Criminal Law – Quashing of Final Report – Section 482 CrPC – Sections 324, 353 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Accused bus driver alleged to have overtaken and collided with the official vehicle of a judicial officer – Held: None of the charges are even prima facie sustainable as the essential ingredients of Sections 324, 353 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Act of 1984 are absent – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 10, 19, 20].

Section 353 IPC – Assault or Criminal Force Against Public Servant – Ingredients – For an offence under Section 353 IPC, there must be actual assault or use of criminal force against a public servant on duty with the intention to prevent or deter discharge of duty – Mere obstruction is insufficient; there must be intentional physical force directed against the person – In the instant case, the incident was a brushing of the bus against the car during overtaking and the FIR discloses no criminal intent or mens rea to obstruct or deter any public servant – Section 353 IPC not attracted [Paras 11, 14, 15].

Section 324 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Means – Ingredients – An offence under Section 324 IPC requires that hurt must be caused by a dangerous weapon or dangerous means – Injury caused by shattering of car window glass as a consequence of a road incident does not constitute intentional use of a dangerous weapon or dangerous means by the accused – Section 324 IPC legally unsustainable [Para 16].

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Section 3(2)(e) – "Public Property" – Scope – The category of public property covered by Section 3(2)(e) is a closed and specifically enumerated list – The provision cannot be extended by interpretative exercise to cover all forms of public property in a general sense – An official car of a judicial officer, though public property, is not a "means of public transportation or telecommunications" as contemplated under Section 3(2)(e) – The Act was not intended to govern isolated motor accidents lacking an element of assault and criminal force – Section 3(2)(e) not attracted [Paras 17, 18].

Decision: Crl.M.C. allowed – Final Report in Crime No. 847/2018 and all further proceedings in CC No. 367/2018 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha quashed.

Service Law – Pension – Switching from CPF to Pension Scheme – Cut-off Date – Denial of Retrospective Pension – Validity – Retired employees of SIDBI challenged clauses of Circular dated 29.06.2022 granting pension only prospectively from 01.07.2022 to CPF optees and denying arrears prior thereto – Petitioners contended that SIDBI Pension Regulations, 2002 were the only valid regulations and no earlier effective option was given to them to opt for pension – Held: Fixation of cut-off date for grant of pension and refusal to grant pension retrospectively is neither arbitrary nor illegal nor discriminatory – Pension scheme being a policy decision, financial implications and sustainability are relevant considerations – Petitioners having opted for the scheme as a package cannot accept benefits and reject disadvantageous clauses [Paras 16–20].

Service Jurisprudence – Pension Scheme as a Package – Doctrine of “No Picking and Choosing” – Pension option extended as a final opportunity subject to specific terms – Petitioners exercised option to switch from CPF to pension – Held: Employees cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting benefits of scheme while challenging conditions forming integral part thereof – Once option exercised, scheme must be accepted in entirety [Paras 14, 17, 20].

Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Decision – RBI v. M.T. Mani – Clauses impugned were materially identical to clauses upheld by Supreme Court in RBI v. M.T. Mani – Supreme Court held that denial of retrospective pension prior to cut-off date does not violate Articles 14 or 16 – High Court bound by ratio and applied same to SIDBI pension scheme – Distinction sought on ground of lack of prior options rejected [Paras 16–19].

Policy Decision – Financial Burden – Judicial Restraint – SIDBI pension option resulted in financial burden of approx. ₹96 crores; retrospective arrears would impose additional burden of ₹19.67 crores for petitioners alone – Held: Courts should not interfere with economic and policy decisions taken after considering financial viability – Retrospective pension would lead to financially unsustainable consequences [Paras 17–18].

Delay and Double Benefit – CPF and Pension – Petitioners had enjoyed CPF benefits and income for several years – Grant of retrospective pension would amount to unjust enrichment and double benefit – Reliance placed on Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar – Held: No prejudice caused to petitioners by denial of retrospective pension [Paras 11, 21].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Clauses 3(VIII) and 4(IX) of Circular dated 29 June 2022 upheld – No order as to costs.

Conviction can be sustained only when circumstances are fully established, consistent solely with guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every hypothesis of innocence and form a complete chain – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 16-17].

Last Seen Theory – Hostile Witness – PW-15 Ramzan Khan turned hostile and denied seeing accused with deceased – No corroborative evidence – Held: Theory of last seen not proved [Paras 6, 17].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Memorandum – Authenticity – Memorandums (Ex. P/16 and P/17) allegedly recorded at Police Station at 8:30 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. – Scientific Officer’s report showed Investigating Officer present at scene of crime at same time – Star witness admitted signatures obtained on blank papers – Held: Memorandums fictitious and inadmissible – Recovery of skeleton not proved at instance of accused [Paras 9-11, 14].

