Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Principles – High Court reiterates that interference is permissible only when findings are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or when only one view (guilt) is possible – Double presumption of innocence applies – Trial court’s findings found sound and not perverse [Paras 16–20, 49–51].

FIR – Delay and Suspicious Registration – Material contradictions between FIR version, GD entry (Ex. Ka-26), testimony of informant (P.W.1) and I.O. (P.W.5) regarding where, when and how FIR was lodged – Delay in FIR reaching Magistrate (4 days) and Circle Officer (2 days) further strengthened suspicion – Finding of trial court that FIR timing doubtful upheld [Paras 22–26].

Eyewitness Testimony – Chance Witnesses – P.W.1 (wife) and P.W.2 (son) claimed to witness incident while returning from doctor – Their presence found improbable due to contradictions regarding timings, medical treatment, travel distance, and improbable conduct – Court affirms trial court’s conclusion that both were ‘chance witnesses’ whose presence was not naturally explained [Paras 27–33].

Witness Credibility – Major Contradictions – P.W.1 and P.W.2 contradict each other on: (i) who drove the Bolero, (ii) number of assailants inside vehicle, (iii) manner of attack, (iv) direction of road, (v) presence of mud/grass in mouth, (vi) location of body – Such contradictions strike at core of prosecution case – Trial court rightly held their evidence unreliable [Paras 34–44].

Medical Evidence vs Ocular Evidence – No Crush Injuries – Prosecution alleged Bolero ran over deceased 3–4 times breaking limbs – Postmortem (Ex. Ka-2) showed no crush injuries, no broken limbs; only multiple abrasions/contusions; internal injuries inconsistent with running over by heavy vehicle – Ocular version not corroborated by medical evidence – Creates serious doubt on prosecution story [Paras 45–48].

Two Views Possible – Acquittal Sustained – Trial court’s findings based on reasonable appreciation of evidence; appellate court cannot substitute merely because another view is possible – Appeal dismissed [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of all accused affirmed – No perversity in trial court’s judgment – Findings consistent with evidence and established principles for appeal against acquittal [Paras 49–51].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Maintainability under Section 528 BNSS – Chargesheet and Cognizance Not on Record – Application Not Maintainable – Applicant sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC without placing the chargesheet or order of cognizance on record – Held: In absence of both, the application under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) is not maintainable – Quashing remedy lies under Article 226 until cognizance is taken – Once cognizance is taken, Section 528 BNSS becomes applicable only if those documents are placed on record [Paras 13, 18]

Criminal Law – Second FIR on Same Allegations – Abuse of Process – Allegation of Fraudulent Sale Deed Based on Forged Power of Attorney – Applicant alleged that second FIR based on same set of facts as earlier FIR (FIR No. 39 of 2022) violates principles laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – However, Court declined to adjudicate merits in absence of maintainability due to procedural lapse – Observed that merits cannot be examined where application itself is procedurally defective [Paras 2–4, 19]

Forgery and Cheating – Prima Facie Allegations – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Application of Law in Sheila Sebastian and G. Sagar Suri Cases – Applicant relied on Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharraj, (2018) 7 SCC 581 to argue he was not the maker of false document and therefore not liable for forgery – Court declined to evaluate whether ingredients of forgery and cheating were satisfied due to procedural bar [Paras 3, 4, 15–16]

Scope of Inherent Powers – BNSS Section 528 (Old Section 482 CrPC) – Limited to Post-Cognizance Stage – Recent Supreme Court Clarification in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Case – Citing Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No. 13424 of 2025, Supreme Court held that FIR can be quashed under Article 226 before cognizance is taken – After cognizance, quashing under Section 528 BNSS is available only if chargesheet and cognizance order are on record – Applied to dismiss current application [Paras 13, 18]

Judicial Discipline – Full Bench Binding Precedent – No Conflict with Apex Court View – Court considered Full Bench decision in Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U.P., 1989 APLJ (Cri) 107, and harmonized it with current law – Reiterated that police power to investigate is unfettered and cannot be interfered with under Section 528 unless misuse of power or abuse of process is evident – Quashing of FIR not permissible unless strict procedural compliance is met [Paras 7, 14]

Decision: Application dismissed as not maintainable – Applicant failed to place chargesheet and cognizance order on record – In absence of these, inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (old Section 482 CrPC) cannot be invoked – Court declined to examine merits or legality of FIR – Remedy, if any, lies under Article 226 or by filing appropriate application post-cognizance with necessary documents [Paras 18–20]

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Suit by Public Trust – Mandatory Consent Under MPT Act – Plaintiffs’ own pleadings and annexed documents repeatedly describing Defendant as “trustee/permanent trustee/erstwhile trustee” held decisive – Suit for recovery of compensation for misuse of trust property by a trustee falls squarely within Section 50 clauses (a), (e), (f), (p), (q) – Held: Without prior consent of Charity Commissioner under Section 51, suit is statutorily barred [Paras 11–18].

