-suit interest calculation under MSMED Act [Paras 1-40]

Defective Goods Claim – Appellant contends goods were defective and returned; however, Commercial Court finds only a portion (22 T-shirts) were disputed regarding quality – No full return was executed, and emails indicate ongoing discussions on quality but no complete denial of receipt [Paras 12-14, 32-33]

Interest Calculation under MSMED Act – Appellant disputes the entitlement to 18% p.a. pre-suit interest, alleging non-establishment of respondent’s MSMED status and lack of notice on interest penalty – Commercial Court finds sufficient notice and basis under MSMED Act despite appellant’s denial – Upholds interest claim as per Act’s provisions [Paras 36-39]

Judgment Assessment – Commercial Court found that despite discrepancies in transaction recording, evidence (ledger entries and emails) confirmed ongoing business transactions and non-payment specific to the challenged invoice – Ledger review indicated non-payment for the goods received; thus, financial claims by respondent were justified [Paras 17-20, 24-29]

Decision – High Court upholds Commercial Court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal, affirming respondent’s claim on principal and interest amounts due under provided invoices – Confirms legal and factual basis for the original decision, including the appropriateness of invoking MSMED Act provisions for interest calculation [Paras 38-40]

Administrative Law – Pension and Gratuity Withheld – Resolution directed by the High Court to release funds along with interest following unjust withholding by municipal authorities despite clearances from multiple enquiry reports – Kunal Chandra Sen, a school headmaster accused of misappropriation but later cleared, struggled to receive pension and gratuity after retirement – Several enquiry reports from 2015 to 2017 confirmed no evidence against petitioner, leading to court’s order for immediate release of funds and accrued interest [Paras 26-35].

Employment Law – Misuse of Investigative Power by Municipality – Municipal corporation improperly constituted a Fact Finding Committee without legal basis under The West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, after state investigations cleared petitioner of all charges, thereby acting beyond jurisdiction and violating petitioner’s rights [Paras 27-29].

Pension Rights – Final Entitlement and Interest Compensation – High Court recognized pension and gratuity as statutory rights upon successful employment completion, criticized wrongful withholding by authorities, and directed compensation for the delay [Paras 30-34].

Future Contingency Based on Criminal Proceedings – If future criminal proceedings by CBI prove guilt, recovery measures may be initiated – Ensures fairness while addressing prolonged judicial delay and procedural errors by authorities [Para 35].

Decision: The High Court directed the immediate release of withheld pension and gratuity payments totaling Rs. 28,67,213 along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of retirement to the date of deposit, providing relief to the petitioner and establishing precedent on handling cases of administrative overreach and rights of retired employees [Para 33-34]. The court allowed the writ petition, recognizing the statutory right to pension and addressing the misuse of administrative powers in conducting unauthorized enquiries [Para 36].

Criminal Law – Rape and Cheating – Appeal against conviction for rape under false promise of marriage – Initial conviction for offenses under Section 376 (rape) and 417 (cheating) of IPC by the Sessions Court – High Court scrutinizes evidence and previous relationships, focusing on consensual aspects of the relationship and prior marital status of the complainant – Finds that the sexual relationship was consensual and no forcible intercourse evidenced; hence, conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 417 upheld due to established deceit regarding marriage promise [Paras 15-26].

Evidence and Consent – Analysis of complainant’s age (36 years) and previous marriage status – Discrepancies in prosecution’s claims about appellant’s forcible actions – Reliance on Supreme Court precedents negating rape charges where consent evident and no resistance shown by victim – Conviction under Section 376 IPC deemed unsustainable and overturned; however, deceit under Section 417 upheld [Paras 20-23, 26].

Sentence Modification – Conviction under Section 376 IPC overturned; sentence under Section 417 modified to a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default simple imprisonment for three months – Fine to be paid as compensation to the victim/complainant [Para 26].

Decision: Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside due to lack of evidence on forcible intercourse – Conviction under Section 417 IPC affirmed with modified sentence – Directions given for compliance and execution of modified sentence [Paras 24-32].

Criminal Law – Conviction and sentencing revision – Appellant originally convicted under Section 436 IPC for setting fire to a thatched tea stall – On appeal, re-evaluated based on the nature of the structure and applicable legal provisions – Conviction modified to Section 435 IPC, focusing on the damage to property and intent – Held that the original structure does not meet the definition under Section 436 as it was not a ‘building’ used for specified purposes but a temporary stall, leading to application of Section 435 for mischief by fire with intent to cause damage [Paras 17-23, 30].

Interpretation of IPC Sections – Differentiation between Sections 435 and 436 IPC based on the nature of the property affected and the intent required – Misapplication of Section 436 corrected on appeal [Paras 19-22].

Application of Cr.P.C. Section 222 – Consideration of lesser charge under Section 435 when facts proven align more closely with this section than with the initially charged Section 436 – Adjustment of sentence and conviction accordingly [Paras 24-30].

Sentencing Adjustment – Modification of sentence to time already served and imposition of a fine with default stipulation – Compensation directed to be paid to the victim from fine, if collected [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Conviction under Section 436 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 435 IPC, sentenced to time served, fined Rs. 10,000 with specific directives for payment failure – Fine, if realized, to be paid to victim as compensation – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 30-37].