Service Law – Recovery from Salary – Surety Liability – Petitioners stood as guarantors for loans availed by deceased employee from Co-operative Society – Upon default and death of principal debtor, Society initiated recovery from petitioners’ salary – Tribunal upheld recovery – Held: Liability of surety is co-extensive with that of principal debtor under Section 128 of Contract Act – Creditor entitled to proceed against guarantors without exhausting remedies against estate of principal debtor [Paras 6–7].

Terminal Benefits – Non-Recovery from Deceased Employee – Petitioners contended that loan ought to have been adjusted from DCRG/terminal benefits of deceased employee and failure to do so absolved them – Court held that payment of terminal benefits to legal heirs does not discharge guarantors from liability – Remedy, if any, lies elsewhere – Petitioners cannot seek immunity from recovery on that ground [Paras 5, 7].

Alleged Composition – No Discharge of Surety – Argument that release of terminal benefits amounted to composition between creditor and principal debtor rejected – Deceased had executed undertaking permitting recovery – No evidence of lawful discharge of debt – Sureties remain liable [Para 7].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – No Jurisdictional Error – Tribunal’s order found to be legal and justified – No ground for interference in supervisory jurisdiction – Original Petition dismissed [Paras 3, 7].

Decision: Original Petition dismissed – Order dated 23.05.2025 in O.A. No.529 of 2022 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench upheld.

Criminal Law – Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. – Non-Cognizable Offence – Permission for Investigation – Issue whether Magistrate can grant permission on application moved by complainant – Section 155(2) restricts police from investigating without Magistrate’s order but does not specify who may move such application – Held: Provision does not bar complainant or aggrieved person from approaching Magistrate – Object is judicial supervision over investigation and not restriction of access to justice [Paras 8-10, 15, 17].

Conflict of Co-ordinate Bench Decisions – Judicial Discipline – Earlier decision in Navin Chandra Pandey held responsibility lies with police to obtain order – Later decision in Brij Lal Bhar clarified that there is no legal bar for first informant to move application under Section 155(2) – Held: In case of divergence between co-ordinate Benches, later decision to be ordinarily followed unless referred to larger Bench – Certainty and consistency in law emphasized – Court followed Brij Lal Bhar [Paras 10-11].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope of Interference – Technical Objection – Challenge to investigation on ground that permission under Section 155(2) was sought by complainant and not police – Held: Once Magistrate applied judicial mind and granted permission, investigation not vitiated on such technical ground – No jurisdictional error, abuse of process or miscarriage of justice shown – Interference under Section 482 not warranted [Paras 15-16, 18].

Applicability of Procedural Rules – Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice – Reliance on Vijesh Pillai rejected – Said rules not applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh – In U.P., only requirement is judicial order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. – No equivalent statutory rule mandating procedural formalities as in Karnataka [Para 12].

Interpretation of Procedural Provisions – Advancement of Justice – Procedural provisions relating to investigation to be interpreted to advance justice and not frustrate legitimate prosecution – Magistrate has wide powers to ensure proper investigation – Technicalities cannot invalidate proceedings absent prejudice [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Permission granted under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. on complainant’s application held valid – Charge-sheet and summoning proceedings not vitiated – Interim order, if any, vacated [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – House-Trespass – Section 450 IPC – Appellant convicted for house-trespass allegedly committed with intent to commit rape – Trial Court acquitted appellant of charge under Section 376 IPC on categorical finding that sexual relationship was consensual – Held: When foundational charge of rape fails and no independent evidence establishes intent to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment, conviction under Section 450 IPC unsustainable – Essential ingredient of criminal intent at time of entry not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside [Paras 13–17, 24–27].

Criminal Trespass – Intention at Time of Entry – Mere entry into dwelling house not sufficient – Prosecution must establish entry with intent to commit offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy person in possession – Evidence showed prior consensual relationship and that victim opened door – No proof of force, breaking open of door, intimidation or violence – Foundational requirement under Section 441 IPC not satisfied [Paras 15–16, 21].

Consensual Relationship – Adultery and Criminal Liability – Once trial court found sexual act consensual and not forcible, moral impropriety cannot substitute statutory ingredients of offence – Reference made to Joseph Shine v. Union of India holding consensual sexual relations between adults not criminal – Criminal law cannot be invoked solely on basis of marital status of prosecutrix [Paras 18–20].

