Scheduled Tribe Certificate – Jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Officer – Act of 2000 – Petitioners challenged rejection of their applications for Scheduled Tribe certificates by SDO and Caste Scrutiny Committee – Held: Under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, SDO is only empowered to issue caste certificates, not adjudicate their validity – Scrutiny of validity lies solely with the Caste Scrutiny Committee under Section 6 – Impugned orders quashed as being without jurisdiction [Paras 10-11, 13].

Caste Scrutiny Committee – Premature Adjudication – Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected appeal treating it as a validity determination – Held: Committee acted beyond jurisdiction by deciding caste validity at appeal stage before certificate was issued – Required to examine only when certificate is referred for verification under prescribed procedure – Action contrary to statutory scheme and binding precedents [Paras 12-13].

Precedent – Identical Issues Already Decided – Reliance placed on prior binding decisions in W.P. No. 7081 of 2024, Namdeo Baburao Ingale, Dhanashree Ravindra Koli and Vishal Namdeo Gopewad – Consistent view that SDO cannot adjudicate caste validity while issuing certificate – Impugned orders quashed following settled position [Paras 10, 13].

Direction to Authorities – Writ Allowed – SDO directed to issue caste certificates to petitioners within three weeks – Scrutiny Committee directed to consider caste validity afresh, without being influenced by earlier findings, if referred as per procedure [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Failure of Prosecution to Establish Complete Chain – Appellant convicted for murder of his adoptive parents (D-1 and D-2) – Prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial evidence – No eyewitness – Trial Court convicted relying on appellant’s presence in the house, alleged motive to inherit property, false plea in FIR, and subsequent abscondence – Held: Mere presence of appellant in same house, inconsistent defence, and abscondence are insufficient to establish guilt – Conduct of appellant in lodging FIR, calling neighbours, accompanying deceased to post-mortem, and cooperating with investigation was natural – Chain of circumstances incomplete and incapable of excluding hypothesis of innocence – Conviction based on conjecture and surmise, not legal proof [Paras 13–16, 19].

Motive – Property Dispute – Absence of Cogent Evidence – Prosecution failed to establish any motive for the appellant to kill his adoptive parents – Witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.9 deposed cordial relations between deceased couple and appellant – Trial Court erred in relying solely on P.W.1’s version – Absence of motive weighs in favour of the accused in a circumstantial case [Paras 12, 19].

Second FIR – Legality – Investigation Based on Subsequent Discovery – Second FIR (Ext.17) lodged by Investigating Officer after initial FIR by appellant (Ext.14) held irregular but not illegal – Applying ratio in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – Proper course was to include appellant as accused in first case rather than register a fresh FIR – Irregularity did not vitiate prosecution in absence of prejudice [Para 17].

Investigation – Informant as Investigating Officer – Bias Allegation – Merely because Investigating Officer was also informant of second FIR does not vitiate investigation – No proof of mala fides or bias – Reliance placed on Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120 and State v. V. Jaya Paul, AIR 2004 SC 2684 [Para 18].

Absconding – Relevance under Section 8, Evidence Act – Mere abscondence cannot establish guilt – Absconding may indicate fear of arrest but is not conclusive proof of guilt – Cited Matru v. State of U.P., (1971) 2 SCC 75 and Sekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176 [Para 15].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Prosecution cannot invoke Section 106 to compensate for its failure to prove a complete chain – Burden shifts to accused only after prosecution establishes prima facie case – Court cautioned against reversing burden without foundational proof [Para 16].

Conduct of Accused – Lodging FIR and Accompanying Deceased – Appellant’s conduct found natural and consistent with innocence – His immediate lodging of FIR and cooperation during investigation cannot be treated as incriminating conduct [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled – Trial Court judgment reversed [Paras 19–20].

Income Tax – TDS Credit – Non-reflection in Form 26AS – Refund entitlement – Petitioner, a cooperative society exempt under Section 80P, sought refund of TDS deducted for A.Y. 2009–10 to 2015–16 – Department refused refund citing mismatch with Form 26AS – Held: Once assessee furnishes Form 16A evidencing deduction, Assessing Officer must verify and grant credit even if TDS is not reflected in Form 26AS – Assessee cannot be denied refund for fault of deductor [Paras 3–5, 8–9].

Tax Administration – CBDT Circular No. 05/2013 – Compliance – CBDT directed that when assessee produces TDS certificate, Assessing Officer must verify payment with deductor and grant due credit – High Court reiterates that AOs are bound to follow the circular and cannot compel taxpayers to suffer delays caused by third parties [Paras 7–8].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Refund of wrongly withheld TDS – Court follows Delhi High Court’s Court on Its Motion v. CIT and Allahabad High Court’s Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. UOI – Mandamus issued directing AO to verify petitioner’s documents and pass refund order within four weeks – Assessee entitled to rely on cited precedents and CBDT circular before AO [Paras 4, 6, 9–11].

