Environmental Restoration – Corbett Tiger Reserve – CEC Supervision – Restitutive Principles – Polluter Pays – Precautionary Principle – Ecocentrism – Expert Committee report accepted – State of Uttarakhand directed to submit restoration plan, demolish unauthorised structures, and comply within time-bound schedule – Restoration to be supervised by CEC – Native species only; no alien introductions – Quantification dispute (Rs 29.8 Cr) not adjudicated due to pending CBI trial – State permitted to recover proportionate restoration costs from delinquent officers after departmental proceedings [Paras 44.1–44.6].

Tiger Safaris – Prohibition in Core/Critical Habitat – Conditional Permission in Buffer/Fringe – Tiger Safaris absolutely barred in core/critical tiger habitats under proviso to Section 33(a) and Section 38-V(4) – Allowed only on non-forest or degraded forest land in buffer areas not forming part of tiger corridors – Safari permissible only with full-fledged rescue and rehabilitation centre for conflict/injured/orphaned tigers – Sourcing of animals only from the same landscape; 2019 NTCA Guidelines contrary to this stand quashed earlier – NTCA 2019 Guidelines to be followed with additional safeguards – Field Director to control management – Earnings to be ploughed back into Tiger Conservation Foundations – Enclosure design requires CZA approval – Zero waste water discharge – Electric/Solar vehicles preferred – No interaction between captive and wild populations [Paras 45–46].

Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) – Mandatory for All Tiger Reserves – All States directed to notify ESZs around all Tiger Reserves (buffer + fringe area at minimum) within 1 year – ESZ safeguards under 2011 Notification applicable in full – Minimum 1 km ban on mining from buffer/tiger habitat boundary – ESZ must mirror MoEF&CC letter dated 23 April 2018 – Same permitted/prohibited activity matrix as per 2011 ESZ Notification to apply [Para 47.1].

Permitted/Prohibited Activities – Buffer/Fringe Areas – Prohibited: commercial mining, saw mills, polluting industries, commercial firewood use, major hydroelectric projects, exotic species, hazardous substances, low-flying aircraft (<300m), waste discharge, illegal felling – Regulated: hotels/resorts as per TCP, water use, fencing, road widening, night vehicular movement, hill/riverbank protection – TCP must demarcate tourism zones; tourism infra only on non-forest land; must align with ESZ Master Plans [Paras 47.2–47.2.3].

Resorts Near Protected Areas – Strict Conditions – Only eco-friendly resorts in buffer zones; prohibited in corridors – Homestays/community-run facilities encouraged – Mandatory zero-waste – Ban on mobile phones in core-tourism zones – Vehicular carrying capacity norms to be enforced – Total ban on night tourism – Restrictions on roads cutting through core habitats (night ban except emergencies) [Para 48].

Noise Regulation – Silence Zones – Entire Tiger Reserve area including ESZs to be declared Silence Zones within 3 months – State/Central Governments to similarly notify all Protected Areas and ESZs under Forest Acts as Silence Zones [Para 49].

Tiger Conservation Plans (TCPs) – Core/Buffer Notification – Steering Committees – All States must notify core and buffer areas within 6 months – TCPs to be framed within 3 months; no financial assistance unless TCP approved – Steering Committees to be constituted within 2 months and meet at least twice a year – NTCA to monitor TCP compliance and functioning of Steering Committees – NTCA tourism guidelines including total ban on night tourism to apply [Paras 50.1–50.2].

Human Resource Reforms – Forest Cadres – Staffing – Allowances – Insurance – Safety – Special Cell of MoEF&CC + CEC to assess cadre requirements within 1 year; States to fill vacancies accordingly – No outsourcing of core forest functions – Mandatory wildlife-trained officers; no vacant Field Director posts – Military-style benefits recommended including retention of accommodation, medals, allowances equivalent to paramilitary forces – Family housing at remote postings; improved camp infrastructure; separate facilities for women staff – Medical care, Ayushman Bharat coverage, and insurance for all staff including daily wagers – Ex-gratia for death/injury in line of duty – Dedicated cadres for veterinarians, wildlife biologists, sociologists – Continuous capacity building essential [Paras 50.3.1–50.3.3].

