Motor Accident Compensation – Death of Minor Child – Enhancement of Compensation – Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.30,000 per annum and awarded lump sum compensation – High Court held that a deceased minor cannot be equated with a non-earning person merely due to absence of gainful employment – Minimum wages of skilled workman applicable – Income reassessed at Rs.10,000 per month – Award enhanced substantially [Paras 1, 9–10, 14].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Assessment of Income – Minimum Wages – Reliance placed on recent Supreme Court pronouncement holding that minimum wages of skilled workman must be adopted for deceased minor – Tribunal committed manifest error in adopting arbitrary notional income – Corrected by High Court [Paras 9–10].

Future Prospects – Minor Deceased – Addition Mandatory – Considering age of deceased (15 years), future prospects @ 40% added in terms of Pranay Sethi – Tribunal erred in not granting any amount under this head – Rectified in appeal [Paras 11, 14].

Personal and Living Expenses – Deduction – Minor Victim – Deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenditure applicable – Tribunal erred in not making any deduction – Corrected in accordance with Sarla Verma principles [Paras 12, 14].

Multiplier – Selection – Age of Deceased – Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 15 – Correct multiplier for age group of 15 years held to be 18 – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 13–14].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Estate – Funeral Expenses – Consortium – Tribunal failed to grant loss of estate and awarded meagre amounts under funeral expenses and consortium – High Court awarded amounts as per Pranay Sethi with applicable escalation – Filial consortium awarded to both parents [Paras 13–14].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Rate of Interest – In view of Supreme Court judgments, interest on enhanced compensation awarded @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within stipulated time [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 30.03.2017 modified – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.16,45,100/- – Enhanced amount of Rs.11,45,100/- awarded with interest @ 9% per annum – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months – Tribunal to disburse amount to claimants as per ratio fixed earlier [Paras 14–17].

Bail – Murder – Organised Crime – Rejection – Petitioners (Accused Nos.6 and 7) sought bail in case involving murder committed by organised crime syndicate under KCOCA – Alleged direct participation in assault on deceased with deadly weapons – Held: Serious overt acts attributed, offence punishable with death or life imprisonment – Bail not justified [Paras 10–15].

Criminal Law – Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act – Applicability – Prosecution alleged formation of organised crime syndicate by Accused No.3 and participation of petitioners with intent to earn money through illegal means – Confessional statements recorded before Deputy Commissioner of Police admissible under Section 19 KCOCA – Prima facie material sufficient to invoke KCOCA [Paras 11–12].

Evidence – Eye Witness – Credibility at Bail Stage – CW.2, eye witness, named petitioners in statement under Section 161 CrPC and reiterated same under Section 164 CrPC – Witness saw petitioners assault deceased with machete and knife on vital parts – Held: At bail stage, Court cannot discard consistent eyewitness account supported by medical evidence [Paras 3, 8, 14].

Medical Evidence – Multiple Injuries – Gravity of Offence – Post-mortem report revealed 31 external injuries – Cause of death due to multiple injuries – Held: Nature and number of injuries demonstrate brutal assault, militating against grant of bail [Paras 8, 14].

Parity – Bail to Co-accused – Distinction – Petitioners relied on bail granted to Accused No.10 – Court held Accused No.10 was not an assailant and did not actively participate – Held: Parity not applicable where role of petitioners is materially different [Paras 3, 13].

Bail Jurisprudence – “Bail is Rule” – Limitation – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision reiterating bail as rule – Held: Principle not absolute – In cases involving organised crime, direct participation, threat to witnesses and severe punishment, bail can be denied despite youth or lack of antecedents [Paras 4–5, 14–15].

Threat to Witnesses – Consideration – Prosecution apprehended threat to CW.2 and other witnesses if petitioners released on bail – Held: Likelihood of intimidation a relevant factor in denying bail [Paras 8, 14].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to bail in Spl.C.C. No. 2055 of 2024 arising out of Crime No. 353 of 2024 – Bail refused considering gravity of offence, prima facie evidence and threat to witnesses.