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no.3 to verify Form 16A certificates and issue refund in accordance with law within four weeks.

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Appeal Against Acquittal – Respondent accused of driving a tanker rashly and hitting a cyclist who died on the spot – Eyewitness accounts (PW5 and PW6) found inconsistent, contradictory, and uncorroborated by physical evidence – No mechanical inspection of the cycle conducted – Tanker inspection showed no fresh damage – No photographs or reliable scene reconstruction adduced – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal justified [Paras 2–6, 13–15, 20–21].

Evidence – Eyewitness Credibility – Contradictions – PW6 claimed to witness the accident from both inside and outside a bus – PW5 admitted he did not see the driver – Statements made under Section 161 CrPC by PW6 contradicted his court deposition – No proof of witness presence at scene through memos or photographs – Held: Testimonies unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 5, 13–14].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – Acquittal by Trial Court reinforces presumption of innocence – Appellate court must be cautious in overturning acquittals unless the trial court’s view is wholly unreasonable or perverse – Held: Trial Court’s view was a plausible one based on evidence – No grounds for interference [Paras 17–19].

IPC Section 304A – Requirement of Proof – Essential ingredients include rash or negligent act directly causing death – High speed alone not sufficient to infer rashness – Mere occurrence of accident not proof of negligence – Held: In absence of evidence on speed, traffic conditions, or manner of driving, conviction under Section 304A cannot be sustained [Paras 10–12, 16].

Presumption of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Inapplicability – Held: Principle applies only when circumstances unmistakably point to negligence – Not attracted merely because an accident occurred – Criminal negligence must be established through specific evidence, not inference [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279 and 304A IPC upheld – Court finds prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent act beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court’s judgment found reasonable, based on lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in prosecution case – Double presumption of innocence reinforced [Paras 20–21].

Application for regular bail in a case involving grievous assaults stemming from prior enmity and extortion demands – alleged repeated attacks on complainant and his nephew, including within hospital premises – petitioner identified as principal assailant with multiple past criminal involvements.

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Power to Recall Witness – Investigating Officer – Application for recalling PW-12, Inspector Subhash Singh, rejected by trial court – Witness had investigated the case and received crucial electronic evidence (CD and pendrive) from deceased witness Sanjay (Ex-Sarpanch) – Held: Trial Court erred in dismissing application mechanically – In a murder trial, it is imperative that every material aspect of investigation be brought before the court – Recall of IO necessary to ensure complete and fair adjudication [Paras 1–3, 6–7].

Evidence – Electronic Evidence – CCTV Footage – Pendrive and CD handed to IO by deceased Ex-Sarpanch contained CCTV footage showing co-accused Ravinder at another location (library in Delhi) at time of offence – Such material potentially exculpatory – Re-examination of IO essential to bring this on record [Paras 3, 6].

Fair Trial – Duty of Court – In serious offences like murder, trial court must ensure full disclosure of investigative facts – Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to be exercised to discover truth and render complete justice – Technical objections regarding “filling lacunae” cannot override requirement of fairness [Paras 6–7].

Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Relevance – Accused Ravinder, initially found innocent, was later summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Additional evidence from IO could aid determination of his true involvement – Court directed to permit recall of witness for complete evidence [Para 6].

Decision: Revision allowed – Order of trial court dated 11.09.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to recall PW-12, Inspector Subhash Singh, along with case records for re-examination regarding all investigative facts and electronic evidence – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 7–8].

Motor Accident Compensation – Quantum Awarded in Excess of Claim – Just Compensation – Tribunal awarded ₹1.3 Crores against claimed ₹82 Lakhs – Insurance Company objected to grant of compensation beyond claim – Held: Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, courts and tribunals are empowered to grant “just compensation” irrespective of claimed amount – Social welfare legislation permits award above claimed figure to meet ends of justice – No legal embargo on granting compensation more than what is claimed [Paras 42-52] –

Assessment of Income – Guesswork in Absence of Documentary Proof – Permissible – Claimant’s income assessed as ₹20,000/month though no tax returns or formal proof was filed – Tribunal relied on lease agreements, oral testimony, and surrounding circumstances – Held: In motor accident cases, adjudication of income can involve reasonable estimation or guesswork where evidence is credible – Income determined by tribunal based on broad-based judicial approach found justified [Paras 53-61] –

Permanent Disability – Evidence – Medical and Lay Witnesses – Compensation for Future Care – Claimant rendered 100% disabled due to spinal cord injury (C5-C6) – Evidence from 20 witnesses including treating doctors, physiotherapists, hospital administrators, and attendants established permanent incapacitation – Costs of long-term physiotherapy, personal assistants, and medical expenses proved – Tribunal’s award supported by extensive documentary and oral evidence [Paras 17-41] –

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court's Deference to Tribunal’s Factual Findings – Insurance Company challenged only two components: compensation exceeding claim and lack of income proof – Tribunal’s findings on all other heads of compensation remained unchallenged – Held: Where tribunal takes a possible view based on evidence, appellate court will not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported by record [Paras 62-63] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award of ₹1.3 Crores upheld – Insurance Company and other respondents directed to deposit awarded amount within 2 months – Claimant permitted to withdraw full compensation without security – No costs [Paras 63-64].