Funding Framework – Tiger Conservation Foundations – SOP for Budgeting – MoEF&CC, NTCA, CEC directed to formulate policy framework and SOP for funding within 6 months – TCFs to receive financial assistance directly – Revenues to be reinvested in Reserves [Para 50.4].

Human–Wildlife Conflict – Model Guidelines – NTCA to prepare Model Guidelines incorporating compensation, coordination, disaster-labeling, and uniform ex-gratia (Rs 10 lakh) within 6 months – States to implement within 6 months thereafter – Rapid response “Green Commandos” recommended [Para 50.5].

Green Infrastructure – Gati Shakti Portal – Mitigation Measures – Avoidance principle paramount – All Tiger Reserve, corridor, PA, ESZ data to be uploaded on Gati Shakti – All linear infrastructure must follow WII, NTCA, NBWL mitigation – Transmission lines to be insulated/underground where feasible [Para 50.6].

Religious Tourism – Regulation Inside Reserves – States/MoEF&CC to issue rules within 6 months – Movement of devotees through core areas to be regulated; eco-friendly vehicles; no pedestrian routes; no new constructions – Cooking prohibited except small prasad on solar stoves – Managing committees to include Field Director, District Collector, SP (as invitees only) [Paras 50.7–51].

Applicability – Limited Flexibility – Directions apply to all Tiger Reserves pan-India; States allowed minor modifications only with WII and NTCA consultation [Para 52].

Criminal Law – Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning of Additional Accused – Defence Pleas – Petitioner named in FIR but exonerated by Investigating Officers in multiple reports; subsequently summoned by Trial Court – Held: Contentions regarding false implication and police reports constitute defence pleas – Petitioner is at liberty to raise all such contentions during the course of trial at the appropriate stage – The observations in the impugned orders are limited to the purpose of summoning and shall not prejudice the trial. [Paras 2, 7-8, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) – Evasion of Trial vs. Pursuing Legal Remedies – Trial Court issued NBWs for non-appearance while petitioner was approaching High Court and Supreme Court – Held: When a petitioner is pursuing remedies before higher forums, non-appearance before the Trial Court cannot be termed as deliberate or an attempt to evade trial – Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. implies custodial interrogation is not required – No purpose is served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody during a protracted trial – NBWs ordered to be kept in abeyance; petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and be admitted to bail. [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition disposed of. Non-bailable warrants kept in abeyance. Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Appellant, a former Director of lessee company, was implicated in FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC for alleged non-payment of rent and unauthorised retention of leased premises – Supreme Court held that the dispute arose from breach of lease agreement and had been subject to arbitration, where an award was already passed – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings in such context, especially after resignation of appellant, amounts to abuse of process – FIR quashed [Paras 1–11, 16–17].

Arbitration – Precedence over Criminal Proceedings – Lessor invoked arbitration clause and obtained award directing company to vacate premises and pay arrears – Appellant had already resigned prior to award – Court held that once arbitration remedy is invoked and dispute is civil in nature, resort to criminal prosecution is impermissible in absence of clear intent to deceive from inception [Paras 7–11, 16–17].