Distinction from Precedent – State of Rajasthan v. Biram Lal – In Biram Lal, conviction under Section 450 IPC upheld in context of forcible entry and rape – Present case distinguishable as no force, threat or weapon used and rape charge failed – Intent to commit life-imprisonment offence cannot be inferred in absence of supporting evidence [Paras 22–24].

Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution must prove each ingredient beyond reasonable doubt – In absence of clear evidence of requisite intent at time of entry, benefit must go to accused [Para 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 450 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of said charge – Interim orders vacated.

Criminal Procedure – Second Bail Application – Judicial Propriety – Observations of Supreme Court in separate appeal criticising earlier bail order passed by same Judge – Observations described as “shocking and disappointing” and direction to place order before Chief Justice – Judge records demoralising and chilling effect of remarks – In interest of propriety, declines to hear present bail application and releases matter for reassignment [Paras 4-6].

Judicial Discipline – Impact of Superior Court’s Remarks – While acknowledging that no judicial order is immune from interference, Court notes that tenor of observations in Supreme Court judgment had substantial effect – To maintain institutional propriety and fairness, matter directed to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench [Paras 5-7].

Administrative Direction – Bail Roster – Judge requests that future bail roster not be assigned to him in view of circumstances arising from Supreme Court’s order – Bail application released accordingly [Para 7].

Decision: Bail application not heard on merits – Matter released to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench – Request made not to assign bail roster to the concerned Judge in future.

Criminal Law – Defence Evidence – DNA Report – Rejection of application to summon Forensic Expert – Trial Court declined request on ground that report admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and case required expeditious disposal – Held: When accused disputes DNA/FSL report and seeks examination of expert, such request cannot be rejected on technical grounds – Fair trial mandates opportunity to test scientific evidence – Impugned orders set aside and matter remitted for recording expert evidence [Paras 5-7, 10-14].

Criminal Trial – Defence Evidence – Summoning of Forensic Expert – Application under Sections 91 & 233 Cr.P.C. rejected by Trial Court on ground that FSL report admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and case being among oldest 100 cases requiring expeditious disposal – Held: When DNA/FSL report is objected to and accused seeks examination of expert, application cannot be rejected on technical grounds such as delay or pendency targets – Fair opportunity of defence is paramount – Order rejecting application set aside [Paras 5-7, 13-14].

Section 293 Cr.P.C. – Admissibility of Expert Report – Though report of Government Scientific Expert may be read in evidence without formal proof – Court retains discretion to summon and examine expert – Where accused disputes report and seeks cross-examination, denial of such opportunity affects fairness of trial – Reliance placed on Criminal Reference No.06/2022 (In Reference vs. Anokhilal) and Rahul vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 1 SCC 83 [Paras 10-12].

Fair Trial – Expeditious Disposal vs. Proper Opportunity – Directions for speedy disposal of POCSO/old cases do not imply hurried trial depriving parties of legitimate opportunity – Justice delayed is justice denied but justice hurried is justice buried – Procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed at altar of timelines [Para 13].

Role of Trial Court – Active Participation – Supreme Court reiterated duty of trial Judge under Section 165 of Evidence Act to elicit truth and not act as passive umpire – DNA evidence must be scrutinized carefully and not mechanically relied upon without testing foundational facts [Para 12].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned orders dated 28/08/2024 and 03/09/2024 set aside – Trial Court directed to summon and examine expert and other witnesses as prayed and thereafter decide case in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Accused armed with gun, farsa, bhala and lathi lay in wait in field and suddenly attacked deceased – Deceased dragged to field and brutally assaulted – Injuries multiple and grievous – Held: Conduct of accused in arriving together armed with deadly weapons, concerted assault and fleeing only after death established common intention – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC justified [Paras 42-44, 57].

