Civil Appeal – Validity of Election Petition – Relief sought for re-counting of votes without seeking the specific reliefs as prescribed by the Rules – Appellant aggrieved by the Division Bench’s decision setting aside Single Bench’s order – Examination of legality and maintainability of the Election Petition under Section 122 and the Rules of 1995. [Para 1]

Election Procedure – Election of Gram Panchayat – Dispute over election result – Election Petition filed for re-counting of votes – Question of whether Election Petition seeking only re-counting of votes is maintainable under the prescribed procedure – Analysis of provisions under Section 122 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995. [Para 3, 4, 5, 6]

Rule Interpretation – Strict construction of election law – Necessity of adhering to the prescribed procedure as per the Rules of 1995 – Principle that when a statutory remedy is provided, it must be strictly followed – Emphasis on the requirement to seek specific reliefs as contemplated in Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995 in the Election Petition. [Para 10, 15]

Reliefs in Election Petition – Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995 – Requirement of seeking specific declarations in the Election Petition – Importance of adhering to the prescribed forms of relief in accordance with the statute – Inadequacy of seeking relief solely for re-counting of votes without complying with the specified procedure. [Para 7, 8, 11, 12, 14]

Precedent – Sohan Lal vs. Babu Gandhi and Others – Interpretation of election law – Validity of re-counting of votes as a remedy – Examination of previous case law and its applicability to the present case – Clarification of the scope of re-counting in the context of election petitions. [Para 10]

Decision – Election Petition seeking only re-counting of votes, without seeking the specific reliefs as prescribed by Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995, held to be not maintainable – Division Bench’s decision affirmed – Appeal dismissed. [Para 16, 17]

Criminal Appeal – Enlargement on Bail – Grant of bail to the petitioner – Petitioner seeks bail in connection with FIR No.285/2021 registered at Police Station Kho-Nagoriya, Jaipur City – Allegations of Section 498-A and 304-B IPC – Deceased's unnatural death within seven months of marriage – FIR by parents alleging mental torture and dowry demand – Petitioner claims deceased's suicide, relying on FSL report – High Court initially granted bail, later set aside by Supreme Court – Trial commenced, witnesses examined – 19 out of 30 witnesses examined – Petitioner in custody for around 15 months – Grant of bail considered due to substantial examination of vital witnesses. [Para 1-6]

Bail Jurisprudence – Consideration for granting bail – Importance of completing trial expeditiously – Possibility of harassment to certain witnesses – Bail granted to petitioner on furnishing bail bonds – Direction for petitioner to stay outside Jaipur City except for court appearances – Trial Court directed to expedite trial – Special leave petition disposed of accordingly. [Para 7-11]

Conclusion – Special leave petition for bail disposed of – Bail granted to petitioner subject to conditions – Emphasis on expeditious trial and protection of witnesses – Pending applications also disposed of. [Para 12]

Tax Dispute – Classification of service tax – Appeals arising from service tax demands – Four Show Cause Notices issued – Adjudication challenged before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) – CESTAT passes remand order – Commissioner re-adjudicates based on remand order – Classification, liability, and valuation issues considered – Appeals filed by both Revenue and assessee.

Classification of Services – Software and Hardware – Correct classification determined for the services rendered by the assessee – “Intellectual Property Service” classification till 16^th May 2008, and “Information Technology Software” classification thereafter – Correct interpretation of Section 65(53a) of the Finance Act – Adjudication based on erroneous classification in the show cause notice deemed illegal – Assessee cannot be penalized based on incorrect categorization. [Para 9]

Exemption under SEZ Act – Eligibility – Exemption available under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act (SEZ Act) – Services supplied to SEZ units subject to exemption terms – CESTAT correctly rules that exemption must be claimed as provided by SEZ Rules – Appellant has opportunity to prove eligibility for exemption under the specified provision – Ruling on octroi charges and evidence production upheld. [Para 10, 12]

Both Civil Appeal No. 4007 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 7155 of 2019 dismissed with no order as to costs – Correct classification of services determined – Opportunity granted to prove exemption eligibility under SEZ Act provision – Octroi charges ruling upheld – CESTAT findings maintained in most aspects. [Para 17]

Videos of Sexual Violence and Recommendations - Issue of objectionable videos pertaining to child pornography, gang-rape, rape, etc., published on various platforms - Committee of Experts appointed - Consensus and substantial progress on preventing the publicity of objectionable videos - Appreciation for valuable assistance of parties - Suo Moto Writ Petition disposed.