Director Liability – Post-Resignation Proceedings – Appellant had resigned as Director prior to arbitral award and execution proceedings – No evidence of personal enrichment or involvement in continued possession of premises – Held: Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained against former Director where no active role shown post-resignation [Paras 10–11, 15–17].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Allegations without Mens Rea – Complaint filed after arbitral award and after restitution of possession – FIR filed without making company a party – No specific allegation of dishonest intention at inception or post-resignation conduct – Held: Absence of mens rea and lack of material against appellant justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 8–11, 15–17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR/Crime No. 514 of 2017 dated 07.12.2017 against the appellant quashed – Criminal proceedings held to be an abuse of process – No offence made out under Sections 406 or 420 IPC.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Remand – Respondent-husband’s divorce petition was initially dismissed by the trial court – High Court reversed the finding and granted divorce on ground of cruelty based solely on oral testimony of the husband – Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider key questions including whether the appellant-wife was thrown out or voluntarily left matrimonial home, and whether earlier withdrawal of cruelty petition barred second on same cause – Held: Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law [Paras 2-4, 6-7]

Family Law – Mental Cruelty – Evaluation of Evidence – Supreme Court emphasized that before granting divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown or cruelty, the Court must undertake a comprehensive analysis of conduct, social background, and responsibility for separation – High Court failed to conduct such exercise – Remand ordered [Paras 4-6]

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Judicial Approach – Court cautioned against using irretrievable breakdown as a blanket ground for divorce without attributing responsibility for breakdown – Importance of examining which party caused the separation and consequences on the child stressed – Held: Determination must be rooted in evidence and fairness [Paras 5-6]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Judgment of High Court set aside – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication by High Court – Parties directed to appear before High Court on 24.11.2025 [Paras 7-8]

Revenue Recovery – Challenge to Auction Sale – Delay – Writ Not Maintainable – Appellant failed to invoke statutory remedies under Sections 37-A and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 within 30 days – Auction held on 29.07.2005 and confirmed on 23.07.2008 – Payments made during writ proceedings cannot substitute compliance with statutory procedure – Interim stay on confirmation of sale did not suspend statutory obligations – No material irregularity or fraud proved in sale process – Challenge dismissed as barred by limitation [Paras 3, 14–16, 18, 22, 25].

Revenue Recovery – Auction Sale – Statutory Bar – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Appellant challenged auction of ancestral property under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act without filing an application under Sections 37-A or 38 to set aside the sale – Auction held on 29.07.2005, confirmed on 23.07.2008 – Challenge made after 4 years without invoking statutory remedies – Held: Writ petition and review rightly dismissed by High Court as belated and not maintainable [Paras 3, 15, 22].

Limitation – Revenue Recovery Act – Sections 37-A and 38 – Strict Compliance Required – Appellant argued that pending writ proceedings and interim stay on confirmation of sale obviated the need to file an application under the Act – Rejected – Court held that interim orders do not suspend statutory limitation – 30-day limit to challenge auction must be strictly followed – Payments made during pendency of writ proceedings not a substitute for filing under Section 37-A [Paras 14–16, 18].

Civil Procedure vs. Revenue Recovery – Mode of Execution – Appellant’s contention that 1987 ex-parte decree should have been enforced under Civil Procedure Code and not through Revenue Recovery rejected – Held: Once arrears certified under Revenue Recovery Act, proceedings under that Act valid – Recovery not barred by limitation under Article 112 of Limitation Act [Paras 8, 19].

Rights of Auction Purchaser – Confirmation of Sale – Citing Valji Khimji v. Official Liquidator, Supreme Court reiterated that once a sale is confirmed, rights of auction-purchaser become final and cannot be disturbed except for fraud or material irregularity – No such irregularity shown – Sale certificate issued, property registered and transferred to bona fide purchasers – Challenge held to be infructuous [Paras 20–21].

Judicial Review – Scope of Review Petition – Review petition dismissed as no error apparent on record shown – Writ petition, appeal and review all adjudicated on merits – Findings of High Court found to be reasoned, consistent with law and not perverse – Review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Auction sale and its confirmation upheld – High Court’s orders in writ appeal and review application affirmed – No interference warranted [Paras 25–26].

Revenue Recovery – Auction of immovable property – Statutory remedy under Sections 37-A/38 not invoked – 30-day limitation mandatory – Interim stay on confirmation does not extend limitation – Deposit under court orders not equivalent to statutory deposit – Sale validly confirmed and rights accrued to auction purchaser – Challenge barred – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14-18, 20-22, 25-26].