Rape and POCSO – Conviction – Repeated Penetrative Sexual Assault on Minor – Accused convicted for offences under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 r/w Section 5(l) POCSO Act – Prosecution alleged repeated sexual assault on a 13-year-old girl between September 2015 and February 2016 – Trial Court imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine – Held: Evidence on record proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 1–4, 31].

Evidence – Testimony of Child Victim – Reliability – Victim’s deposition consistent, cogent and free from embellishments – Clear narration of repeated sexual assault inside her house – Medical evidence showed torn hymen and signs consistent with sexual intercourse – Testimony corroborated by mother of the victim – Held: Sole testimony of victim of sterling quality sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 8–12].

POCSO Act – Section 29 – Presumption of Guilt – Foundational facts of penetrative sexual assault proved through oral and medical evidence – Statutory presumption under Section 29 attracted – Accused failed to rebut presumption – Held: Trial Court rightly invoked presumption against accused [Paras 11–12].

Age of Victim – Proof – Birth Certificate and Oral Evidence – Ext.P2 birth certificate showed date of birth as 18.08.2002 though name of child not recorded – Victim’s unchallenged testimony regarding date of birth corroborated by certificate – Absence of child’s name in birth certificate not fatal – Held: Age of victim proved on cumulative appreciation of evidence [Paras 13, 28–30].

POCSO Act – Determination of Age – Applicability of Juvenile Justice Acts – Principles in Jarnail Singh and Yuvaprakash considered – Held: Provisions of Juvenile Justice Acts provide guidance but are not the exclusive mode for determining age of a victim under the POCSO Act – Courts may rely on evidence admissible under the Evidence Act – Rigid application of JJ Act norms would defeat object of POCSO Act [Paras 15–27].

Sentence – Leniency – Refusal – Nature of offence grave involving repeated sexual assault on a minor – Young age of accused not a mitigating circumstance – Minimum statutory punishment justified – Compensation awarded to victim upheld [Paras 5–6, 31].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 r/w Section 5(l) POCSO Act confirmed – Compensation to victim sustained.

Municipal Law – License Fees – Sections 244, 245, 386(2) MMC Act – Upheld – The Municipal Corporation has the legal authority to levy license fees for granting/renewing permissions for sky-signs, hoardings, and advertisements under Sections 244, 245, and 386(2) of the MMC Act – The contention that the Municipal Commissioner lacks authority to fix or enhance these fees is rejected, as the statutory scheme and the 2003 Rules clearly empower the Commissioner to issue licenses and written permissions on payment of fees, which are fixed from time to time with the sanction of the Corporation – The challenge to the constitutional validity of these provisions was not pressed by the petitioners – The argument that a distinction between "sky-sign" and "advertisement" for license fee purposes is misconceived and contrary to the Rules – The Court found no illegality in the Municipal Corporation's decision-making process [Paras 135, 148].

Taxation – Fee vs. Tax – Article 243X, Entry 5, Entry 66 List II, Seventh Schedule – Regulatory Fee – The license fee collected by the municipal corporation for sky-signs and hoardings is a regulatory fee, not a tax – The distinction between "tax" and "fee" has evolved, and strict quid pro quo is not always necessary for a regulatory fee; a broad and general correlation between the fee collected and the services rendered (e.g., regulatory oversight, public safety, urban planning) is sufficient – The contention that the fee is a tax because it contributes to municipal revenue is rejected, as Section 82 of the MMC Act includes fees as part of the municipal fund – The deletion of Entry 55 from List II of the Seventh Schedule (advertisement tax) does not affect the Municipal Corporation's power to levy regulatory fees, as legislative competence is derived from Article 243X read with Entries 5 and 66 of List II, which remain intact and recognize the power of State Legislatures to authorize municipalities to impose fees [Paras 138-147, 157, 160].

