NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Prolonged Incarceration: The petitioner was accused of smuggling and possessing 75 kg of poppy husk and was arrested with his co-accused. He had been in custody for 01 year, 09 months, and 20 days, with no other criminal cases against him. The trial had progressed slowly, with only three out of 17 prosecution witnesses examined. In line with precedents, the court considered the prolonged incarceration as grounds for granting bail, emphasizing the importance of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 1-14].

Section 37 of NDPS Act – Non-Compliance – Prolonged Custody: The court noted that despite the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, prolonged custody without significant trial progress warranted the granting of bail, as consistent with previous rulings by the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s lack of prior criminal record and the extended duration of custody were crucial factors in the decision [Paras 6-14].

Decision: Bail granted – Conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure the petitioner’s appearance in court.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 Acquittal – High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Acquittal by Trial Court – Petitioner’s Complaint Lacked Credibility – Discrepancies and Inconsistencies in Petitioner’s Testimony and Evidence – Respondent’s Defence Rebutted Presumptions Under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act – Trial Court’s Findings Not Perverse, Acquittal Upheld [Paras 1-35].

Appreciation of Evidence – Double Presumption of Innocence in Favor of Accused in Appeal Against Acquittal – High Court’s Role in Reviewing Acquittal Limited to Instances of Perversity – Not to Disturb Findings Where Two Reasonable Views Are Possible – Rebuttal of Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of NI Act Considered Sufficient – Defence of Non-Existence of Debt/Liability Proven on Preponderance of Probabilities [Paras 17-26].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – High Court Found No Grounds for Interference with Trial Court's Acquittal – Defence Evidence and Testimony Adequately Supported Respondent’s Case – Petitioner’s Inconsistent Statements and Lack of Credible Evidence Failed to Disprove Defence [Paras 33-34].

Criminal Procedure – Dismissal of Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Petitioner's application for registration of FIR against respondents under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and upheld by the learned ASJ – Allegations involved threats, trespass, and false implication in a criminal case – Petitioner sought cross FIR for events post-incident already subject of FIR No. 123/2021 – Court found no need for registration of FIR as the petitioner's evidence could be pursued under Section 200 Cr.P.C. without police assistance at this stage – Dismissal of petition confirmed. [Paras 1-10, 21-27]

Cross FIRs – Legal Principles – Whether a cross FIR should be registered depends on the facts and circumstances of each case – Although cross FIRs are permissible, the Court emphasized the necessity of determining whether it is justified based on the specific facts – In this case, the court ruled that identifying additional assailants did not warrant a new FIR at this stage, allowing the petitioner to continue his complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. – Reference to legal precedents Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash & Ors., and others made. [Paras 10, 24-26]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Held – The writ petition challenging the orders of the lower courts is dismissed, with no infirmity found in their decisions – The petitioner still has the opportunity to lead evidence and seek police assistance later if necessary, under Section 202 Cr.P.C. [Para 27]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Petitioners, members of a family, accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust in a commodity trading dispute involving Rs. 37.75 crores – The court finds prima facie evidence against the petitioners of fraudulent intent, noting that they transferred properties to avoid liabilities – Claims of the dispute being civil in nature rejected, as criminal proceedings were found appropriate given the allegations of deceit and dishonesty [Paras 1-34].

Commercial Transactions – Criminal Proceedings – Civil and criminal remedies are not mutually exclusive – Even in commercial transactions, criminal prosecution is valid where fraud and cheating are alleged – The court underscores that criminal intent can coexist with civil obligations, justifying the continuation of criminal proceedings [Paras 25-28].

Breach of Contract and Cheating – Petitioners' claim that the dispute was purely civil and related to contract breaches was dismissed – The court emphasized that allegations of fraudulent intent and dishonest actions warranted criminal investigation and proceedings [Paras 29-33].

Decision: Anticipatory bail applications dismissed – The court found that granting bail would hinder the ongoing investigation into serious allegations of fraud and cheating – Observations made are prima facie and do not affect the merits of the case [Para 34].
 

Specific Performance of Contract – Readiness and Willingness – Appellant sought specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property – Trial court granted refund of earnest money but denied specific performance, accepting respondent as a bona fide purchaser – High Court reversed the decision, holding that the appellant proved readiness and willingness, and the respondent was not a bona fide purchaser due to prior knowledge of the existing agreement – Directed execution of sale deed in appellant's favor [Paras 10-29].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Sale and Agreement to Sell – Court reaffirmed that an agreement to sell does not confer title or interest in property – Title transfer requires a duly executed and registered sale deed – Appellant's right to specific performance upheld due to the respondent's failure to prove a valid sale deed [Paras 20-26].

Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 – Court emphasized that post-amendment, specific performance is a statutory remedy rather than discretionary – The shift in law favors enforcing contractual obligations unless proven otherwise [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Trial court judgment set aside – Directed execution of the sale deed in favor of appellant with payment of balance consideration – Consequential reliefs of peaceful possession granted – No order as to costs [Paras 27-29].

Income Tax Act – Reassessment – Validity of Sanction – The petitioner challenged the reopening of its assessment under Section 148, asserting that the sanction under Section 151 was granted mechanically, without independent application of mind by the PCCIT. The Delhi High Court held that the approval granted was flawed in law, as it merely used the word "approved" without recording reasons or showing a rational nexus between the material considered and the conclusion reached. The approval did not meet the mandatory requirement of a meaningful, non-ritualistic process. The court quashed the reassessment notice and order issued under Sections 148A(d) and 148, emphasizing the need for reasoned satisfaction by the approving authority. [Paras 1-19]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – The order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were set aside and quashed.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 141 – Quashing of Summons – Liability of Directors – Non-Executive and Independent Directors – Petitioners sought quashing of summoning orders issued under Section 138/141 NI Act, claiming they were Non-Executive and Independent Directors with no role in day-to-day management – High Court reiterated that vicarious liability of Directors arises only if they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business – No sufficient averments in the complaint indicating petitioners' involvement in day-to-day affairs – Complaint against petitioners quashed [Paras 1-15].

Criminal Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Powers of High Court – Quashing Summons – Inadequate Averments – Court emphasized that while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it must scrutinize whether the complaint makes necessary allegations to fasten liability on the accused – If complaint lacks necessary particulars, proceedings can be quashed at the threshold – Principles reiterated from landmark judgments on quashing of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act [Paras 10-14].

Decision:

Petitions allowed. Summoning orders against petitioners quashed.

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Appellant challenged the validity of the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that it was granted without application of mind and by an incompetent authority. The court held that the sanction order lacked necessary documentary evidence to show that the powers were properly delegated to the sanctioning authority. The absence of relevant materials and the authority’s failure to demonstrate a conscious application of mind rendered the sanction invalid [Paras 9-16].

Demand and Acceptance – Proof Requirements – The prosecution’s case was based on allegations of demand and acceptance of a bribe for reducing a fine imposed on the contractor’s firm. The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence regarding prior demands and the demand on the day of the trap. The complainant’s testimony lacked independent corroboration, and the evidence of the shadow witness failed to conclusively prove a demand, particularly when the alleged demand was made through gestures (raising eyebrows) [Paras 31-39].

Tape Recorder Evidence – Contradictions in Testimonies – The court noted contradictions in the testimonies regarding the use of a tape recorder during the trap, which further weakened the prosecution's case. The failure to provide consistent evidence on key aspects of the investigation raised doubts about the veracity of the incident [Paras 30-40].

Presumption of Guilt – Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – The court emphasized that a presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Act can only arise once foundational facts are established. Given the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, the court found no basis for such a presumption in this instance [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The conviction and sentence of the appellant were quashed and set aside. The accused was acquitted of all charges, including those under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act​.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 294(b), 506(ii), 323, and 447 IPC – Validity of Cognizance Without Considering Refer Report – Kerala High Court Directions for Reconsideration – The High Court quashed the cognizance orders of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court in cases arising from protest complaints after the police submitted refer reports. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate must consider the refer report and decide on cognizance based on both the complainant's materials and the police investigation report. The matter was remitted back for reconsideration in light of established legal principles [Paras 2-7].

Legal Principles – Requirement to Consider Police Refer Report Before Taking Cognizance – Kerala High Court reiterated that when a Magistrate is presented with a refer report from the police, it is mandatory to evaluate the report along with the complainant's evidence before taking cognizance. Ignoring the refer report and proceeding with cognizance solely based on the complaint constitutes a violation of established legal procedures, warranting the quashing of such cognizance orders [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Quashing of Cognizance Orders – Held – The orders taking cognizance in CC Nos. 350/2014 and 355/2014 are quashed, and the cases are remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in line with the legal requirements. The Magistrate is directed to re-evaluate the cases considering both the refer reports and the complainant’s materials, following precedents established in Parameshwaran Nair v. Surendran and Kader v. State of Kerala [Paras 7-10].