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum – Concealment of Income – Revision Dismissed – Revisionist-husband, a company director, challenged Family Court order directing payment of ₹20,000/- p.m. each to wife and daughter – He alleged that maintenance was excessive considering his income of ₹2.4 lakh p.a. – Wife alleged concealment of true income and production of manipulated ITRs – Documentary evidence showed deposits exceeding ₹67 lakh in company accounts and assets worth over ₹1 crore – Court found deliberate suppression of income – Held: Revisionist had sufficient means and moral/legal duty to maintain wife and daughter [Paras 15–27].

Wife Living Separately – Justifiable Cause – Evidence showed wife was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment – Husband failed to cross-examine her on key allegations – Trial court rightly held that she was living separately for sufficient reasons [Paras 10–11].

Wife’s Qualification – Capability to Earn – Effect – Wife, though qualified (B.Com and Interior Design Diploma), left employment at husband’s insistence – Presently unemployed and caring for minor child – Mere capability to work not ground to deny maintenance [Paras 12–14].

Standard of Living – Principle of Parity – Wife entitled to live in similar standard as husband – Husband’s attempt to evade liability by showing reduced income rejected – Maintenance to ensure dignity and prevent destitution – Court reiterated that sustenance implies living consistent with family status [Paras 18–22].

Determination of Quantum – Guiding Principles – Reaffirmed Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, neither oppressive nor meagre – Financial capacity, lifestyle, inflation, and dependent obligations to be considered [Para 23].

Presumption – Able-Bodied Husband – Following Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani (AIR 1968 Del 174) – Able-bodied man presumed capable of earning sufficient to maintain wife and child; concealment of income invites adverse inference [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Family Court order upheld – ₹20,000/- per month each to wife and minor daughter affirmed – No interference warranted [Para 30].

Customs Law – Import Clearance – Out of Charge – DRI Officer’s Post-Clearance Action – Petitioner’s goods (dry dates) cleared under Section 47 of Customs Act after full verification by Customs, FSSAI, and Ministry of Agriculture – Despite clearance and gate pass, goods forcibly brought back to CFS by DRI Officer based on unverified intelligence alleging Pakistani origin – Held: Action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) in securing return of cleared goods was arbitrary, not supported by law or legal procedure – No lawful revocation or show cause notice preceded such retrieval – Violation of natural justice and rule of law [Paras 1–7, 12–23, 33–34, 45, 54].

Customs Act – Section 47 – Legal Finality of Clearance Order – Goods once cleared for home consumption upon satisfaction by proper officer cannot be interfered with without following due process – No proceedings under Section 124 initiated – Held: Sixth Respondent’s telephonic “requests” to reverse clearance orders circumvented legal remedies available under Customs Act – Clearance once made under Section 47 cannot be undone without lawful proceedings [Paras 4, 19–23, 30–32, 37, 54].

Administrative Law – Natural Justice and Rule of Law – Highhanded action by government officer divesting goods already cleared without issuing notice or recording reasons – Held: Any civil consequence must be preceded by due process – Mere reliance on intelligence not enough – Absence of any file notings, written orders, or ‘reason to believe’ vitiates the action – Colour of office cannot replace colour of law [Paras 17, 23, 26–29, 31–33, 39, 54].

Powers of DRI – Section 106 Customs Act – Improper Invocation – DRI Officer relied on Section 106 to justify stopping and retrieval of goods – Held: Section 106 applies to smuggling suspicion before clearance – Goods in question already cleared after 6 days of examination – No lawful authority shown for recalling cleared goods post Out of Charge – Section 106 not attracted [Paras 24–26, 28, 32].

Disputed Origin – Pakistani Origin Allegation – Dry dates alleged to have originated in Karachi and routed through UAE – Clearance granted after specific examination instructions on Pakistani origin – Court refuses to adjudicate origin dispute under Article 226 – Directs Customs to issue show cause and follow due process [Paras 10–11, 38–42, 44–45, 54].

Remedy – Equitable Relief – Court refuses to order immediate release but imposes time-bound direction for issuance and adjudication of show cause notice – If not done, directs release of goods upon redemption fine/bank guarantee – Balances petitioner’s commercial interests with revenue’s concerns [Paras 47–50, 55].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Court holds action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of natural justice – However, in the interest of balancing equities, permits Customs Authorities to issue show cause notice within 4 weeks and dispose of it within 6 weeks of reply – If not complied, goods to be released upon furnishing bank guarantee for redemption fine – Rule made partly absolute – No costs [Paras 54–56].