Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petitioner challenged the decision of the NCDRC upholding compensation for medical negligence – Preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction of the High Court – High Court emphasized supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to courts and tribunals within its territorial limits – Petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-14].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court – The High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 over tribunals situated outside its territorial limits – Reference to L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India and subsequent case law confirming jurisdictional limits [Paras 7-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – The High Court lacks jurisdiction to supervise decisions of tribunals outside its territorial limits – Reaffirmed need for adherence to jurisdictional boundaries [Para 14-15].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC by the trial court, which sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court examined inconsistencies in medical evidence and unexplained gaps in the victim’s treatment timeline, raising doubts about the causation of death directly from the alleged assault [Paras 1-24].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies – Discrepancies noted between injury reports by different medical officers and the autopsy report regarding skull fractures and other injuries. The absence of detailed explanation for treatment gaps questioned the direct link between the assault and the victim’s death [Paras 9-18].

Prosecution Case – Doubtful Evidence – The prosecution’s evidence revealed contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the informant and the medical officers, undermining the reliability of the complaint and the direct causation of death [Paras 9-18].

Benefit of Doubt – Two Possible Views – Following the principle that if two views are possible—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favoring the accused should be adopted. The court found significant doubts in the prosecution’s case due to the unexplained treatment gap and inconsistent medical evidence [Paras 19-20].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – The appellant was found not guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. The court ordered the appellant’s release, unless wanted in connection with any other case [Paras 21-24].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC by the trial court, which sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court examined inconsistencies in medical evidence and unexplained gaps in the victim’s treatment timeline, raising doubts about the causation of death directly from the alleged assault [Paras 1-24].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies – Discrepancies noted between injury reports by different medical officers and the autopsy report regarding skull fractures and other injuries. The absence of detailed explanation for treatment gaps questioned the direct link between the assault and the victim’s death [Paras 9-18].

Prosecution Case – Doubtful Evidence – The prosecution’s evidence revealed contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the informant and the medical officers, undermining the reliability of the complaint and the direct causation of death [Paras 9-18].

Benefit of Doubt – Two Possible Views – Following the principle that if two views are possible—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favoring the accused should be adopted. The court found significant doubts in the prosecution’s case due to the unexplained treatment gap and inconsistent medical evidence [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – The appellant was found not guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. The court ordered the appellant’s release, unless wanted in connection with any other case [Paras 21-24].
 

Land Revenue – Appointment of Lambardar – Comparative Merits –

Appointment of Lakhvir Singh as Lambardar by the Collector was set aside by the Financial Commissioner, citing higher landholding and experience of another candidate. High Court emphasized respect for the Collector's choice, provided two views are possible, and there is no illegality or perversity [Paras 1-13].

Merit Assessment – Age, Education, Landholding –

Petitioner younger, more educated, sufficient land for revenue security – Financial Commissioner’s focus on landholding criticized; upheld Collector’s preference for petitioner’s administrative experience as Panch [Paras 7.1-8].

Hereditary Claims – Rejection –

Financial Commissioner’s preference for candidate based on previous acting role as Lambardar rejected to avoid hereditary bias, as per precedent [Para 9].

Decision – Petition Allowed –

Orders of Financial Commissioner set aside, petitioner’s appointment as Lambardar upheld, related petitions disposed of due to respondent’s death [Paras 12-14].

Property Law – Rights of Widow – Appellant’s rights in deceased husband’s property ceased upon remarriage – Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 applied – Court held that remarriage caused widow to lose her rights in the deceased husband’s estate – Estate to devolve upon the next heirs of deceased husband [Paras 17-22].

Succession – Possession and Title – Plaintiff’s plea of possession through relationship with widow dismissed – Plaintiff failed to prove possession and title through cogent evidence – Lower appellate court erred in granting decree of injunction based on unsubstantiated relationship and possession claims [Paras 23-25].

Procedural Law – Successors not Impleaded – No successor of deceased husband impleaded in the suit – Injunction suit failed without necessary parties – Mere plea of possession not sufficient for decree without proving title and proper succession [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Judgment and decree of lower appellate court set aside – Original suit dismissed for lack of evidence on possession and title [Paras 26-28].

