Criminal Procedure – Testimony of Accused – Petition under Section 315 Cr.P.C. seeking permission for the accused to testify as a witness and present electronic evidence in defense – Trial court dismissed the petitions on grounds of irrelevance and non-production of evidence prior to the accused’s testimony – High Court held that denying the accused the opportunity to present defense evidence merely due to procedural timings is contrary to law – Importance of not prejudging the facts emphasized – Orders set aside [Paras 1-10].

Electronic Evidence – Relevance and Admissibility – Accused sought to introduce electronic evidence (WhatsApp screenshots, call recordings, etc.) to support his defense – Trial court rejected on grounds of irrelevance to the issue of consent in child abuse cases under POCSO – High Court ruled that such evidence should not be precluded and must be considered in the context of defense evidence [Paras 7-9].

Defense Rights – Presumption of Innocence – High Court emphasized the necessity for the trial courts to allow the accused to fully exercise his right to present evidence in his defense, particularly under laws with reverse onus clauses, like POCSO – Miscarriage of justice found due to the lower court’s approach [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Held – Trial court’s order dated 27.05.2024 dismissing the petitions under Crl.M.P.Nos.910, 911, and 912 of 2023 is set aside – Accused permitted to testify and present electronic evidence – Directions to expedite defense evidence [Para 10].

Interim Bail – Medical Grounds – Petitioner, suffering from multiple ailments including post-bariatric surgery complications, sought interim bail citing inability of jail to provide necessary dietary and medical care – Medical reports indicated necessity of specialized diet and treatment not feasible in jail – Respondent argued petitioner previously misused bail and jail authorities capable of providing care – Court noted failure to meet dietary needs and continuous health deterioration – Interim bail granted for six weeks with strict conditions [Paras 1-22].

Bail Conditions – Imposed conditions included furnishing a personal bond, regular court appearances, providing a working contact number, surrendering passport, and restrictions on influencing witnesses or leaving the country – Emphasized balance between petitioner’s health rights and ensuring no interference in investigation [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Interim Bail Granted – Held – Petitioner to be released on interim bail for six weeks with specific conditions to ensure compliance and non-interference with ongoing investigation [Para 22-24].

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Narcotic Possession – Respondent acquitted of possessing 900 grams of charas by trial court – High Court dismisses State’s appeal due to lack of compelling evidence and procedural flaws in the investigation – Critical emphasis on the reliability of witness testimonies and adherence to legal procedures – Significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, including failure to produce key documents and discrepancies in police records and testimonies [Paras 1-27].

Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction in Acquittal Appeals – Appellate court’s non-interference with acquittal unless there is clear evidence of misreading or omission of material facts – Double presumption of innocence upheld – High Court reiterates necessity for strong, compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal, citing precedents from the Supreme Court of India [Paras 6-10].

Witness Credibility and Procedural Flaws – Examination of testimonies reveals contradictions – Police witnesses provided unclear and inconsistent accounts regarding the recovery and handling of the seized contraband – Absence of crucial evidence such as the personal search memo and accurate documentation raised doubts about the prosecution’s case – Court highlights procedural deficiencies including the improper recording of police reports and unexplained delays [Paras 11-22].

Chain of Custody and Evidence Handling – Prosecution’s failure to maintain a clear and documented chain of custody for the seized charas – Inconsistencies in the handling and sealing of evidence noted – Discrepancies in testimonies about the transport and storage of evidence contributed to doubts about the integrity of the evidence presented [Paras 15-20].

Failure to Produce Independent Witnesses – Prosecution’s inability to produce independent witnesses to corroborate the police version of events – Sole reliance on police witnesses found inadequate in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Court critical of the absence of corroborative evidence and the reliance on testimonies that lacked credibility [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – High Court concurs with the trial court’s judgment, finding it just, legal, and proper – State’s appeal found lacking in merit due to insufficient evidence and significant procedural errors [Paras 23-27].

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Appellants challenged the rejection of their applications for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – Contention that the Additional Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to grant extension for filing charge-sheet – High Court dismissed appeals, holding that the Order dated 2^nd September 2018, which extended time for filing charge-sheet, was upheld by the Supreme Court, rendering the applications for default bail infructuous – Emphasized that judicial impropriety would result from re-evaluating the Supreme Court’s decision [Paras 1-21].