Revenue Recovery – Mandatory statutory remedy – Sections 37-A and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act – 30-day limitation – The Act provides a complete mechanism for setting aside a sale either by deposit (S. 37-A) or by alleging fraud/irregularity (S. 38). Both require filing an application within 30 days of the sale. Appellant admittedly filed none. Held: Limitation is mandatory, statutory remedy cannot be bypassed, and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to revive a time-barred challenge [Paras 14-15].

Interim Orders – Effect on statutory limitation – High Court’s interim order only stayed confirmation of sale, not the conduct of auction. Auction on 29.07.2005 valid. Stay on confirmation does not suspend or extend the statutory obligation to file application within 30 days. Pendency of writ does not toll statutory limitation. Contention that no application was necessary rejected [Paras 16-18].

Revenue Recovery – Challenge to dues – Ex-parte decree of 1987 – Decree quantifying arrears was never challenged. Once arrears certified as recoverable under Revenue Recovery Act, authorities competent to proceed under the Act. Limitation plea under Article 112 and argument that execution should proceed under CPC held untenable [Para 19].

Auction Sale – Rights of auction purchaser – Finality after confirmation – Auction held on 29.07.2005; purchaser deposited full amount; sale confirmed on 23.07.2008. Held: Upon confirmation of sale, rights accrue in favour of purchaser and can be interfered with only on proof of fraud or substantial irregularity. None proved. Property already transferred to bona fide purchasers. Transaction attained finality [Paras 20-21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope – High Court rightly refused to entertain belated challenge when specific statutory remedy not availed. Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent mandatory statutory procedures or reopen time-barred proceedings. Findings of High Court proper and well-reasoned [Para 22].

Review Jurisdiction – Limited scope – Review cannot act as appeal in disguise. No error apparent on face of record shown. High Court correctly dismissed review relying on binding precedents (Lily Thomas; Parsion Devi) [Paras 23-24].

Held: Appellant failed to invoke Sections 37-A/38 within limitation – Auction conducted and confirmed as per law – Interim stay did not excuse non-compliance with statutory mechanism – No illegality, irregularity, or fraud established – High Court orders upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based Solely on Recovery – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act on basis of recovery of pistol and cartridges allegedly used in murder – Prosecution case unsupported by eyewitnesses – PW-1 (complainant) and PW-5 (alleged responder) turned hostile – No other material evidence connecting appellant to crime scene – Held: Recovery from shared space accessible to others not sufficient for conviction – Conviction set aside [Paras 5, 13, 16, 22-24]

Evidence Law – Disclosure Statements – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Confessional statement of accused in police custody inadmissible – Recovery must be distinctly connected to fact discovered – Appellant’s disclosure did not specify pistol was used in offence – Recovery from unlocked iron box in common household area with no independent witness – Held: Disclosure and recovery insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 14-16, 22-24]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Eyewitnesses – PW-1 named appellant in supplementary statement five days after FIR and claimed to be eyewitness – Later denied seeing the incident and turned hostile – No identification parade conducted – PW-5 also turned hostile – Held: Testimony of both witnesses unreliable – Prosecution failed to prove presence of appellant at crime scene [Paras 12-13, 22-23]

Motive – Absence of Personal Motive – Motive alleged against co-accused (mother-in-law, brother-in-law) who were either acquitted or not chargesheeted – Appellant’s alleged role based on speculative friendship with co-accused – No evidence of personal grudge or benefit – Held: Motive theory unproven and cannot sustain conviction [Paras 14, 22-23]

Forensic Evidence – Chain of Custody Not Established – Recovered weapon kept in police Malkhana for 19 days before sending to FSL – No clarity on when article was removed for testing – No independent witness to confirm seizure or storage – FSL report cannot solely sustain conviction without proper chain of custody [Paras 16, 23]