Trust Property – Recovery from Trustee – Section 50 MPT Act – Suit seeks recovery of compensation for occupation of trust property by Defendant during tenure as trustee – Documents (letters, opinions, correspondence) annexed to plaint addressing Defendant as trustee held to override later verbal assertions that he was a “trespasser” – Plaint averments read holistically demonstrate action against trustee for breach/misconduct, not trespass – Section 50 attracted [Paras 10–15].

Trespass Argument Rejected – Plaintiffs’ Case Inconsistent with Record – Plaintiffs’ attempt to classify Defendant as “rank trespasser” held untenable when plaint averments and exhibits consistently acknowledge him as trustee discharging obligations – Once trust itself admits fiduciary capacity, suit cannot be framed as simple trespass to bypass statutory requirement of consent [Paras 14–17].

Scope of Section 51 MPT Act – Consent Mandatory – When suit is of a nature specified under Section 50, plaintiffs must obtain Charity Commissioner’s prior written consent; Commissioner becomes necessary party – Absence of consent renders suit non-maintainable at inception – Bar attracts Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 16–18].

Pleadings Control O7R11(d) – Court Reiterates – For O7R11(d), plaint averments and plaint documents alone are considered – Defence cannot cure statutory bar – Here, plaint itself revealed suit to be one “relating to trustee” requiring consent; absence is fatal [Paras 7–12].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit held not maintainable without prior consent under Sections 50 & 51 MPT Act – Pending Interim Application No. 4005 of 2025 disposed [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law – Bail - Rape Allegation – Consent – Breach of Promise to Marry – Petitioner accused of offences under Sections 69 and 75(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS for allegedly refusing to marry the victim after a consensual relationship – Relationship between petitioner and respondent lasted over three years – Victim lodged complaint only after petitioner refused marriage – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, consensual relationship based on a genuine promise to marry, later not fulfilled due to intervening circumstances, does not amount to rape – FIR lacks allegations showing false promise from inception – No prima facie case under Section 69 BNS made out [Paras 3–14]

Bail – Principles for Grant – Promise to Marry – Consent and Misconception of Fact – Court relies on binding precedents from Supreme Court including Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Prithivirajan, Kunal Chatterjee, and Maheshwar Tigga – Held: Physical relations on the basis of a genuine promise to marry do not constitute rape unless it is proved that the promise was false from the beginning – Petitioner's prolonged relationship and absence of coercion negate allegation of misconception of fact – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 4–16]

Bail – Conditions Imposed – Accused directed to furnish bond with sureties and report weekly to police – Restrictions imposed on travel outside Andhra Pradesh and on influencing witnesses – Cooperation with investigation mandated [Para 16]

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Bail granted to the petitioner/accused on furnishing bond and subject to strict conditions including weekly reporting, restricted travel, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with investigation.

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Weak Evidentiary Value – Petitioner implicated only based on co-accused’s disclosure; no recovery from petitioner; Court holds disclosure statement without corroboration cannot be sole basis for implication; evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Raises serious doubts regarding fairness of investigation [Paras 3, 6].

Custody & Delay – Long Incarceration Dilutes Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Petitioner in custody since 12.06.2023; challan filed 07.12.2023; 28 witnesses cited but none examined – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Prolonged incarceration of 2 years 3 months 15 days violates Article 21; thus rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act stand diluted [Paras 6, 6.3–6.4].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Principles Summarised – Court reiterates jurisprudence:

• Twin conditions are cumulative, not alternative;

• Bail Court may look at defence material;

• “Not likely to commit offence while on bail” requires demonstrable probability, not theoretical presumption;

• Antecedents alone cannot justify rejection when case on merits is made out [Paras 6.2–6.6].**

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Reiterated – Cites line of Supreme Court precedents (Hussainara Khatoon; Antulay; Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain; Chitta Biswas; Nitish Adhikary) – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delay cannot justify prolonged incarceration; pre-trial detention cannot turn into punitive imprisonment [Paras 6.5–6.6].