Goods and Services Tax (GST) – Impact on License Fees – Deletion of Entry 55 List II – No Obliteration – The provisions of the MMC Act permitting the municipal corporation to recover license fees do not stand obliterated by the introduction of the Central/Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – The Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Section 173, repeals only the Maharashtra Advertisements Tax Act, 1967, which dealt with tax on cinematographic advertisements, not the license fees under the MMC Act – The license fee for sky-signs/hoardings is a regulatory fee, distinct from an "advertisement tax" under the erstwhile Entry 55 of List II – The GST regime applies to the supply of goods or services by advertisers to their clients, which is a separate transaction from the license granted by the municipal corporation for erecting/retaining sky-signs – Therefore, there is no double taxation or loss of authority for the municipal corporation to levy these fees [Paras 157, 159, 160].

Retrospective Application – Sanction of Rates – Section 386(2) MMC Act – Valid – The action of the Municipal Commissioner in proposing a hike in the license fee to Rs.222/- per sq. ft. p.a. from 1 April 2013, as sanctioned/ratified by the General Body of the Pune Municipal Corporation vide Resolution No.667 dated 28 September 2018, is legal and valid – The term "sanction" in Section 386(2) does not necessarily imply "prior sanction" and can include ex-post facto ratification, especially when the legislature has not used qualifying words like "prior" or "previous" as it has in other sections of the MMC Act – The payment of fees by advertisers, even under protest, and the subsequent General Body approval validate the levy from the specified date – The argument that such retrospective levy is illegal is rejected [Paras 165-169, 172].

Reasonableness of Fees – Regulatory Nature – Upheld – The petitioners' contention that the license fee of Rs.222/- per sq. ft. p.a. is unreasonable and disproportionately high is untenable – The rate was fixed based on market response from a tender process in 2011 and is comparable to rates in other municipal corporations – The municipal corporation's need to generate revenue for public welfare, infrastructure, and administrative costs, which have increased over time, justifies the revision of fees – The Court will not interfere with rate fixation unless it is palpably arbitrary or unreasonable to the extent of extinguishing business [Paras 173-176, 184, 185].

Scrutiny Fee – Rs.5000/- – Valid – The levy of a Rs.5000/- scrutiny fee for processing applications for grant or renewal of licenses for sky-signs/hoardings is administrative in nature and justified – This fee covers the costs of site verification, technical scrutiny, and other administrative processes involved in licensing – It is distinct from the license fee and is not arbitrary or illegal [Paras 177, 178].

Administrator's Powers – Section 452A MMC Act – Valid – The Municipal Commissioner, when acting as an Administrator under Section 452A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, has the full authority and power of the municipal corporation itself, including the power to enhance license fees – This dual capacity is a consequence desired by the legislation, and rendering such a provision nugatory would be untenable [Paras 180-182].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Evidence of Eye-witnesses – Conviction Upheld – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC for murdering a 13-year-old boy and grievously injuring his father and other family members – Trial Court convicted 3 out of 8 accused – High Court found that all three convicted accused acted with common intention and came armed to assault the deceased and others – Medical and ocular evidence corroborated each other – Minor inconsistencies in testimonies did not affect core of prosecution’s case – Held: Conviction justified and supported by credible eye-witnesses including injured witnesses [Paras 3, 39-41, 48-49]

Criminal Law – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Not Attracted – Sudden Fight – Premeditation – Defense Plea Rejected – Appellants argued that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel arising from a dispute over cattle – Held: Evidence revealed prior threats, premeditated attack, and targeted killing – Deceased was chased, dragged from hiding, and fatally attacked – Injured witnesses consistently testified to intent and brutality – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not applicable – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 42-47]

Witness Testimony – Family Members as Eye-Witnesses – Credibility – PW.1 (mother), PW.4 & PW.8 (sisters), and PW.11 (father) were injured eye-witnesses – Testimonies corroborated and supported by VDP Secretary (PW.3) and others – Held: Relationship with the deceased does not discredit testimony if otherwise credible and consistent – No reason to disbelieve their statements [Paras 36, 39-41]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC confirmed – No grounds for interference.