Prosecution Fairness – Withholding Evidence – Scene of crime report not exhibited by prosecution though prepared at its instance – Accused entitled to rely upon such document – Prosecutor must act fairly and place all material before Court [Paras 7-8].

Motive – Illicit Relationship – Allegation not substantiated – No witness proved existence of illicit relationship – No evidence that deceased was aware of such relationship – Motive not established [Paras 4, 11-12].

Motive – Employment Application – Prosecution theory that accused lured deceased on pretext of job clearance – No official from Women and Child Development Department examined – Foundation of prosecution case not proved [Para 12].

Administration of Poison – Failure to Prove Nature of Substance – Alleged pesticide not scientifically established as odorless or capable of clandestine administration – No forensic linkage with cause of death – Theory incomplete [Para 13].

Electronic Evidence – Call Detail Records – Non-compliance with Section 65B Evidence Act – Certificate not issued by service provider – No tower location linking accused to scene – Held: CDR evidence unreliable and inadmissible [Para 15].

Faulty and Malicious Investigation – Fabrication of Documents – Court deprecated creation of fictitious memorandums – Liberty granted to Director General of Police to consider departmental enquiry against Investigating Officer – Conviction cannot rest on tainted investigation [Paras 14, 17, 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Copy of judgment directed to be circulated to police authorities for appropriate action [Paras 18-20].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Execution of cheque and receipt of statutory legal notice admitted by accused – Cheque dishonoured with remark “Account Closed” – Statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 attracted – Burden shifted on accused to rebut presumption by raising probable defence – Held: Mere denial or bald assertions insufficient to rebut statutory presumption [Paras 13–15].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Failure to Lead Evidence – Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence – Defence rested solely on statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleging cheque was stolen and absence of liability – No cogent material produced to probabilise defence – Held: Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 remained unrebutted [Paras 15, 23].

Privity of Contract – Cheque Issued on Behalf of Third Party – Contention that MoU was between complainant and accused’s brother and not accused – Evidence showed accused issued cheque voluntarily towards discharge of liability arising from joint transaction – Cheque admittedly handed over by accused – Held: Issuance of cheque by accused on behalf of brother towards legally enforceable liability sufficient to attract Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–17].

Limitation – Relevant Date under Section 138 NI Act – Argument that underlying MoU dated 2009 rendered claim time-barred rejected – Limitation for Section 138 complaint to be computed from date of issuance and dishonour of cheque, not from date of underlying transaction – Held: Complaint within limitation [Paras 18–19].

Proprietorship of Complainant Firm – Proof Not Mandatory – Cheque issued in favour of proprietary concern – Once cheque drawn in name of firm, complainant not required to separately prove proprietorship in absence of specific dispute affecting issuance – Held: Objection does not go to root of maintainability [Para 20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate court – Interference permissible only in cases of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court well reasoned and based on evidence – Held: No ground for interference under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act and sentence upheld – No perversity or illegality found in concurrent judgments – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Victim’s Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Trial Court acquitted all accused in case of fatal assault arising out of prior enmity – High Court held that though acquittal of A3 to A11 justified for want of proof of common object and corroboration, acquittal of A1 and A2 perverse in light of consistent eyewitness and medical evidence – Appellate Court can interfere where findings are contrary to evidence on record [Paras 25–27, 32–33].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Mere presence and omnibus allegations insufficient – No reliable evidence establishing common object of A3 to A11 to commit murder – Benefit of doubt rightly extended – Acquittal of A3 to A11 confirmed [Paras 23–25, 33].

Culpable Homicide – Conversion from Murder – Sudden Quarrel – Deceased intervened in dispute between A1 and P.Ws.1 & 2 – No prior enmity between deceased and A2 – Assault occurred in heat of moment without premeditation – Though injury inflicted on vital part, circumstances indicate absence of intention to commit murder – Offence falls under Section 304 Part I IPC and not Section 302 IPC [Paras 27, 31].

Individual Overt Acts – Appreciation of Evidence – Consistent testimony of P.Ws.1, 6 and 10 corroborated by medical evidence – Post-mortem confirms head injury consistent with eyewitness account – Minor lapses in investigation and non-examination of certain witnesses not fatal when core prosecution case proved – A1 liable under Section 324 IPC for assault with broken glass and under Section 342 IPC – A2 liable under Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 22, 26–31, 32].

Delay in FIR – Explained – Incident occurred at 8.00 p.m. – Complaint lodged at 12.30 a.m. after shifting injured to hospital – Delay natural in circumstances of securing medical treatment – Not fatal to prosecution case [Para 30].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Evidence of hostile witnesses not to be rejected in toto – Conviction can be based on reliable portion of testimony corroborated by other evidence – Conviction sustained on basis of trustworthy eyewitnesses despite some witnesses turning hostile [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Acquittal of A1 and A2 set aside – A1 convicted under Sections 324 and 342 IPC – A2 convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC – Matter posted for hearing on sentence – Acquittal of A3 to A11 confirmed.

