(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (37 of 1967) , S.43D— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.439— Bail - Prayer for - Offence of involvement in Naxalite activities in furtherance of criminal conspiracy - Allegation that police intercepted vehicle of accused, which was carrying articles ordinarily used in Naxalite Activities - Accused was in judicial custody for over 5 years - Charge-sheet was filed and trial was under progress, with 42 prosecution witnesses examined so far - Prosecution intended to examine 100 witnesses - Accused had no previous criminal record and panch witnesses had turned hostile - Given long period of judicial custody, with no certainty regarding time required to complete trial, right of accused to speedy trial was affected - Bail was granted.

AIROnline 2024 Chh 452-ReversedAIR 1946 Privy Council 16-Followed(Paras567891011121316)

(Para 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16)

(B) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.225— Constitution of India , Art.21— Examination of witnesses - Duty of public prosecutor - While it is discretion of Public Prosecutor to determine which witnesses should be examined, disproportionate number of witnesses may unnecessarily result in delay - Not all witnesses are essential to prove a fact - Court should also inquire why prosecution intends to examine a particular witness if such witness is going to depose the very same thing that any other witness might have deposed earlier - If an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years as an undertrial prisoner, then, his right to have speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is infringed

(Para 12 13)

(A) Maxims -- Constitution of India , Art.133— Suggestio falsi and suppressio veri - Applicability - Before the Labour Court, State Road Transport Corporation had stated that inquiry conducted against employee was fair and he was guilty of misconduct of rashly and negligently driving the bus of Corporation for which he was rightly dismissed from service - Before MACT, corporation had stated that accident had taken place entirely due to the negligence of driver of offending lorry and no fault could have been attributed to employee - False representation made before Labour Court amounted to suggestio falsi and failure to disclose before labour Court the outcome of proceedings before MACT whereby negligence was attributed to offending lorry driver amounted to suppresio veri.

(Para 25 26 31)

(B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.47 R.1, S.114— Review - Correctness of - O.47 permits the Court to look into any document which could not be produced by party despite due diligence to ascertain as to whether said document had such intrinsic worth that if the same had been produced, outcome could have been different - Pleadings filed by employer Corporation before MACT and its award were documents of immense significance, sufficient to tilt the balance in favour of dismissed employee - High Court was justified in allowing application for review and setting aside its judgment by which dismissal of employee was upheld.

AIROnline 2018 Bom 1325-Affirmed(Paras3536)

(Para 35 36)

(C) Constitution of India , Art.133— Dismissal from service - Back wages - Entitlement - Employee had admitted of being engaged in badli work on a daily wage basis - Employee also stated that because his service was terminated, he could not find a permanent employment elsewhere - Exact quantum of wages earned by employee was not available - Since employer had succeeded in the attempt to get rid of employee by indulging in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, 75% of back wages were awarded - Employee would be entitled to full terminal benefits, along with interest @ 6% per annum.

(Para 46)

Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.302— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3— Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Failure to establish chain of circumstances - Accused allegedly killed deceased who was his neighbour - Mother of deceased deposed that accused had taken deceased with him from their house - In examination-in-chief, she deposed that deceased voluntarily accompanied accused, however, in cross examination, she stated that accused pulled deceased by catching his hand while taking deceased with him - There was no enmity between deceased and accused but mother of deceased suspected that accused had killed her son - There were significant improvements and omissions in her evidence - Evidence of father on last seen together theory could not be believed as he stated that he was sleeping when accused took deceased with him - Statement of father of deceased that his wife had visited accused's house was hearsay evidence as he did not accompany his wife - Finding of High Court that accused had given evasive replies to misguide parents of deceased was also unsustainable - Two significant circumstances forming chain were not established - Conviction was set aside.

Judgment of Delhi High court-Reversed(Paras8910)

(Para 8 9 10)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (15 of 2003) , S.45— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.439— Bail - Prayer for -Offences under PMLA - Allegation that accused-company and its Directors were engaged in illegal mining and selling of sand without using departmental pre-paid transportation E-challan, issued by State Mining Authority, causing revenue loss to Govt. Exchequer - Bail was granted in casual and cavalier manner, without properly considering mandatory requirements of S. 45 of the PMLA - Court failed to record finding that reasonable grounds existed to believe that accused was not guilty of alleged offence and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail - Money laundering is aggravated form of crime, that has serious transnational consequences and should not be treated like ordinary offences - Any casual or cursory approach in grant of bail in such offences, without adhering to stringent provisions of S. 45, was inappropriate - Order granting bail was quashed

AIROnline 2024 Pat 793-ReversedAIR 2016 SC 106-FollowedAIR 2017 SC 5309-Followed(Paras171819202122)

(Para 17 18 19 20 21 22)

(A) Income-Tax Act (43 of 1961) , S.271AAA(1)— Undisclosed income - Penalty in case of search - Discretion of assessing officer - Penalty u/S. 271AAA(1) may be levied if there is undisclosed income in specified previous year - Imposition of penalty is not mandatory but discretionary - Discretion to be exercised by assessing officer must be sound discretion guided by law and must not be arbitrary.

AIR 1990 SC 1176-Relied on(Para31)

(Para 31)

(B) Income-Tax Act (43 of 1961) , S.271AAA(2)— Undisclosed income - Penalty in case of search - When not leviable - S 271AAA(1) of Income Tax Act is not applicable where assessee, in a statement u/S. 132 (4) in the course of the search, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived; substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income.

(Para 32 33)

(C) Income-Tax Act (43 of 1961) , S.271AAA— Undisclosed income - Penalty in case of search - Assessee admitted before DDIT during search , certain amount as income for particular assessment year as well as substantiated manner in which undisclosed income was derived and paid tax together with interest thereon, though belatedly - Consequently, all conditions precedent mentioned in S. 271AAA(2) stood satisfied - Penalty u/S. 271AAA(1) was not attracted on the amount.

(Para 37 38)

(D) Income-Tax Act (43 of 1961) , S.271AAA— Undisclosed income - Penalty in case of search - Assessee had not offered in declaration before DDIT during search, any income on land transactions - Assessment order showed that assessee offered amount under head income from other sources on account of land transactions during course of assessment proceedings only and not at any time during the search - Though transactions were not found in search at assessee's premises but were found due to copies of sale deeds collected from the society, same will be documents found in the course of search since causation for collecting sale deeds was search at assessee's premises - Income was undisclosed income found during search - Levy of penalty was proper.

(Para 39 42)