Look-Out Circular (LOC) – Legality – Economic Offence – Petitioner challenged the issuance of an LOC by the ED, contending that he had fully cooperated with the investigation and had been granted anticipatory bail without any travel restrictions – The court held that none of the grounds for continuing the LOC, such as the petitioner being a flight risk or evading trial, were substantiated, especially in light of the Supreme Court's order granting him protection from arrest – LOC quashed [Paras 47-50].

Anticipatory Bail – LOC after Bail – Petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail in connection with the ECIR by the Supreme Court, which imposed no restrictions on his foreign travel – Issuance of an LOC despite this was found to be an unreasonable curtailment of the petitioner’s liberty – Court ruled that an LOC cannot be sustained when the accused is already granted anticipatory bail unless specific conditions are imposed [Paras 30, 49-50].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – LOC issued against the petitioner quashed – Petitioner directed to inform the trial court of any future travel plans by filing an application with his travel itinerary [Paras 50-52].

Taxation Law - Customs Law – Duty Drawback – Recovery Proceedings Against Deceased Sole Proprietor – Recovery proceedings initiated against a deceased person under the Customs Act, 1962, for non-realization of export proceeds – Petitioner, the wife of the deceased, challenged the recovery notice on the grounds that no recovery can be made from legal heirs without legal steps to bring them on record – Court held that a show cause notice issued against a dead person is void and recovery proceedings based on such notice cannot be sustained – Reference made to Supreme Court rulings, including Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs [2015 (10) SCC 770] [Paras 9, 12-16].

Legal Heirs – Liability for Deceased Sole Proprietor's Dues – Legal heirs cannot be held liable for recovery of government dues in the absence of a statutory provision allowing such recovery – The Customs Act does not provide for continuing recovery proceedings against the legal heirs of a deceased sole proprietor – Notices and orders passed against a dead person are null and void [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Show cause notice issued against the deceased set aside – Recovery proceedings quashed as they were initiated against a dead person without bringing the legal heirs on record [Paras 15-17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Appeal against Conviction – Reliability of Child Witnesses – Appellant convicted for the murder of his mother-in-law and grievously injuring his wife. The trial court convicted based on the testimony of two child witnesses (sons of the appellant) and corroborative forensic evidence – Held, the testimony of child witnesses can be relied upon when consistent and corroborated by other evidence – Child witness testimony is valid under close scrutiny – Appellant’s argument that the child witnesses were tutored was rejected – No grounds to interfere with the trial court's findings – [Paras 19-22, 27].

Dying Declaration – Infirmities in Signature – Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act – The deceased’s dying declaration did not have a signature on the final narration, though her signature was present during preliminary questioning – Held, the court accepted that the absence of signature raises suspicion but found that other corroborative evidence sufficiently proved the appellant’s guilt – Dying declaration not solely relied upon to convict the accused – [Paras 15-16].

Forensic Evidence – Corroboration of Bloodstains – Section 45 of the Evidence Act – The forensic report matched the bloodstains on the accused’s clothes with those found on the deceased’s saree, confirming his presence at the crime scene – Evidence corroborated with the testimonies of child witnesses and other prosecution witnesses – [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC confirmed by the High Court.

Criminal Law – Conviction of CCL under Section 377, IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act upheld by High Court – Challenge in Criminal Revision – Petitioner, a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), challenged his conviction for unnatural offenses and aggravated sexual assault – Both the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court confirmed the conviction based on the testimony of the child victim and medical evidence – Court rejected the defense of false implication due to family disputes and ruled the victim’s evidence as cogent and trustworthy – Detention period modified considering the time already served [Paras 1-8].

Evidence Evaluation – Conviction based on victim’s testimony and medical evidence – Despite absence of independent witnesses and lack of corroboration from other children present during the incident, the court relied heavily on the victim’s clear and credible testimony – Medical report corroborated the sexual assault allegations – Defense argument of contradictions in prosecution’s case rejected as immaterial [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Partial modification of detention order – The High Court dismissed the criminal revision while modifying the detention order to the period already served in the place of safety – Acknowledged that further detention was not necessary given the CCL's time spent in custody and absence of adverse reports against him [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction for Murder – Sections 302 and 364 IPC – Reversal of Trial Court’s Conviction by High Court – Inconsistencies in Prosecution Evidence – Appeal against the judgment of conviction by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge Coimbatore under Sections 302 and 364 of IPC – Accused was convicted for the murder of the deceased based on circumstantial evidence and alleged motive – High Court set aside the conviction due to lack of corroboration in witness testimonies and inconsistencies in the evidence produced by the prosecution, including discrepancies in the "last seen" theory and recovery of evidence. [Paras 1-25]

Evidence Evaluation – Last Seen Theory and Motive Rejected – Contradictory Witness Testimonies Undermine Prosecution’s Case – High Court found significant contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, including PW1 and PW2 – The "last seen together" theory was doubted as the timeline of events was inconsistent – The alleged recovery of evidence, including the blood-stained shirt and the motive based on blackmail, was found unreliable due to witness contradictions and lack of concrete evidence. [Paras 16-22]