Precedents – Applicability – Cases cited by prosecution (Jeet Singh, Bharat Dhiwar, Lochan Srivas) distinguished – Those cases involved recovery from exclusive premises and were supported by corroborative evidence – Present case lacked supporting evidence and recovery was from shared space – Held: Precedents not applicable to present facts [Paras 17-21]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 25]

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Hostile Eyewitness – Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery from accessible place and broken chain of custody – Motive unproved – FSL correlation insufficient – Acquittal restored – Conviction set aside [Paras 13, 16, 17, 21–24].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Eyewitness – Evidentiary Value – FIR naming “unknown persons” – Subsequent naming of accused in supplementary statement – Eyewitness (PW-1) and first responder (PW-5) turned hostile and denied presence of accused – No identification parade conducted – Held: Prosecution failed to establish presence or identity of accused at the scene of crime – Hostile testimony destroys substratum of prosecution case [Paras 12–13].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Scope of “distinctly relates to the fact discovered” – Disclosure statement must clearly relate to weapon used in the crime – Accused’s disclosure did not state that recovered pistol was the same used in murder – Observed: Recovery statement did not satisfy statutory test of “distinctly” connecting weapon to offence – Cannot be relied upon to sustain conviction [Paras 14–15].

Recovery – Arms Act – Weapon seized from unlocked iron box in room accessible to family members – No independent witness to recovery – Memo shows box was open; articles not exclusively within control of accused – Held: Recovery from accessible location weakens probative value; cannot singularly constitute incriminating circumstance – Chain of custody from Malkhana to FSL not proved – Gap of 19 days unexplained – Seal T2 insufficient to establish identity of recovered article [Paras 16–17, 23].

Circumstantial Evidence – FSL Report – Bullets found in body matched cartridges said to be recoverable by seized pistol – But prosecution failed to establish unbroken chain connecting recovery, storage, and deposit – Identification of weapon not satisfactorily proved – FSL match alone cannot establish guilt when link evidence is broken – Held: FSL report cannot substitute foundational proof [Paras 16, 23].

Motive – Co-accused (family members) discharged or acquitted – No independent evidence showing motive against appellant except alleged friendship with acquitted co-accused – Alleged quid pro quo speculative and unproven – Held: Motive wholly unestablished; cannot support conviction in absence of other evidence [Paras 14, 22].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Recovery doubtful; eyewitnesses hostile; motive unproved; no last-seen evidence – Chain of circumstances incomplete – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court and High Court erred in convicting appellant solely on recovery-based theory supported by FSL report – Acquittal directed [Paras 22–25].

– Aggravated sexual assault on 4-year-old – Conviction under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO based on cogent testimony of mother and surrounding circumstances upheld despite absence of external injuries and failure of traumatized child to depose – Maximum sentence of 7 years RI reduced to 6 years RI considering period already undergone and overall circumstances – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 2-3.2, 4-5.6, 7-9].

POCSO – Aggravated Sexual Assault – Conviction – Evidence of Mother – Four-year-old Victim – FIR and Medical Evidence – Concurrent Findings – Appellant convicted by Special Judge (POCSO) under Sections 9(m) and 10 POCSO and sentenced to 7 years RI and fine – High Court confirmed conviction and sentence – Prosecution case that appellant, a neighbour, returned with victim’s father from forest after collecting wood, consumed liquor at their house, and later was found by victim’s mother (PW-3) wearing only half shorts and sitting near the legs of the sleeping 4-year-old victim whose underwear was down to knees and frock pulled up to chest – Child was crying, complained of pain in private part and her private part was found wet – FIR registered the same day, victim sent for medical examination, statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded, chargesheet filed and date of birth established as 13-02-2017 (age 4–5 years) – Held: narrative of PW-3 and consistent account of father (PW-2) form a clear and reliable account of the incident; no reason to disbelieve the mother’s testimony – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court on guilt under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO sustained [Paras 2-3.2, 5-5.1, 6-7].