Criminal Law – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Timing – Accused sought production of company records to assist in answering CBI queries during investigation into bank fraud – Records handed over to Resolution Professional during insolvency proceedings – Held: Section 91 can be invoked at investigation stage, but discretion lies with court – Where accused is already being confronted with the documents during interrogation, no necessity for court to direct production – Petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. held premature and misconceived [Paras 26–28, 34, 41–42].

Investigation – Right of Accused – Fairness – Petitioner claimed right to fair investigation under Article 21 – Argued that inability to access documents impaired ability to respond – Held: Accused is only required to cooperate and may state inability to recall facts due to lapse of time – No obligation on prosecution to supply documents before filing charge sheet – IO advised to give sufficient time to peruse old or voluminous records if required [Paras 30, 33, 36, 43].

IBC Proceedings – Consequence of CIRP – Petitioner’s claim that documents were with Resolution Professional post-CIRP under IBC – Held: Petitioner cannot compel production from third parties during investigation where documents already available to investigating agency – Accused may procure documents independently or after filing of charge sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C. [Paras 4, 31–32, 37].

Judicial Discretion – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Held: Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. lies at court’s discretion – Test is whether document is necessary or desirable at that stage – Special Judge rightly held that production not necessary at present – No perversity or illegality found in impugned order [Paras 27, 42, 44].

Distinction from Cited Precedents – Petitioner relied on Om Prakash Sharma, Satish Mehra, and Nitya Dharmananda – Held: These decisions pertain to post-charge sheet stage or discharge proceedings – Not applicable to present case involving ongoing investigation [Paras 39–40].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned Order dated 20.12.2023 upheld – Court holds that Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be used by accused during investigation to compel production of documents already with investigating agency – However, Investigating Officer directed to grant adequate time to accused when confronting him with voluminous or old records, to ensure fair investigation.

Civil Law – Right of Way – Agreement to Create Easement – Unregistered Document – Appellant sought injunction against obstruction of a passage allegedly created through an agreement dated 13.03.1988 – Trial court and first appellate court dismissed suit holding the agreement inadmissible for want of registration – High Court upheld that agreement created and extinguished rights in immovable property with specific valuation (Rs. 20,000/- damages clause), thus attracting Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act – Held: Since document was unregistered and valuation threshold crossed, it could not be read into evidence – Rights under agreement not enforceable [Paras 20-22].

Registration Act – Section 17(1)(b) – Test of Valuation – High Court applied twin conditions for compulsory registration: whether rights in immovable property were created/limited/extinguished, and whether the value exceeded ₹100 – Held: Agreement created reciprocal rights of passage and imposed a ₹20,000 compensation clause for breach – Thus, value of rights created was determinable and above threshold – Registration was mandatory – Ex.P1 inadmissible [Paras 14-22].

Limitation – Mandatory Injunction – Suit Not Barred – Trial court had dismissed suit as barred by limitation – High Court reversed this finding – Held: Suit for mandatory injunction, though not governed by specific article, falls within residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act – Limitation is 3 years from accrual of cause – Since alleged encroachment occurred in 2001 and suit filed within months, suit was within limitation [Paras 23-25].

Evidence – Revenue Records – Presumption of Truth – Appellant relied on jamabandis and khasra girdawaris showing ‘rasta’ entries – Court noted revenue entries do carry presumption of correctness – However, presumption rebutted by absence of action to enforce rights, conflicting witness depositions, and lack of other corroborative evidence – Held: Concurrent findings that agreement was not acted upon not interfered with – Conduct of plaintiff (e.g., inaction against co-party Iqbal Singh who blocked path) weighed against claim [Paras 26-30].

Second Appeal – Scope under Punjab Courts Act – High Court reiterated that second appeals in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh are governed by Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, allowing reappreciation of evidence where lower courts’ findings are perverse or based on misreading – However, findings in this case found to be reasonable and supported by record [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Agreement held compulsorily registrable and inadmissible – Suit not barred by limitation, but failed on merits – Concurrent findings upheld – Pending applications also disposed of.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Conviction and Sentence – Trial court convicted petitioner for dishonour of cheque and imposed sentence of one year simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- – Appellate court suspended sentence subject to deposit of 20% of compensation – Legality of such conditional suspension examined [Paras 1–3].