Criminal Appeal – Election Dispute – Challenge to election result – Appellant challenges validity of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court – Impugned judgment set aside by the Division Bench – Single Bench’s order and recounting of votes also set aside – Appeal filed by appellant – Legal issues raised concerning the maintainability of the Election Petition, re-counting of votes, and compliance with relevant rules. [Para 1]

Election Petition – Jurisdiction and relief – Election Petition filed before the Sub Divisional Officer – Prayed for recounting of votes at specific booths – Validity of election petition questioned – Applicability of Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 – Rule 6 provides for the relief that may be claimed by the petitioner – Whether the petition’s relief of re-counting votes alone, without seeking any other relief as per Rule 6, was maintainable. [Para 3, Para 7, Para 10, Para 11]

Statutory Interpretation – Strict construction – Election laws – Interpretation of statutory provisions relating to election laws – Strict construction mandated – Election contests are statutory proceedings – Provisions must be strictly construed – Application of Rule 80 of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 – Failure to seek proper relief and follow prescribed procedure rendered the Election Petition not maintainable. [Para 15]

Precedents – Sohan Lal vs. Babu Gandhi and Others case – Three-Judge Bench decision – Analysis and application of the precedent – Right to demand recounting of votes – Remedies available – Distinction between pre-result and post-result stages – Re-counting possible in certain circumstances as per established legal precedent. [Para 10]

Relief – Compliance with prescribed procedure – Election Petition seeking only re-counting of votes – Absence of proper application in writing – Failure to seek the appropriate relief as per Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995 – Invalidity of the Election Petition – Jurisdictional and procedural limitations. [Para 12, Para 13, Para 14]

Dismissal – Merit of the appeal – Appellant’s arguments examined – Failure to fulfill procedural requirements and seek the proper relief – Appeal dismissed based on non-maintainability of the Election Petition. [Para 16, Para 17]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction Reversal – Flawed Evidence and Investigation – Acquittal of Accused – High Court’s Conviction of Manoj and Kallu set aside – Disclosure statements forming basis of conviction found unreliable – Property seizure memos and witnesses’ testimonies lack credibility – Insufficient evidence to support conviction under Sections 411 and 120-B, IPC – Presumption under Section 114(a), Evidence Act unwarranted – Conviction based on illusory knowledge cannot stand – Appeals allowed – Manoj and Kallu acquitted and discharged from bail bonds.

Disclosure Statements – Evidentiary Value – Doubt raised on the adequacy of disclosure statements alone for conviction – Significance of such statements acknowledged but found insufficient without additional supporting evidence – Law on evidentiary value of disclosure statements and its relevance discussed – Co-accused statements deemed contributory but not sole evidence for conviction. [Para 20-25]

Presumption under Section 114(a), Evidence Act – Conditions for Drawing – Court’s observations on drawing a presumption of fact under Section 114(a), Evidence Act – Importance of corroboration and other evidence – Presumption must be supported by other evidence and not be drawn in isolation – Trial Court’s presumption under Section 114(a) without sufficient corroboration criticized. [Para 34-35]

Conviction under Section 411, IPC – Possession of Stolen Property – Flawed presumption leading to conviction discussed – Necessity of proving continued retention with dishonest intent and knowledge of theft – Conviction under Section 411, IPC deemed unwarranted due to lack of credible evidence. [Para 36-37]

Conviction under Section 120-B, IPC – Individual Conspiracy – Logical inconsistency of convicting an individual for criminal conspiracy with oneself – Established legal precedents cited – Conviction of Kallu under Section 120-B, IPC considered untenable due to absence of evidence of agreement. [Para 38-41]

Illusory Knowledge and Flawed Investigation – Quoting Daniel J. Boorstin, court emphasizes the flaw of relying on illusory knowledge in prosecution cases – Inadequate evidence and unreliable investigation highlighted as hindrance to true discovery – Convictions of Manoj and Kallu cannot be sustained based on such illusory knowledge. [Para 42-43]

Acquittal and Discharge – Appeals allowed, and convictions set aside – Manoj and Kallu acquitted and discharged from bail bonds – Inadequate evidence and flawed investigation contribute to the acquittal. [Para 44-45]

Criminal Appeal – Security Measures in Court Premises – Need for Enhanced Security – Recent incidents of gunfire within court premises – Preservation of sanctity of courts and safety of stakeholders – Comprehensive security measures required – Concerns for safety of judges, lawyers, court staff, litigants, and public emphasized. [Para 1-4]

Personal Safety of Judges – Tragic incidents impacting the safety of judges – Acknowledgment of security lapses jeopardizing witnesses and court records – Importance of implementing security protocols – Call for systemic measures to maintain faith in judicial system. [Para 5]

