A. Limitation—Condonation of Delay—Delay of 163 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal—Sufficient cause shown—Delay condoned—Where satisfactory reasons are furnished for delay in preferring a Letters Patent Appeal, the Court may exercise discretion to condone the delay in the interest of justice—Delay of 163 days was accordingly condoned. (Paras 1–4, I.A. No. 13819 of 2024). B. Service Law—Departmental Enquiry—Principles of Natural Justice—Non-supply of enquiry report and second show-cause notice before imposing major penalty—Violation of natural justice—Failure to furnish the enquiry report along with the second show-cause notice prior to imposition of a major penalty amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity and breach of natural justice—Though prejudice mu...

A. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016—S.82—Powers of State Commissioner—The powers conferred upon the State Commissioner are confined to the matters expressly enumerated under Section 82—Although vested with certain powers of a Civil Court for purposes of inquiry and proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to grant injunctions or adjudicate questions of title to immovable property, and cannot exercise powers beyond those specifically conferred by statute. [Paras 18-20] B. Land Disputes—Jurisdiction of Civil Courts—A pure dispute relating to ownership or title to land, having no nexus with disability rights, falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court—Neither the State Disability Commissioner nor Revenue Authorit...

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—S.430(1)—Suspension of Sentence After Conviction—At the post-conviction stage, the presumption of innocence no longer operates, there being a judicial finding of guilt—Suspension of sentence requires strong and compelling reasons, and the Court is concerned only with the prima facie merits of the appeal without undertaking a detailed reappreciation of evidence. [Para 12] B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—S.430(1)—Custody Period—Gravity of Offence—Mere long incarceration, even exceeding six years, is not by itself a sufficient ground for suspension of sentence in cases involving grave offences punishable with life imprisonment—The nature and seriousness of the offence, supported by credible eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence,...

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 376—Rape—Delay in Lodging FIR—A delay of three months in lodging the FIR does not, by itself, undermine the prosecution case where the delay is satisfactorily explained—In the present case, the prosecutrix had made repeated efforts to register her complaint before the local police authorities and subsequently approached the Superintendent of Police and even the Chief Minister due to police inaction—Such circumstances adequately explained the delay and preserved the credibility of the prosecution version—Held: Mere delay in lodging the FIR, when properly explained, is not fatal to the prosecution case. [Paras 16–17] B. Evidence Law—Sole Testimony of the Prosecutrix—The settled principle is that a conviction for rape can rest solely on the test...

A. Limitation Act, 1963—Section 5—Condonation of Delay by State Authorities—An appeal filed by the State with a delay of 435 days was dismissed as the State failed to establish “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5—The Court held that mere reference to bureaucratic procedures, movement of files between departments, or administrative formalities cannot justify an inordinate delay—The absence of any explanation for the initial period of more than one year was fatal to the application—Administrative lethargy and official laxity do not constitute valid grounds for condonation. [Paras 5–7, 12, 13] B. Limitation Act, 1963—Section 5—Government Not Entitled to Special Treatment—The law of limitation applies equally to all litigants, including the Government&md...

A. Limitation Act, 1963—Sections 5 and 29—Condonation of Delay—Government Departments—Government departments are not entitled to any special or extended period of limitation merely because they are State entities—Administrative or bureaucratic delays, routine movement of files, or engagement in election work do not, by themselves, constitute “sufficient cause” for condoning an inordinate delay—The explanation offered must be bona fide, supported by material evidence, and demonstrate due diligence on the part of the applicant—Held: Mere administrative lethargy or procedural delays cannot justify condonation of delay. [Paras 3–6, 12–18] B. Limitation Act, 1963—Condonation of Delay—State and Private Litigants—The status of a litigant, whether a private ind...

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Bail in terrorism-related offences—Role of accused as Over Ground Worker (OGW)—Where the appellant is alleged to have acted as an overground worker by providing logistical assistance and transportation to members of a banned terrorist organisation, but the supplementary charge-sheet does not attribute any direct participation in the firing or attack resulting in the death of police personnel, such limited role is a relevant consideration while deciding the prayer for bail. [Paras 8–10] B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Parity with co-accused—Grant of bail—The principle of parity applies where the role attributed to the appellant is substantially similar to that of co-accused who have already been granted bail—The fact that the Supreme Court has affirmed a s...

A. Service Law—Departmental Proceedings—Punishment of Compulsory Retirement—Punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on charges relating to manipulation of revenue records was quashed where the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on no evidence, ignored the delinquent employee's defence, and were vitiated by procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice—Employee held entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits, including back wages and promotion. [Paras 19–28] B. Service Law—Departmental Inquiry—Proof of Charges—Examination of witnesses is a condition precedent for proving charges and relied-upon documents in disciplinary proceedings—Mere production of documents does not amount to proof, even in an ex parte inquiry—Failure to ...

A. Pension Reduction—Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000—Rule 139—Power to reduce pension can be exercised only where entire service record is unsatisfactory or grave misconduct is established—A solitary irregularity does not justify treating the whole service as unsatisfactory. B. Procedural Safeguards—Rules 43(b) & 139—Deduction of pension mandates proper departmental or judicial proceedings with full opportunity of hearing—Mere allegations or unproven irregularities are insufficient to impose such penalty. C. Conditions Precedent—Rule 139(c)—Reduction of pension requires fulfillment of essential conditions, including initiation of full-fledged proceedings and proof of grave misconduct—Absence of these renders action unsustainable. D. Post-Retirement Penalty—For mi...

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib), 25—Divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion—Permanent alimony—Where marriage is dissolved on grounds of cruelty, desertion and irretrievable breakdown, Court is empowered to grant permanent alimony under Section 25—Quantum to be determined on basis of status of parties, income, financial capacity, conduct and future needs—Wife having no independent income and husband having sufficient means entitled to reasonable one-time settlement—Lump sum alimony of Rs.35 lakhs held just, fair and reasonable. [Paras 36 to 38, 63 to 67] B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 25—Determination of permanent alimony—Principles—No straightjacket or mathematical formula for fixing maintenance—Court must balance financial c...