Criminal Law – Murder – Political Rivalry – Conviction Set Aside – Deceased, a CPI(M) local leader, allegedly murdered by members of rival political organisation (NDF) – Trial Court convicted accused under Sections 302 r/w 149 IPC and allied offences – On appeal, High Court finds prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 9, 48].

Evidence – Injured Eye-Witnesses – Credibility – PW1 and PW2 projected as injured eye-witnesses – Serious doubt regarding their presence at scene of crime – Wound certificates prepared more than one month after incident and produced in court after inordinate delay – Hospital controlled by same political party as deceased – Nature of injuries trivial and possibly self-inflicted – Conduct of witnesses unnatural – Held: Unsafe to rely on testimony of PW1 and PW2 [Paras 14–21].

Medical Evidence – Delay and Suspicion – Wound Certificates – Delay in preparation, issuance and production of Exts.P27 and P28 – Absence of treating doctor as witness – Lack of description of injuries – Medical evidence found unreliable and incapable of corroborating ocular testimony [Paras 17–21, 47].

Witness Testimony – Conduct Inconsistent with Normal Human Behaviour – PW1 and PW2 allegedly fled scene without attempting to rescue grievously injured deceased – Did not seek help from PW3 or others – Conduct held unnatural – Reliance placed on Nimai Ghosh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) [Para 31].

Interested and Partisan Witnesses – Political Affiliation – All material witnesses belonged to CPI(M), the party of the deceased – In politically charged cases, evidence of partisan witnesses requires strict scrutiny – Absence of independent corroboration fatal to prosecution case [Paras 45–46].

Contradictions and Improvements – Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. – PW1 and PW2 made several material improvements before Court regarding overt acts, weapons, and roles of accused – Omissions proved through Investigating Officers – Held: Improvements go to root of prosecution case when presence itself is doubtful [Paras 37–39].

FIR – Naming of Accused – Suspicion of Prior Consultation – FIR contained names and parentage of all 16 accused – PW1 admitted some names were supplied by others in hospital – Possibility of deliberation and false implication due to political rivalry cannot be ruled out [Paras 34–35].

Investigation – Serious Lapses – Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Alleged escape of assailants in a jeep – Owner and related witnesses not examined – Registration particulars not collected – Delay in recovery of weapons – Recovery witnesses politically affiliated – Held: Investigation lacked fairness and credibility [Paras 40–44].

Recovery Evidence – Doubtful – Delay of Several Months – Weapons allegedly recovered on disclosure after long delay – Attestors were partisan and residing far from place of recovery – Recovery evidence held unreliable [Paras 43–44].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof – While defective investigation alone not a ground for acquittal, where evidence itself is weak and unreliable, lapses assume significance – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 48–49].

Decision: Criminal Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences in S.C. No. 3 of 2012 set aside – Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 14 acquitted – Direction to release appellants forthwith

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession – Permissive Possession – Plaintiffs established title under registered sale deed (Ex.A1) and construction agreement (Ex.A2) – 2nd defendant admitted possession only by permission either from plaintiffs or 1st defendant – Held: Person in permissive possession cannot dispute title of true owner – Plaintiffs entitled to declaration and recovery of possession [Paras 14–18].

Title – Registered Sale Deed – Challenge by Third Party – Property purchased by plaintiffs under Ex.A1 in 2003 – Construction completed in 2005 – 1st defendant did not set up any independent title and remained ex parte – Contention that Managing Director purchased property in individual capacity not substantiated – No evidence to show valid transfer of possessory or proprietary rights in favour of 2nd defendant [Paras 15–17].

Possession – Claim as Security for Loan – 2nd defendant contended that she was inducted into possession as security for loan advanced by her father to 1st defendant – Alleged loan and permissive occupation not proved – Evidence in earlier suit (Ex.B18) shows 1st defendant denied borrowing loan or permitting occupation as security – Defence rejected [Para 17].

Limitation – Suit for Possession Based on Title – 2nd defendant admitted occupation from 2006 – Suit filed within 12 years – Within period prescribed under Limitation Act – Decree not barred by limitation [Para 18].

