Writ - Security Cover – Threat Perception – Discretion of Security Agencies – Petitioner, a political leader, sought security cover citing threat perception – Previous petition directed the authorities to consider threat perception, but the respondents denied security based on reports from field agencies – Held: The assessment of threat perception is within the domain of the Security Review Coordination Committee, which relies on field agency reports – Courts cannot interfere with security assessments unless there is clear evidence of procedural irregularity [Paras 10, 13, 14].

Re-assessment of Threat Perception – Election Period – Jurisdiction of Court – During the petition, the petitioner contended that his threat perception had been assessed only for District Jammu and not for the entire Union Territory (UT) of Jammu & Kashmir, where elections were being held – Held: The court directed the Security Review Coordination Committee to reassess the petitioner's threat perception for the entire Union Territory during the election period – This direction was issued due to the peculiar facts of the case, but was not to be treated as a precedent [Paras 15, 16].

Role of Courts in Security Decisions – Judicial Review Limitations – Petitioner argued that the rejection of security was arbitrary – Held: The court reiterated that it does not have the jurisdiction to substitute its opinion for that of the Security Review Coordination Committee, which has the expertise and inputs to make security-related decisions [Paras 14, 16].

Decision: Petition disposed of – The Security Review Coordination Committee directed to reassess the petitioner's threat perception for the entire Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir in light of the upcoming elections – No costs [Paras 17].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by the trial court for murder under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court examines the reliability of sole eyewitness (P.W. 1) and finds inconsistencies in his testimony, as well as the absence of corroboration from other material witnesses – Confessional statements of accused recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. deemed unreliable due to non-compliance with legal procedures – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted [Paras 63-65].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Sole Witness – P.W. 1 (father of the deceased) claims to have witnessed the murder, but his statements contained inconsistencies and contradictions, especially regarding who accompanied him to the scene – Testimony was not supported by other eyewitnesses, and key witness Raj Bahadur, who allegedly accompanied P.W. 1, was not produced during the trial – Court finds P.W. 1's testimony not wholly reliable due to these discrepancies and the absence of corroboration [Paras 43, 45, 47].

Confessional Statements – Non-compliance with Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Confessions of accused persons recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. found to be procedurally flawed – Magistrate failed to properly warn accused about the consequences of their confession and did not provide adequate time for reflection – Court rejects confessions as unreliable due to procedural irregularities [Paras 46, 55-61].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Incident occurred on 09.07.2001 at 11:00 p.m., but FIR was lodged the following morning at 7:45 a.m. – Court finds the delay justified due to the fear of the first informant (P.W. 1) and the distance to the police station – However, the delay, combined with the inconsistencies in P.W. 1’s testimony, raised doubts about the prosecution’s case [Paras 36(v), 39].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Appellants on bail, bail bonds canceled, and sureties discharged [Paras 64-65].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope under Article 227 – Evidence in Rebuttal – Petitioners sought to summon a Record Keeper as a witness under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in rebuttal – Trial court rejected the application, citing the prolonged pendency of the suit and that the petitioners had already led rebuttal evidence – Held: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or perverse findings – The trial court had granted ample opportunities to the petitioners, and the application to summon a witness was found to be a delaying tactic [Paras 14-19].

Right to Lead Evidence – Delaying Tactics – Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 CPC – Petitioners claimed their right to lead rebuttal evidence was not exhausted, arguing that the witness was necessary to rebut the respondents’ evidence – Held: The petitioners had already led evidence in rebuttal, and the right to summon additional witnesses was not reserved – The application was filed as an afterthought to delay proceedings, and the trial court rightly rejected it [Paras 18-20].

Pendency of Suit – Prolonged Litigation – The suit had been pending for 18 years, and both parties were provided with sufficient time to produce evidence – Held: The trial court’s decision to reject the application for summoning additional witnesses was justified, as the matter was already pending for final arguments – Delaying tactics in long-pending litigation are to be discouraged [Paras 18, 19].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope of Article 227 – The petitioners invoked Article 227 to challenge the trial court’s decision – Held: The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave derelictions of duty – The trial court’s order did not warrant interference, as it was neither perverse nor erroneous [Paras 14-16, 21-22].

Decision: Petition dismissed in limine – No interference warranted under Article 227 – The petitioners’ application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was rightly rejected by the trial court [Paras 22-23].

Right to Fair Trial – Denial of Legal Assistance – Violation of Article 21 – Retrial Ordered – The appellant contended that he was deprived of the right to legal assistance during the trial as his counsel did not appear, and he was asked to cross-examine the witnesses himself, despite his lack of legal expertise. The Court found that the trial was not conducted fairly, as the accused was denied his right to be represented by counsel, a fundamental aspect of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Held: The conviction and sentence are set aside, and the case is remanded for retrial with the direction to allow the appellant to engage counsel or to be provided legal aid – Appeal allowed, retrial ordered [Paras 36-52].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity Not Proven – Absence of Examination of Sanctioning Authority – The appellant challenged the validity of the sanction order, arguing that the prosecution failed to examine the Sanctioning Authority to prove that proper sanction was granted. The Court found that the prosecution did not establish the validity of the sanction, as the Sanctioning Authority was not examined, and no material was provided to show proper application of mind by the authority. Held: The sanction was not proved as required by law – Retrial ordered [Paras 16-25].

Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Corroboration of Prosecution Witnesses – Incomplete Cross-Examination – The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the complainant and shadow witnesses to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe. However, the accused was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses fully due to his counsel's absence. The Court observed that incomplete cross-examination of key witnesses prejudiced the defense. Held: Retrial necessary to ensure fair opportunity for cross-examination – Retrial ordered [Paras 26-34, 49-52].

Service Law - Social Forestry Workers – Claim for Permanency – Kalelkar Award – Writ Petitions by Social Forestry Division challenging the Industrial Court’s orders granting permanency to daily wage workers under the Kalelkar Award – Petitioners contended that workers were engaged seasonally and not entitled to permanency as no sanctioned posts existed – Held: Industrial Court erred in granting straightaway permanency; instead, the workers’ cases should be considered under government schemes for regularization of daily wage workers as per the Government Resolutions – Cases remitted for consideration of absorption under Government Resolutions from 1996 and 2012 [Paras 1-4, 22-25, 30].

Grant of Permanency – Industrial Court’s Power – Umadevi Case Law – Petitioners argued that as per the Constitution Bench ruling in Umadevi, workers cannot claim regularization without following due process, and the Industrial Court overstepped by granting permanency – Held: Industrial Court’s order for regularization of casual workers without sanctioned posts contravenes Umadevi principles – Court referred to Government schemes that provided for absorption of workers after 5 years of service, requiring re-evaluation under those schemes – Permissible to grant absorption as per applicable schemes, but not direct regularization [Paras 17-19, 21, 22, 29].**

Kalelkar Award – Scope and Application – CRTE Status vs. Permanency – The Industrial Court granted permanency by applying the Kalelkar Award, which requires five years of continuous service for CRTE status – Held: The Kalelkar Award confers CRTE status and does not guarantee permanent government posts – The workers should have been granted CRTE status and considered for regularization under existing schemes, but not outright permanency – Industrial Court order modified accordingly [Paras 10-12, 22-25].**

Regularization Schemes – Government Resolutions of 1996, 2012, and 2018 – Court observed that several Government Resolutions provide for the regularization of daily wage workers completing 5 years of service between 1994 and 2004 – Directed petitioners to re-evaluate workers’ claims for regularization based on these resolutions, without insisting on conditions like active service in 2012 for those terminated in 2002 – Court outlined the method for calculating service benefits, continuity, and retirement benefits for eligible workers [Paras 23-30].

Premature Termination – Impact of Interim Orders – Petitioners argued that the workers’ continued service was due to the status-quo order, thus should not count towards permanency – Held: Interim orders did not prevent petitioners from terminating workers’ services – Workers continued in service for over a decade, justifying consideration for regularization – Termination during pending complaints did not negate their right to claim benefits under the regularization schemes [Paras 14-15, 16].

Decision: Petitions partly allowed – Industrial Court’s direction for permanency set aside – Petitioners to consider workers for regularization under relevant Government Resolutions – Cases remitted for re-evaluation – Eligible workers to be absorbed and granted consequential benefits, including monetary benefits, retirement benefits, and continuity of service [Paras 30-31].

Civil Law – Recovery of Money – Execution of Promissory Note – Appellant contested the execution of the promissory note by the deceased Ramachandran, alleging it was fabricated – Trial court dismissed the suit for lack of conclusive proof, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that oral evidence of witnesses substantiated the claim despite adverse expert opinion – Appellants argued the appellate court wrongly disregarded the expert opinion and failed to properly assess the evidence – Held: Oral evidence, corroborated by other factors, sufficiently established the validity of the promissory note, and the expert opinion was considered a weak piece of evidence – First appellate court's judgment upheld, and second appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 11-26].

Presumption of Execution – Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Legal heirs of the deceased Ramachandran denied the execution of the promissory note – Plaintiff unable to claim presumption under Section 118 of the Act as the signature was disputed – Burden of proof shifted to plaintiff to establish that the deceased executed the promissory note – The trial court held the plaintiff did not meet this burden; however, the appellate court found the oral evidence provided by the plaintiff's witnesses sufficient to prove execution [Paras 11, 12, 16, 21].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act – Trial court invoked Section 114(g) against the plaintiff for withholding expert opinion that was unfavorable – Appellate court found that invoking Section 114(g) was incorrect as the expert’s opinion was available to the court and could have been marked as evidence if deemed necessary – Held: Plaintiff was not obligated to rely on expert opinion, and oral evidence took precedence under Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act, allowing witnesses familiar with the signature to testify [Paras 13-20].

