Criminal Law – Corruption – Proof of Demand – Demand Not Established – The respondent, a clerk in SRP Group 11, was acquitted by the Trial Court of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded ₹200 from the complainant to process his pay and leave records – The Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification – Held: Mere acceptance of money without clear proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act – The acquittal was upheld [Paras 10-11].

Competence of Accused to Process Salary – The prosecution alleged that the respondent, being a clerk, could influence the processing of salary bills – Held: The respondent had no authority to process or fix the salary of the complainant – The prosecution’s case failed as the respondent was not in a position to fulfill the alleged promise in exchange for the bribe [Para 10].

Prosecution Failure – No Clear Evidence of Demand – The prosecution relied on the complainant's testimony, which was inconsistent and lacked corroboration – The Panch witness did not hear any demand, and the trap laying officer could not directly witness the transaction – Held: The prosecution failed to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt, a sine qua non for establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal confirmed – The respondent was acquitted of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act [Paras 12-13].
 

Live-in Relationships – Protection of Life and Liberty – Petitioners in CRWP No. 4660 of 2021 and CRWP No. 149 of 2024, though already married to third parties, sought protection for their life and liberty while living in a live-in relationship – Held: Despite societal and moral objections, the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected, irrespective of marital status or social norms – The Court affirmed the right of individuals, including those already married, to live in a live-in relationship, provided the threat to their life and liberty is genuine [Paras 1-5, 28, 37-39, 45].

Marital Status – Denial of Protection – In LPA No. 968 of 2021, the High Court had earlier denied protection to individuals in live-in relationships where one partner was married, citing potential harm to the social fabric – Held: The previous judgment was overturned, reaffirming that the right to protection under Article 21 overrides societal norms, and protection must be granted where threats exist, even if one partner is already married – The appeal was dismissed with costs [Paras 6, 45].

Societal Morality vs. Constitutional Rights – The Court held that the right to privacy and autonomy under Article 21 includes the right to form relationships of one’s choice, even in live-in arrangements, irrespective of societal moral disapproval – Social fabric concerns cannot outweigh fundamental rights – Court highlighted the decriminalization of adultery in Joseph Shine v. Union of India as a basis for granting protection to those in live-in relationships where one partner is married [Paras 13-19, 22-24].

Protection Mechanism – Overburdened Police – A mechanism for live-in couples seeking protection was outlined, involving first approaching District Legal Services Authorities or the State Human Rights Commission for counseling and mediation – The Court suggested this as a first step before approaching the Courts, thereby easing the burden on the judicial and police systems [Paras 25-27].

Minors in Live-in Relationships – The Court clarified that minors cannot enter into live-in relationships due to legal incapacities under laws like the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Minors cannot claim protection in such cases, and their welfare must be ensured through custody arrangements with parents or guardians, or by sending them to appropriate care homes under the Juvenile Justice Act [Paras 40-44].

Decision: CRWP No. 4660 of 2021 and CRWP No. 149 of 2024 allowed – LPA No. 968 of 2021 dismissed – Clear mechanisms outlined for protection of individuals in live-in relationships, including pre-litigation counseling, and reaffirmation of minors’ legal incapacities regarding live-in relationships [Paras 45-47].

Parole – Grounds for Granting – Convict sought parole to arrange finances and bid farewell to his son departing for higher studies abroad – Authorities rejected application citing pendency of appeal – High Court held pendency of appeal not a valid ground to deny parole – Rule 18 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, interpreted to allow parole for significant family events, including happy occasions [Paras 1-10].

Parole – Emotional Well-being – Court recognized parole’s role in maintaining family ties and mental well-being of inmates – Emphasized humanistic approach to allow convicts temporary release for significant family moments – Criticized rigid interpretation of parole rules limiting to emergencies [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner granted parole for 10 days from 12^th July 2024 to 22^nd July 2024 – Required to execute personal bond and one local surety of Rs.25,000/- – Ordered to report to local police station on alternate days [Paras 10-12].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 of the Constitution – Petitioners sought writs for annual grade increments and pension revision – Rajasthan High Court directed compliance with earlier decision in Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan – Similar petitions addressed as judgment treated as in rem rather than in personam – Repeated identical petitions termed misuse of judicial process – Token cost imposed on petitioners for filing repetitive claims – Held: Respondents to comply with previous orders, representations to be considered within three weeks [Paras 1-25].