Recovery of Evidence – Blood-Stained Shirt and Voter ID Card – The recovery of the accused's voter ID card at the scene and the blood-stained shirt were presented as crucial evidence – High Court rejected the admissibility of this evidence, citing the contradictions in the testimony of the recovery witnesses and failure to prove the chain of custody. [Paras 23-24]

Decision – Acquittal of Accused – Appeal Allowed – The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused – Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. [Para 25]

Tender Process – Validity – Technical Bid Requirements – Petitioners challenged the tender process, alleging that the successful L-1 consortium did not meet the required stockholding conditions and that there was no physical inspection of stock as mandated under the e-bid document – Court held that the stockholding requirement was satisfied based on the evidence presented by the respondents – The clause requiring physical inspection was held to be discretionary, and since it was waived for all bidders, there was no arbitrariness in the process [Paras 6-10, 17-18].

Judicial Review – Scope – Tender Matters – The Court reaffirmed that judicial interference in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias – Merely differing interpretations of tender terms by the court are not grounds for intervention – The authorities' decision-making process was upheld as fair and reasonable [Paras 11-16, 19-21].

Decision:

Writ petitions dismissed – No arbitrariness or mala fides found in the tender process – Petitioners failed to establish grounds for judicial intervention – No costs awarded [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 – Petition for quashing of proceedings initiated by Lexus Exports Private Limited against the petitioner under Section 452 for wrongful withholding of company property, including vehicles and electronic items, amidst matrimonial disputes – Petitioner argued that she was residing in the matrimonial home and using the property in her capacity as the wife of a company director, not wrongfully withholding it – Court found prima facie elements to continue proceedings, especially regarding the car retained by the petitioner after ceasing to be a director [Paras 2a-2i, 4b, 6].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Powers of the Court – The Court declined to quash the proceedings, stating that the case did not fall under the categories warranting quashing as outlined in Bhajan Lal's case – No abuse of process or mala fides established – Court held that the matter should proceed to trial [Paras 3i, 4b].

Matrimonial Discord and Civil Disputes – Court noted that the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and her husband was a separate issue from the criminal case under Section 452 – Property claimed by the company was for the use of the director and could not be withheld after cessation of the petitioner’s directorship [Paras 3g, 3h].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – Proceedings under Section 452 to continue – Court upheld the rejection of discharge and directed the trial court to proceed with the case [Paras 4b, 6].

Civil Law – Title and Possession – Will – The appellant's claim for declaration of title and recovery of possession was based on a will (Ex.A.1). The trial court dismissed the suit due to the appellant’s failure to establish her title and possession. The first appellate court affirmed the decision, citing discrepancies between the property claimed and the property described in the will. The courts below found no evidence of the appellant's possession or her predecessors' possession over the property [Paras 1-70].

Will – Proof of Title – Although the appellant claimed title through Ex.A.1-Will, the courts held that in the absence of boundaries in the will and clear proof of title of the testator, the appellant could not succeed. It was also noted that the appellant failed to produce a registered sale deed or any other evidence to support her claim of title through the testator [Paras 75-100].

Admissions – Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act – The appellant relied on Ex.A.6, a letter allegedly admitting the appellant’s title, but the courts rejected the document as it was not a free and voluntary admission, having been made under pressure at a police station. The courts held that admissions in such circumstances cannot establish title over immovable property [Paras 105-120].

Concurrent Findings – No Interference in Second Appeal – The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the concurrent findings of the lower courts, holding that the appellant failed to prove her title and possession. The court reiterated that weakness in the respondent’s defense could not validate the appellant's title claim [Paras 130-145].

Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree of both the trial court and first appellate court were upheld, and no costs were awarded​.

Constitutional Law – Delegation of Powers – Validity of Rule 18 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975 – Petitioners challenged Rule 18 of the Rules on the ground that the delegation of powers to Revenue Divisional Officers (RDO) to issue Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORC) under Section 10 of the Act is unconstitutional. The petitioners contended that only the District Collector, as defined under Section 24 of the Act, has the authority to issue ORC and adjudicate appeals. The Court held that Rule 18 is not ultra vires, as the Revenue Divisional Officer is a valid delegate of the powers conferred by the Government under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act. Rule 18 is consistent with the Act and falls within the Government’s authority to delegate powers to RDOs for efficiency in administrative matters [Paras 1-10].

Administrative Law – Delegation and Statutory Interpretation – The Court reaffirmed that under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act, the Government has the authority to delegate the powers of the Collector to officers not below the rank of Deputy Collector. Since RDOs and Joint Collectors fall within this rank, their authority to issue ORCs and handle appeals is legally valid. The powers delegated to the RDOs through G.O.Ms.No.1122 and G.O.Ms.No.818 were held to be lawful and in accordance with the statutory framework [Paras 15-35].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975, is held to be in consonance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue their remedies in the pending revision petitions.