Anticipatory Bail – Allegations of Dowry Harassment and Attempted Murder – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under Sections 498-A, 307, 509, 313, 403, 409 read with 34 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations included demand for dowry, misappropriation of gold, and forced abortion – Investigation revealed incidents both in India and the USA – Petitioners contended that incidents in the USA could not be prosecuted without Central Government sanction as per Section 188 CrPC – Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary due to the nature of the dispute and ongoing investigation [Paras 1-5].

Jurisdiction – Application of Section 188 CrPC – Examined applicability of Section 188 CrPC regarding prosecution of offences committed abroad – Referenced Telangana High Court's decision emphasizing requirement of Central Government sanction for such prosecution – Court found no challenge to this principle by the respondent [Paras 4].

Decision:

Anticipatory bail granted – Petitioners to be released on bail upon arrest, subject to personal bonds and sureties – Conditions imposed for marking attendance before the investigating officer and cooperation with the investigation – Emphasis on non-interference with witnesses [Para 5].

Bail Application – NDPS Act – The petitioner, accused under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, sought bail after being in custody for nearly four months – The Court considered that the petitioner was named in the FIR solely based on a co-accused's disclosure statement, and no contraband was recovered from him – Trial had not yet begun, and the Court highlighted the prolonged pre-conviction detention and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 [Paras 1-6].

Right to Speedy Trial – The Court emphasized that continued detention without trial constitutes a violation of the right to a speedy trial – The Court cited Supreme Court precedents, stressing that pre-conviction detention should be minimized and that undue delay in trials could impair the accused’s defense [Para 5].

Previous Convictions – While acknowledging the petitioner's involvement in other FIRs, the Court held that bail should not be denied solely on this ground – The Court referenced the judgment in Baljinder Singh alias Rock v. State of Punjab [CRM-M-25914-2022], underscoring that each case must be evaluated on its own merits [Para 5].

Decision:

The petitioner was granted regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Income Tax – Draft Assessment Order – CBDT Circular No. 549/1989 – The petitioner challenged the reliance on the Circular by the AO, arguing it was outdated and inapplicable under the amended Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act as applicable for AY 2005-06 to AY 2008-09. The Court noted the changes in the statutory provisions that allow refunds post-assessment and held that the Circular was not determinative of the issue [Paras 1-9].

Tribunal Powers – Section 254 of the Income Tax Act – The Court affirmed that the Tribunal has plenary powers to entertain new claims, even if not raised in the original return, especially if a direction is framed by a Court or Tribunal. It cited the decisions in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd to underscore the Tribunal’s authority [Paras 10-14].

Revisionary Jurisdiction – Section 264 of the Income Tax Act – Emphasized that the CIT’s revisionary powers allow the introduction of new grounds not urged before lower authorities. The Court referred to past rulings in cases like Parekh Brothers v. CIT and Sneh Lata Jain v. CIT to support this position [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – The Court quashed the final assessment orders dated 30 November 2021 and the consequential demand and penalty notices. It directed the AO to reconsider the additional grounds raised by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with the law [Para 20-21].
 

Limitation Period – Article 60 of Limitation Act – Suit filed by minors – Time limit for challenging deed executed by guardian: The court held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs, who were minors at the time of deed execution, must be within three years of attaining majority. Based on evidence, the plaintiffs failed to meet this requirement, rendering their claims barred by limitation [Paras 10-15].

Validity of Deed – Legal Necessity and Benefit to Minors: The court discussed the necessity of proving legal necessity for the sale of property executed by a guardian on behalf of minors. The plaintiffs did not establish that the sale was for their benefit, and the court found the deed to be executed without the required legal necessity [Paras 16-18].

Evidence – Reliability of Documents and Testimonies: The court scrutinized the school admission register and testimonies to ascertain the dates of birth of the plaintiffs. It found that the interpolations in the school register were apparent and the testimonies were not reliable, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation [Paras 11-14, 17].

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge and affirming the dismissal order of the Trial Court, thereby dismissing the suit (T.S. No. 49 of 1974) [Paras 19-20].