Antecedents – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Petitioner involved in two other cases per custody certificate – Court holds antecedents relevant but not determinative when prosecution case in present FIR itself is weak and delay substantial [Para 6.6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to strict conditions including: no misuse of liberty, no tampering with evidence, appearance at trial dates, deposit of passport, maintaining same mobile number, monthly affidavit regarding non-involvement in offence – State given liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 7–9].

Consumer Law – Maintainability of Writ – Challenge to National Commission Orders – High Court holds that although writ under Article 226 is maintainable against National Commission orders, such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily declined when Article 227 remedy exists – Petitioner’s challenge rejected as findings of Consumer Fora were concurrent, factual, and non-perverse – Held: Writ petition not maintainable on facts; no exceptional circumstance shown [Paras 18–21, 24–27]

Alternate Remedy – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – When supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is available, invocation of Article 226 ordinarily impermissible unless there is violation of natural justice, patent lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights – Supreme Court precedents in Whirlpool, Harbanslal Sahnia, Radha Krishan Industries, Ibrat Faizan and Rikhab Chand Jain applied – Petitioner failed to bring case within exceptions [Paras 12–16, 18–21]

Consumer Protection Act – Concurrent Findings – Real Estate Project – Consolidation Proceedings – Petitioner alleged force majeure under Section 56 of the Contract Act – Consumer Fora found that project land was under consolidation and possession never with petitioner – Petitioner's pleas rejected repeatedly – High Court refuses re-appreciation of facts in writ jurisdiction – Findings held reasonable and not perverse [Paras 22–24, 26]

Jurisdiction – Supervisory Role of High Court – National Commission treated as ‘Tribunal’ under Articles 136 & 227 – High Court reiterates its limited power of interference and declines to act as appellate authority over factual determinations of Consumer Fora [Paras 15–16, 18–21]

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with orders of District, State or National Consumer Commissions – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 27].

Labour Law – Legal Representation – Section 36(4) ID Act – Employer’s Right to Counsel – Applicant, a small laundry employing 4–5 persons, sought leave to engage an Advocate for cross-examination in Reference proceedings – Labour Court rejected request solely on objection of workman – Held: Refusal was mechanical and contrary to settled law – Court must exercise discretion to prevent prejudice and ensure fairness – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 11–13, 17–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Fair Trial – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner was unskilled in legal procedure and unable to cross-examine or present evidence effectively – Denial of legal aid to such a party violates Articles 14 and 21 – Right to fair hearing includes reasonable opportunity to defend with appropriate representation – Leave under Section 36(4) must be interpreted liberally in such cases [Paras 15–16].

Statutory Interpretation – Consent and Leave under Section 36(4) – Twin conditions of opposite party’s consent and Court’s leave are mandatory – However, Court must scrutinise mala fide or arbitrary denial of consent – Labour Court has power to override such refusal in interest of justice – Consent cannot be used to exploit or disadvantage the other party [Paras 9–10, 14].

Legal Framework – Special Law vs. General Law – Advocates Act vs. ID Act – Section 30 of Advocates Act does not override Section 36 of ID Act – ID Act being special legislation governs representation before Labour Courts – Special law prevails over general law – Labour Court’s discretion remains intact [Paras 9, 23–24].

Judicial Precedents – Court relies on Bangalore Water Supply, Paradip Port Trust, T.K. Varghese, Thyssen Krupp Industries, and Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat to reaffirm that denial of representation must not result in inequality or miscarriage of justice – Representation must be allowed where required for effective participation [Paras 4.1–4.4, 14].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Labour Court's order dated 01.12.2023 quashed – Applicant permitted to engage Advocate of choice – Labour Court to proceed on merits – Appreciation recorded for Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Shailesh Pathak [Paras 18–20].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Unlawful Assembly – Assault – Cross-FIR – Evidence of complainant and injured witnesses found to be partisan, contradictory, and inconsistent with their police statements which admitted mutual fight and injuries on opposite side – Suppression of fatal injuries on accused’s father (deceased Ganpatsinh) in cross-case held fatal – Trial court’s view held a “possible view” warranting no interference [Paras 6–12, 15].