Evidence Law – Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Absence of External Injury – Redness in Vagina – Effect on Prosecution Case – Defence contention that absence of external injury or bleeding on victim’s private part and possibility of redness due to rubbing or infection entitled appellant to benefit of doubt – Medical Officer (PW-6) found no external injuries and no bleeding but noticed redness in the vagina – Another Medical Officer (PW-8) opined that appellant was capable of sexual intercourse – Court reiterates that where ocular evidence is consistent and cogent, medical evidence, even if not fully corroborative, takes a backseat – In present case, medical evidence (redness in vagina) does not negate, and in fact is consistent with, the prosecution version – Held: submissions based on alleged deficiency in medical evidence rejected; conviction can rest on trustworthy ocular testimony of PW-3 supported by surrounding circumstances [Paras 4, 5.2, 7].

Child Witness – Four-year-old Victim – Inability to Depose due to Trauma and Fear – Conduct in Court as Corroborative Circumstance – Victim (PW-1), aged about 4 years and studying at Anganwadi, was produced as a witness – On being shown the accused, who removed his mask in court, the child became frightened, refused to look at him, and did not answer questions – Evidence had to be stopped, victim sent out, and even after intervals and presence of mother, she only cried and did not speak – Trial court therefore closed her examination with no cross-examination – Held: sequence of events in the courtroom demonstrates that the child was in a frightened and traumatized state upon seeing the accused – Her behaviour is a “tale-telling” circumstance reflecting the continuing shock of the incident and operates as a pointer towards truth of the prosecution case – Failure of such a young victim to give verbal testimony in court is not fatal to prosecution when there is otherwise cogent evidence [Paras 5.3-5.6].

POCSO – Sections 7, 8, 9(m), 10 – Aggravated Sexual Assault – Penetration Not Sine Qua Non – Child Below 12 Years – Section 7 POCSO defines sexual assault, Section 8 prescribes punishment, Section 9 defines aggravated sexual assault and Section 10 provides punishment, including for assault on child below 12 years [Section 9(m)] – Appellant convicted under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old child – Argument for appellant that absence of allegation or proof of penetration should result in acquittal, as offence under POCSO not made out – Court not impressed; given the evidence of victim’s undressed state, appellant’s position near her legs, complaint of pain and wetness in private part, and age of victim, ingredients of aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) are satisfied – Held: for Section 9(m) read with Section 10, penetration is not indispensable; proved acts of sexual assault on child below 12 years suffice to sustain conviction [Paras 6-8].

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence in Sexual Offences Against Children – Role of Parental Testimony – Both parents (PW-2 and PW-3) were consistent in deposing about accused accompanying father to forest, returning to house, consuming liquor, presence in house when child was sleeping, and discovery of accused by mother near the legs of the child with her clothes disarranged – Mother immediately raised alarm, father attempted to apprehend accused and assaulted him with stick as he fled – Court holds parental testimony, particularly that of mother witness to immediate post-occurrence circumstances, to be natural, prompt and trustworthy – No motive suggested for false implication of neighbour – Held: Trial Court and High Court’s appreciation of this evidence is “eminently legal and proper”, calling for no interference [Paras 5-5.2, 7].

Sentence – POCSO – Section 10 – Reduction from 7 Years RI (Maximum) to 6 Years RI – Factors Considered – For offence under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO, Trial Court imposed 7 years rigorous imprisonment (maximum under Section 10) and fine, which was affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court notes that appellant has already undergone about 4 years 5 months of imprisonment – While upholding conviction, Court considers “totality of facts and circumstances” and reduces sentence of rigorous imprisonment from 7 years to 6 years – Fine of Rs 6000 and default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment maintained – High Court judgment modified to this limited extent – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 2.1, 9-11].