Contempt Petition and Issues Raised – Pending contempt petition related to violation of court orders on installation of CCTV cameras – Two issues highlighted – Installation of security measures in court premises and audio-visual recording of evidence during trial. [Para 6-7]

Guiding Principles for Security Measures – Seriousness of raised issues acknowledged – Consideration of suggestions and status reports from stakeholders – Emphasis on non-negotiable safety and security – Detailed guidelines provided for comprehensive security measures, CCTV camera installation, and modern security equipment. [Para 10]

Advancement of Judicial Infrastructure Digitization – Stress on digitization, including live streaming of court proceedings and audio-visual recording of trials – Encouragement for innovative initiatives to prevent untoward incidents and enhance access to justice. [Para 11]

Delegation of Responsibility – Discretion given to Chief Justices of High Courts – Decision on addressing security concerns through State Court Management Systems Committee or specially constituted committee – Court management’s importance highlighted. [Para 12]

Implementation and Reporting – Prioritization of recommended security measures and digitization efforts urged – Monthly reports on measures’ status to be submitted to Chief Justice – Deadline for preliminary action-taken reports set. [Para 13-17]

Next Hearing – Listing of writ petitions, contempt petition, and related matters for further consideration on specified date. [Para 18]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Right to Fair Trial – Bias in Investigation – Analysis of whether an investigation conducted by a person who detected the crime is biased – Examination of various precedents on the subject – Absence of general unqualified rule against investigations by detecting officers – Question of bias to be decided on a case-by-case basis – Conviction based on reliable police witnesses’ testimony not faulty solely due to their official status. [Para 15-26]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Right to Fair Trial – Speedy Trial – Importance of fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Factors affecting undue delay – Nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, workload of the court and investigating agency, systemic delays – Presumption of prejudice due to delay applicable when accused is in custody – In the present case, absence of evidence showing prejudice caused by delay. [Para 28-30]

EVIDENCE – Credibility of Witnesses – Conviction based on official witnesses’ testimonies – Reliability and trustworthiness of police witnesses’ evidence – Precedents establishing that police officers’ testimony can be relied upon if found credible – Absence of independent witnesses not automatically vitiating police witnesses’ evidence – Conviction upheld based on credible police witnesses’ testimonies. [Para 22-26]

SENTENCING – Modification of Sentence – Consideration of sentence modification in view of the delay in investigation and trial – Conviction based on credible evidence – Modification of sentence to three months of simple imprisonment – Confirmation of fine – Extension of time to deposit the fine – Appeal partly allowed with sentence modification. [Para 33-34]

Civil Appeal – Writ Petition – Mandamus to legislate on ‘Liability in Tort’ and other issues – High Court’s directions under scrutiny – Analysis of each direction’s validity and impact.

Factual Aspects:

The appeal pertains to a judgment issued by the Madras High Court, wherein a writ petition sought directions for the appointment of the Chairman and members of the 22^nd Law Commission and the enactment of comprehensive legislation related to ‘Torts and State Liability.’ The High Court posed queries to the respondents and ultimately issued directions, including considerations for introducing a bill on ‘Liability in Tort’ and appointments within stipulated time frames. [Para 1-4]

Validity of Directions:

The High Court’s first direction, mandating the Central Government to consider introducing a bill on ‘Liability in Tort,’ was found unwarranted. While a Court can recommend amendments or new laws, it can’t compel legislation within a specific timeframe. Therefore, this direction lacked legal basis.

The second direction, asking the Central Government to decide whether the Law Commission should have constitutional or statutory status, exceeded the Court’s authority. The status of the Law Commission is a policy decision and falls within the Central Government’s jurisdiction.

The third direction, which required more funds and infrastructure for the Law Commission, was deemed premature. The 22^nd Law Commission had only recently been constituted, and its functions and funding requirements should be considered when necessary.

The fourth direction, which called for the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Law Commission, was already complied with, as evidenced by the notification issued by the Central Government.

The fifth direction, suggesting the appointment of a “Nodal Officer” to note down courts’ recommendations, was deemed beyond the Court’s authority. Such appointments are a matter for the Central Government to decide, and the direction was considered unnecessary. [Para 7-11]

Conclusion:

The Court clarified that a writ court can’t compel legislation or dictate policy decisions to the legislature. Recommendations and opinions can be offered, but enforcement lies outside the Court’s jurisdiction. The High Court’s directions were modified – directions 1, 2, and 5 were quashed but treated as recommendations, the validity of the fourth direction was acknowledged, and the third direction was recognized as premature. The appeal was allowed, and there was no order as to costs. [Para 12-13]