Remand Request – Defendants sought remand to trial court for re-appreciation of expert evidence – Held: As the expert opinion was already available, the defendants had the opportunity to submit it in their defense – The appellate court’s decision not to rely on it, and its focus on oral evidence, was deemed appropriate – Remand was unnecessary as the appellate court had sufficiently dealt with the matter based on the existing evidence [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24.08.2021 of the first appellate court confirmed – No costs [Para 30].

Employment Law – Ex-servicemen Reservation – Writ petition challenging the cancellation of appointment by State Bank of India (SBI) – Petitioner, an ex-serviceman, secured employment as a primary teacher under the West Bengal Board of Primary Education after availing of ex-servicemen reservation benefits – Petitioner applied for another job in SBI under ex-servicemen category without disclosing his existing employment – Bank canceled his appointment as per the recruitment advertisement and clause (4) of the Office Memorandum prohibiting dual benefit for ex-servicemen – Held: The petitioner’s appointment was rightly canceled, as he violated the declaration requirements for ex-servicemen benefits [Paras 5, 10-15].

Ex-servicemen Status – Dual Employment Benefits – Petitioner admitted in his affidavit that he had already secured employment in a government-aided primary school, but claimed his employment did not fall under “Central Government/Public Sector Undertaking” jobs – Court found the petitioner had benefited from ex-servicemen reservations once, and his status ceased for further re-employment as per the Office Memorandum – Held: Appointment cancellation upheld as per the applicable rules [Paras 3-4, 12-15].

False Declaration – Cancellation of Appointment – Petitioner failed to disclose his employment as a primary teacher in his affidavit submitted to the Bank, despite being aware of the rule prohibiting ex-servicemen from claiming multiple reservations – The omission in the affidavit led to the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment – Held: The cancellation of the appointment was valid, and the writ petition was without merit [Paras 7, 13-15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – The appointment cancellation by State Bank of India upheld – All connected applications disposed of – No order as to costs [Paras 15-17].

Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Validity of Sanction – Batch of writ petitions challenging reassessment action initiated by the Income Tax Department under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2015-16 – Petitioners argue that reassessment notices were issued without proper sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner as mandated by Section 151(1) – Held: Reassessment action quashed as sanction was obtained from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT), which was improper under Section 151 when more than four years had passed from the end of the relevant AY [Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 40, 41, 42].

Time Extension by TOLA – Scope of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) – Respondents argue that TOLA extended the timelines for issuing notices due to the COVID-19 pandemic – Petitioners counter that while TOLA extended timelines, it did not alter the statutory requirement regarding sanctioning authorities under Section 151 – Held: TOLA extended time limits for reassessment but did not modify the approval structure in Section 151, which remained intact – Sanction must still be obtained from the appropriate authority based on the time elapsed since the relevant AY [Paras 5, 6, 38, 40].

Issuance of Notice – Timing and Legality – Petitioners challenge the reassessment notices, arguing they were digitally signed and served after 01 April 2021, thus falling under the amended provisions of Finance Act 2021, which required sanction from higher authorities – Held: Notices were digitally signed after 01 April 2021, making the amended Section 151 applicable, which does not recognize JCIT as an authority for sanctioning in cases where more than three years have elapsed – Notices quashed due to improper sanction [Paras 12, 13, 24, 25, 30].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Reassessment notices under Section 148 dated 31 March 2024 quashed – Respondents granted liberty to initiate further action as permitted by law [Paras 41, 42, 43].

Criminal Law – Conviction under POCSO Act – The appellant was convicted under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act for pressing the chest of a minor girl with sexual intent – Appellant contended that the prosecution’s case was based on contradictory evidence and the child’s testimony lacked corroboration – Held: The prosecutrix’s testimony, corroborated by her parents and the FIR, was credible and sufficient to establish the offense – Conviction upheld [Paras 5-8, 10-12].

Age Determination – The appellant challenged the age of the prosecutrix – The court relied on the scholar register, which showed the victim’s date of birth as 09/10/2007, establishing that she was under 12 years old at the time of the incident – Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding age [Paras 9-10].

Testimony of Child Witness – The appellant argued that the child’s testimony required corroboration – Court held that the testimony of a child victim in sexual offenses carries inherent credibility and does not require corroboration, especially when there is no material contradiction or embellishment [Paras 13-15].

Sexual Intent – The appellant denied the presence of sexual intent – Court held that pressing the chest of a minor female is sufficient to demonstrate sexual intent under the POCSO Act – Section 30 of the POCSO Act presumes culpable mental state in such cases unless proven otherwise [Paras 16-18].

Sentencing – The appellant was sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000 under Section 8 of the POCSO Act – Court found no reason to interfere with the sentence as it was within the statutory limits and appropriate for the offense [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act upheld [Paras 21-22].