Evidence – Ocular Testimony – Related/Interested Witnesses – PW-2 (complainant), PW-3 and PW-4 eye-witnesses – Minor contradictions natural and not material – Testimony consistent on manner of assault and participation of accused – Mere relationship or village proximity no ground to discard otherwise reliable evidence – Conviction can be based on trustworthy ocular evidence [Paras 38-42, 45-46].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem disclosed multiple lacerated, incised and contused wounds including fractures of skull, ribs and limbs – Doctor opined injuries possible by lathi, farsa and ballam – Medical evidence consistent with ocular account – Brutality of assault established – Prosecution case corroborated [Paras 49-51].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Essence lies in pre-arranged plan and participation in furtherance of common intention – Inference drawn from manner of attack, weapons carried and collective conduct – Even if specific overt act not attributed to each accused, liability attracted where participation and shared intention proved [Paras 43-44].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Parity – One co-accused acquitted on benefit of doubt due to doubtful presence – Held: No automatic parity in acquittal – Where participation of remaining accused proved beyond doubt, conviction sustainable [Para 52].

Procedural Irregularity – Recording Statement under Section 364 CrPC, 1898 instead of Section 313 CrPC, 1973 – Old Code repealed but forms deemed continued under Section 484(2)(b) CrPC, 1973 read with Section 8 General Clauses Act – Mere use of old proforma an irregularity, not illegality – No prejudice shown – Trial not vitiated [Paras 20-23].

Transfer of Case – Alleged Illegality – No High Court transfer order produced – Trial Court recorded that case was transferred by name to same Presiding Officer – Accused consented to disposal – No prejudice demonstrated – Objection rejected [Paras 16-19].

FIR – Prompt Lodging – Incident at 04:00 PM – FIR lodged at 06:45 PM – No delay – FIR not result of deliberation or consultation – Investigation commenced promptly [Para 27].

Motive – Prior Enmity – Deceased and complainant accused in earlier murder of father of accused – Bail granted shortly before incident – Strong and proximate motive – However, in case of direct ocular evidence, motive only corroborative [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of surviving appellants Ram Narain and Ram Uggar @ Ram Ugra under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment confirmed – Appellants directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which coercive steps to be taken – Appeal abated qua deceased appellants Gyanendri and Ram Pher [Paras 58-59].

Arbitration – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Extension of Time – Liquidated Damages – Arbitral Tribunal granted 484 days’ extension on account of adverse geology, law and order issues and inclement weather – Held that findings were based on appreciation of evidence and plausible interpretation of contract – No patent illegality or perversity warranting interference – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or sit in appeal over arbitral findings [Paras 15-18, 30-34, 55].

Contract – Delay and Extension – Clause 27 – Geological Variations – Tribunal found actual rock mass encountered materially different from tender documents – Delay attributable to unanticipated geology, weather conditions and law and order disturbances – Extension computed on basis of proportional analysis of KD-03 and KD-14 – Held: Grant of 484 days’ extension was reasoned and within contractual framework – Not open to interference under Section 34 [Paras 27-29].

Construction Contracts – Critical Path – Determination by Arbitral Tribunal – Main Tunnel Banihal (KD-14) held to be on ‘critical path’ based on sequencing of key dates – Completion of ADIT followed by main tunnel Banihal affected overall project completion – Other tunnels executed concurrently and subsumed within extended period – Held: Determination of critical path by technically qualified Tribunal was plausible and did not amount to rewriting the contract [Paras 41-42, 49-52].

Liquidated Damages – Pre-condition of Delay Attribution – Tribunal held that Engineer must first determine extension of time and attribute delay before levying LD – Deduction of LD prior to proper delay analysis held prima facie illegal and contrary to Clause 27 – Interpretation of contractual clause found to be plausible – No perversity established [Paras 35-38].

Public Utility Contracts – Presumption of Loss – IRCON contended loss presumed in infrastructure contracts – Tribunal found no specific loss proved, supervision costs not exclusively attributable to present delay – Held: Finding on absence of loss was factual and plausible – No interference warranted under Section 34 [Paras 53-54].

Patent Illegality – Tests Applied – Court reiterated principles from Associate Builders, Ssangyong, DMRC and OPG Power Generation – Award cannot be set aside merely because another view is possible – Only perverse findings based on no evidence or ignoring vital evidence are amenable to interference – Present award does not suffer from such defects [Paras 15-16, 34].