Doctrine of Finality – Vijay Singh case judgment established as final – Petitioners not required to re-approach the court for similar claims – Judicial decorum mandates that final judgments be adhered to by authorities – Frivolous and repetitive litigation burdens the judicial system – Court imposed token costs to deter abuse of process – Held: Departments to act on representations without further litigation, token costs imposed [Paras 16-20].

Costs Imposed for Frivolous Litigation – Repeated petitions unnecessarily occupying court time – Symbolic costs of Rs. 1000/- imposed on each petitioner – Petitioners directed to deposit costs in the Litigants Welfare Fund – Non-compliance with court orders would amount to contempt – Held: Token costs necessary to ensure genuine grievances are prioritized, unnecessary litigation discouraged [Paras 18-23].

Decision – Petitions dismissed – Court reiterated previous decisions and imposed costs on repetitive petitions – Ordered respondents to comply with earlier judgments and address representations within three weeks – Petitioners given liberty to approach court only if their representation is decided adversely [Paras 21-25].

Industrial Dispute – Termination of Workman – Validity of Domestic Inquiry – Petitioner challenged the termination order and the Labour Court's decision – Workman dismissed for misconduct, including physical assault on a superior and a co-worker – Domestic inquiry upheld by the Labour Court – Petitioner failed to challenge the inquiry's fairness earlier – High Court affirmed the Labour Court's decision, holding that the inquiry was fair and the dismissal justified – No jurisdictional error found warranting interference [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court under Article 226 does not function as an appellate body – It corrects jurisdictional errors and acts contrary to natural justice, not errors of fact – High Court found no procedural errors or jurisdictional overreach in the Labour Court's decision – Petition dismissed on these grounds [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Petition dismissed – High Court upheld the validity of the domestic inquiry and dismissal of the petitioner for proven misconduct – No relief granted to the petitioner .

Criminal Law – Bail application – Accused allegedly caused fatal injuries to his mother during a quarrel – Accusations based on circumstantial evidence – Petitioner in judicial custody for over a year – Investigation complete but trial delayed – Petitioner's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution considered – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 2-12].

Right to Life and Liberty – Article 21 – Court noted the petitioner’s prolonged detention without charge framing – Held that extended custody violates the petitioner's right to life under Article 21 – Bail not to be withheld as punishment, reaffirming that bail is the rule and jail is the exception [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Delay – Sessions Court report indicated delay due to pending murder cases – Despite assurances, charge not framed even after six months – Court emphasizes prompt trial proceedings [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Bail granted with conditions including regular appearances before the Investigating Officer, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and surrendering of passport [Paras 12-13].

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.

Motor Accident Claim – Proof of Negligence – Dismissal of Claim – Appellant claimed injuries caused by rash and negligent driving of an HRTC bus, resulting in permanent disability (15% of the right limb) – Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the appellant failed to prove negligence by the driver or conductor of the bus – Appeal dismissed by the High Court, reaffirming that negligence on the part of the driver is a sine qua non for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act – No cogent evidence provided by the appellant to establish negligence [Paras 1-40].

Evidentiary Issues – Failure to Produce Material Evidence – Appellant did not produce any medical records from CHC Kumarsain or MGMSC Khaneri, nor did he examine any passengers of the bus – The petitioner’s evidence, including the police record (DD Entry No. 12A), did not support claims of negligence by the bus driver or conductor – Tribunal and High Court found no error in dismissing the claim due to lack of sufficient evidence [Paras 25-35].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No error found in the Tribunal’s decision – Negligence not proven by the appellant, and thus no compensation awarded

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].