Mesne Profits / Interim Deposit – During pendency of appeal, appellant directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- per month – Respondents permitted to withdraw amount on proper application before trial Court [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 28.04.2022 in O.S.No.4226 of 2020 confirming declaration of title and recovery of possession upheld – Eight weeks’ time granted to appellant to vacate and hand over vacant possession – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Education – Government Employee – Permission to Pursue Higher Studies – Distance Education Mode – Petitioner appointed as Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant sought permission to enroll in B.A. through Distance Mode without availing study leave – Application rejected on ground of non-completion of three years’ regular service and probation status – Held: As per Government instructions dated 09.11.2022, condition of three years’ service applies only where studies are pursued in regular mode requiring physical attendance – For distance/online mode where no study leave is required, no such condition is prescribed – Rejection order unsustainable [Paras 4–5].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Education – Article 21 – Right to pursue education at any stage of life – Court reiterated that right to education is concomitant to right to life and personal liberty – Denial of permission to pursue educational qualification without statutory basis amounts to infringement of fundamental right – Right to education recognized as inalienable human right – State obligated to facilitate educational advancement [Paras 6–8].

Service Law – Model Employer – Encouragement of Higher Qualification – Court observed that enhancement of educational qualification of employees serves public interest by creating a competent workforce – State as a welfare State and model employer has constitutional duty to support professional growth of its employees – Arbitrary restrictions contrary to this objective liable to be set aside [Paras 9–10].

Administrative Instructions – Conflict between Clarificatory Instructions and Parent Instructions – Clarificatory instructions dated 28.08.2023 issued by Superintendent held contrary to executive instructions dated 09.11.2022 issued by competent authority – Clarification cannot override substantive policy decision – Rejection based on such clarification held illegal [Para 11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 02.07.2024 set aside – Respondents directed to grant permission to petitioner to enroll in B.A. through Distance Education Mode – Petitioner not entitled to study leave and to maintain required standard of work – Leave permissible only during examination period [Para 12].

Trade Marks – Rectification of Register – Prior Adoption and Continuous Use – Petitioner established adoption and use of trademark “ARUN” since 1962 through predecessors-in-interest – Multiple registrations obtained in Class-7 (1976, 1984), Class-20 (2001) and copyright registration of label (1999) – Extensive evidence of uninterrupted use, advertisements, caution notices, decrees and sales figures placed on record – Held: Petitioner proved prior adoption, continuous use, goodwill and reputation attached to mark “ARUN” [Paras 26–31].

Deceptive Similarity – Dominant and Essential Feature of Mark – Respondent’s mark “AiC ARUN” incorporates the entirety of petitioner’s registered mark “ARUN” – Addition of prefix “AiC” does not create sufficient distinction – “ARUN” constitutes the dominant and essential feature – Marks phonetically, visually and structurally similar – Held: Impugned mark deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion to an average consumer with imperfect recollection [Paras 33, 36].

Same Class of Goods – Common Trade Channel and Consumer Base – Both parties manufacture sewing machines and parts falling under Class-7 – Same trade circles, consumer base and geographical proximity (Jalandhar–Ludhiana) – Likelihood of confusion enhanced due to identical nature of goods and common trade channels – Held: Triple test of deceptive similarity, identical goods and common consumer base satisfied [Paras 12, 32, 36].

Generic / Publici Juris Defence – Rejection – Respondent contended that “ARUN” is generic and common to trade – Failed to place any substantive evidence showing widespread common usage – Petitioner’s long, exclusive and continuous use coupled with registrations rebut plea of genericity – Held: “ARUN” acquired distinctiveness and exclusivity in relation to petitioner’s goods [Paras 33–34].

Effect of Non-Opposition under Sections 21 & 23 – No Bar to Rectification – Failure of petitioner to oppose application at advertisement stage does not bar rectification proceedings – Sections 47 and 57 independently confer statutory right to seek cancellation/variation – Interpretation barring rectification would lead to anomalous and incongruous results – Held: Rectification petition maintainable notwithstanding absence of opposition [Paras 37].

Comparison of Marks, Labels and Packaging – Court undertook visual comparison of trademarks, labels, colour schemes and trade dress – Similar overall impression likely to mislead ordinary purchaser – Prefix “AiC” insufficient to obviate confusion – Held: Impugned mark infringes petitioner’s statutory and proprietary rights [Paras 35–36].

Relief – Partial Rectification by Variation – Considering respondent’s limited sales, subsequent adoption and equities – Court exercised power under Section 57 to direct variation instead of complete removal – Directed deletion of word “ARUN” from respondent’s trademark “AiC ARUN” – Respondent permitted to continue business using “AiC” with liberty to add other distinctive matter – Held: Balance of equities achieved while protecting petitioner’s prior rights [Paras 41–42].

Decision: Petition allowed – Trademark “AiC ARUN” directed to be varied by deletion of word “ARUN” – Registrar of Trade Marks directed to rectify Register within six weeks – Respondent restrained from using “ARUN” as part of its mark – Pending applications disposed of.