Decision: Petition under Section 34 dismissed – Impugned Award upheld – Extension of 484 days and setting aside of liquidated damages sustained – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 55-57].

Habeas Corpus – Arrest without Warrant – Communication of Grounds of Arrest – Petitioner contended that grounds were cyclostyled, vague and identical to reasons for arrest – Court examined Exts.P13 and P15 and held that detailed factual allegations specifying petitioner’s role in conspiracy and misappropriation were clearly stated – Held: Grounds were personal, specific and not mere formal “reasons for arrest” – Requirement under Article 22(1) and Section 47 BNSS complied with [Paras 16-21, 24].

Article 21 & 22(1) – Distinction between “Reasons for Arrest” and “Grounds of Arrest” – Reaffirmed that “reasons” are general investigative justifications whereas “grounds” must disclose specific factual basis necessitating arrest – Exts.P13 and P15 narrated conspiracy, role of petitioner’s firm, stripping of gold and pecuniary loss – Held: Sufficient disclosure enabling defence and opposition to remand [Paras 13-14, 20-21].

Section 48 BNSS (analogous to Section 50A CrPC) – Intimation to Friend/Relative – Grounds of arrest served on person accompanying petitioner from Chennai – Court inferred that accompanying staff member could reasonably fall within expression “friend” for purposes of statutory compliance – Subsequent email to wife did not invalidate earlier compliance – Held: No violation of mandate to inform friend/relative [Paras 19, 22].

Remand Proceedings – Non-supply of Remand Application – Remand report in Malayalam not served on accused at time of remand – However, written grounds of arrest supplied separately in English, language known to accused – Held: Since grounds were already furnished in writing, non-supply of remand report in local language did not vitiate arrest or remand [Paras 22-24].

Right to Legal Representation at Remand – Counsel of choice informed telephonically of arrest and production – Accused produced two hours later than time intimated – No advocate present at 10:00 p.m. remand – Court held that as counsel was informed and chosen by accused, obligation to provide legal aid did not arise – Delay due to medical examination and travel not sufficient to render arrest illegal [Paras 25-28].

Necessity and Justification of Arrest – Allegation of conspiracy and misappropriation of gold belonging to Travancore Devaswom Board involving offences under IPC and PC Act – Court held that grounds disclosed material showing petitioner’s complicity and role – Arrest not mechanical or routine – No illegality established [Paras 8, 21, 28].

Decision: Writ Petition (Criminal) dismissed – Arrest and remand upheld – No violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) or statutory safeguards under BNSS found.

Customs – Smuggling – Seizure of Foreign-Origin Cigarettes – 25,01,200 cigarette sticks seized from vehicle and godown – Absolute confiscation ordered under Section 111(d) – Penalty imposed under Section 112(b)(i) – Concurrent findings by Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT – Held: Seizure and confiscation based on detailed Panchnama and un-retracted statements under Section 108 – No infirmity in concurrent findings [Paras 11–15, 17–18].

Section 108 Customs Act – Evidentiary Value – Statements recorded under Section 108 not retracted at any stage – Such statements have binding effect and can be relied upon for confiscation and penalty – Right of cross-examination not absolute – In absence of demonstrated prejudice, denial of cross-examination not fatal [Paras 17, 25].

Burden of Proof – Section 123 Customs Act – Goods of foreign origin seized – Once seizure proved, burden shifts on person from whose possession goods recovered to establish licit import – Appellant failed to discharge statutory burden and remained in denial of seizure and valuation – Held: Authorities justified in drawing adverse inference [Paras 13, 21–22].

Valuation – Market Value Determination – Appellant challenged valuation of cigarettes at Rs.14 per stick – Show cause notice disclosed market survey basis and total market value of Rs.3,50,16,800/- – Once valuation disclosed, burden shifted to appellant to rebut with cogent material – Failure to produce contrary evidence renders valuation sustainable – No substantial question of law arises [Paras 20–22, 24–25].

Section 130 Customs Act – Scope of Appeal – High Court’s jurisdiction confined to substantial question of law – Concurrent factual findings by three authorities cannot be re-appreciated in absence of perversity or legal infirmity – Held: No question of law involved in challenge to valuation, seizure, or penalty – Appeal dismissed [Paras 23–26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – Pending application disposed of.