Witness Credibility – Interested/Injured Witnesses – PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7 admitted during cross-examination that police statements recorded a mutual fight and blows inflicted by prosecution side – Court notes material improvements, suppression of crucial facts, inconsistency regarding weapon use (bhala vs. chappu), and contradictions with Investigating Officer (PW-9) – Held: Testimony unreliable and unsafe for conviction in absence of independent corroboration [Paras 7–10].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Medical certificates (Exhs. 32–37, 41, 43) show only simple abrasions and lacerated wounds – No injury consistent with alleged knife blow to chest – Absence of grievous injuries inconsistent with prosecution’s claim of severe attack with lethal weapons – Held: Medical evidence does not support ocular version [Paras 8–10].

Forensic Evidence – Weapon Recovery – FSL Report (Exh. 66) inconclusive – No tamancha recovered to support allegation under Section 506(2) IPC – Panchnama witnesses formal; no link between recovered weapons and injuries – Held: Recovery does not corroborate prosecution case [Paras 8–10].

Independent Witnesses – Non-examination – Incident occurred in village with 60–70 houses; FIR itself mentions interveners (Somabhai Fulabhai, Mangal @ Yogibhai, etc.) – None examined – Held: Failure to examine independent witnesses severely undermines prosecution case, especially in cross-case scenario [Paras 7–10].

Cross-Cases – Mutual Fight – Complainant and injured witnesses were themselves accused in cross-FIR (C.R. I-170/1993) for death of accused’s father – Suppression of mutual injuries and one-sided narration held deliberate and fatal to prosecution – Strong motive to falsely implicate accused established – Benefit of doubt justified [Paras 7–12].

Appellate Interference – Principles – Applying Chandrappa principles and Supreme Court rulings in Rajesh Prasad (2022) 3 SCC 471 and H.D. Sundara (2023) 9 SCC 581 – Court reiterates double presumption of innocence and limits on interference in acquittal appeals – Trial court’s view is a plausible, legally sustainable view – No ground to reverse acquittal [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of all accused upheld – Records and proceedings to be remitted [Paras 15].

Electricity Law – Pilferage of Energy – Civil Liability – Criminal Acquittal – Clause 39.15 – Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not extinguish civil liability for pilferage – Recovery under APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act and Section 52-A Revenue Recovery Act upheld – Limitation counts from final appellate criminal judgment – Writ petition dismissed with costs.

Electricity – Pilferage of Energy – Departmental Assessment – Criminal vs. Civil Consequence – Held: Theft of energy embodies two distinct components—(i) criminal liability punishable under law, and (ii) civil liability to pay for unrecorded consumption – Even if prosecution fails to secure conviction, civil liability survives unless charge is proven false – Acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not bar recovery proceedings.

Terms & Conditions of Supply – Clause 39.15 – Effect – Acquittal on any ground other than “charge is false” does not bar recovery – Sessions Court and High Court acquitted petitioner only on benefit of doubt; hence civil liability intact – Recovery proceedings maintainable.

Evidence – Criminal Case Findings – Session Court found prosecution failed to prove existence or use of remote controller; seals intact; possibility of tampering not established – Held: Such findings only raise doubt, not a declaration of false charge – Therefore, civil liability unaffected.

APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 – Applicability – Assessment order of Superintending Engineer (31.07.1992) confirmed by Chief Engineer (23.10.2001) attained finality – Dues fall within definition under Sections 2 & 3 – Recovery as arrears of land revenue under Section 6 valid – Form-A (06.12.2001) and Form-B notices (18.04.2002) validly issued  .

Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 – Section 52-A – Validity – Authorises recovery of public dues by treating them as arrears of land revenue – No inconsistency with Electricity Act, 2003 – Recovery for electricity dues permissible – Supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence affirming competence of States to confer such powers on revenue authorities.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Primacy Clauses (Sections 173, 174, 185) – No inconsistency between the 2003 Act and APSEB Recovery Act – Hence, old dues recoverable without recourse to Special Court under Section 153 – Civil recovery mechanism preserved.

Limitation – Article 113, Limitation Act – Cause of action accrues only after final appellate criminal judgment – Here, High Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 721/2008 dated 14.11.2011 marked such accrual – Recovery notice dated 18.09.2014 within 3-year limitation – Recovery not time-barred.

Decision:  Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- – All connected applications closed [Final Para] .