Criminal Procedure – Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC read with Section 148 NI Act – Appellate court imposed condition of 20% deposit mechanically – Held: Though Section 148 empowers appellate court to impose such condition, it is not mandatory in every case – Appellate court must examine whether case falls within exception warranting waiver [Paras 4–5].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Exceptional Circumstances – Appellate court failed to afford opportunity to petitioner to make submissions regarding financial hardship or exceptional circumstances before imposing condition – Held: Imposition of deposit without granting such opportunity is unsustainable in law [Paras 6–7].

Precedent – Binding Effect – Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment – Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2023(4) RCR (Criminal) 296 – Held: Appellate court must record reasons if it chooses to waive or relax deposit of 20% compensation – Failure to follow settled law vitiates the impugned order [Paras 4–5, 9].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed – Condition directing deposit of 20% of compensation amount set aside – Matter remanded to lower appellate court to reconsider the issue afresh after granting opportunity to petitioner – Order of suspension of sentence to remain undisturbed – Petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 7–10].

Service Law – Reservation – OBC-NCL Certificate – Cut-off period for issuance – Rule 21.2 of CAPF (AC) Rules, 2023 and 2024 struck down – Petitioners, all belonging to OBC-NCL category, were disqualified from selection process solely on the ground that their certificates were issued outside the stipulated narrow cut-off window (01.04.2023 to 16.05.2023 for 2023 and 01.04.2024 to 14.05.2024 for 2024) – Court finds such rigid stipulation arbitrary, unreasonable, and lacking rational nexus with the object of reservation – Held: Eligibility under OBC-NCL category flows from social status by birth and not from date of certification – Certificate only affirms a pre-existing fact – Rejection of candidates based on issuance date of valid certificates is impermissible [Paras 38-42, 58-59, 67].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Delay in notification – Court finds that the issuance of exam notification and Rule 21.2 by MHA/UPSC during the ongoing cut-off period deprived candidates of effective notice – Candidates had no reasonable opportunity to comply with the stipulation – Held: Petitioners had legitimate expectation that cut-off periods would be communicated in advance – Lack of timely communication vitiates the rule [Paras 42, 60-61, 66].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 16 – Fundamental rights – Court holds that arbitrary exclusion of otherwise eligible OBC-NCL candidates for failure to comply with a procedurally unreasonable cut-off date amounts to violation of equality and equal opportunity in public employment – Petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 upheld – Respondents directed to treat OBC-NCL certificates as valid if issued within the relevant financial year, not merely the narrow cut-off window [Paras 59, 63, 66, 75.2–75.5].

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Provisional Appointment – DoPT OM dated 08.10.2015 – Court holds that respondents should have acted in accordance with OM to allow provisional appointments or verify OBC-NCL status from competent authority – Respondents’ insistence on strict compliance with cut-off date contrary to binding policy and judicial precedents [Paras 45, 61].

Mistake in Uploading Documents – Technical Lapse – Petitioner mistakenly uploaded prior year’s OBC certificate despite possessing valid certificate within cut-off – Held: Mistake not fatal – No window to rectify error violates principles of fairness – Rejection of candidature for such minor lapse unsustainable [Paras 12.11–12.15, 65].

Estoppel – Participation in Selection Process – Respondents’ argument of estoppel rejected – Petitioners had no bargaining power or reasonable opportunity to challenge the rule before it took effect – Court holds that participation under protest in a “Hobson’s choice” situation does not amount to waiver or acquiescence [Paras 74, 65].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Rule 21.2 of CAPF (AC) Rules, 2023 and 2024 held arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 – OBC-NCL certificates issued within the same financial year deemed valid – Respondents directed to reconsider petitioners’ candidature accordingly – No costs.