Jurisdiction – Competence of Additional Sessions Judge – Examined the competence of the Additional Sessions Judge in granting extensions and handling remand – Held that with the restoration of the Order dated 2^nd September 2018 by the Supreme Court, the applications for default bail became infructuous [Paras 1-21].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Validity of the Order dated 2^nd September 2018 upheld by the Supreme Court – Appellants not entitled to default bail – Applications at Exhibits 48 and 49 declared infructuous [Para 21].

Eviction and Recovery of Possession – Rent Arrears – Plaintiff sought a decree for eviction and recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises, along with arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 5,48,903/- from November 2018 till September 2021. Additionally, a decree for Rs. 14,40,000/- and mesne profit at Rs. 300/- per sq. ft. per month from October 1, 2021, until the handover of vacant possession, was sought. The Court allowed the application for a final judgment and decree, subject to conditions [Paras 1-33].

Notice of Termination – Validity – The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, addressed only to defendant no.1, was contested for not being served to the firm or defendant no.2. The Court held that the notice to a partner (defendant no.1) operates as notice to the firm under Section 24 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The objections to the notice were deemed waived due to no immediate objection from the defendants upon receipt [Paras 27-33].

Procedural Issues in Suits by and Against Firms – The Court discussed the procedural requirements under Order XXX of the CPC for suing and being sued in the firm’s name. The suit filed against defendant no.1 individually, despite the firm being a partnership, was upheld due to the specific circumstances and prior knowledge of the plaintiff [Paras 30-31].

Conditions for Leave to Defend – The Court outlined the conditions under which the defendants could proceed with the suit, emphasizing the requirement to secure Rs. 11,00,000/- with the Registrar within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in eviction [Paras 32-33].

Decision:

Application (G.A. No. 1 of 2023) disposed of. Defendants permitted to proceed with the suit subject to securing the specified amount within the stipulated period, failing which they must vacate the premises.

Contempt of Court – Non-implementation of Court Orders – Appellant, a Revenue Officer, was held in contempt for not complying with the order directing reinstatement of the respondent into service – The learned Single Judge sentenced the appellant to six months’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 – Appellant’s subsequent compliance with the court order noted – Contempt proceedings against the appellant dropped – Importance of timely compliance and accurate representation in court highlighted [Paras 1-11].

Contempt Proceedings – Compliance and Representation – Court observed that timely and proper compliance with court orders is critical – Appellant’s initial failure to mention compliance in counter affidavit led to adverse judgment – Emphasizes that accurate and prompt reporting of compliance is necessary to avoid contempt charges [Paras 6-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Contempt order against the appellant set aside – No costs – Court underscores the need for meticulous attention by legal counsel in representing compliance to avoid unnecessary contempt proceedings [Paras 10-11].

Arbitration – Non-Signatory Bound by Arbitration Clause – Appellant, a purchaser of property from vendors bound by an arbitration agreement, contended that it was not bound by the arbitration clause as it was not a signatory. The court held that a non-signatory, claiming through or under a party to the arbitration agreement, is bound by the arbitration clause. The court applied the principle established in the Cox and Kings case, interpreting Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Paras 1-18].

Lis Pendens – Application to Arbitration Proceedings – The court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, any transfer of property during such proceedings is subject to the outcome of the arbitration [Paras 19-24].

Interim Measures – Arbitration and Conciliation Act – The court modified the interim restraint order to remain in force for 45 days from the date of receipt of notice from the Arbitral Tribunal or until any interim measures are passed by the Tribunal, whichever is earlier [Paras 25-38].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Held – The interim measure dated 15.04.2024, in A.A.No.15002/2024 before V Additional District Judge Bengaluru Rural, shall remain in force for 45 days from the date of receipt of notice issued by the Arbitral Tribunal on the parties to the proceeding before the Arbitral Tribunal or till any interim measures/orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on an application by either of the parties, whichever is earlier. All contentions on merit, including whether the arbitration clause is binding on the appellant, are kept open to be decided by the Tribunal.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in relation to accusations of caste-based atrocities and violence – Court analyzed the applicability of Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which typically bar anticipatory bail – Court found no prima facie case of caste atrocity against the petitioner based on the allegations and evidence presented – Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C., considering petitioner’s age, political status, and lack of flight risk [Paras 1-17].

Evidence Assessment – Prima Facie Case – Court noted the need to examine whether allegations prima facie indicate involvement in an atrocity under the SC and ST Act – Found no direct evidence against the petitioner for inciting or participating in violence – Emphasized the necessity of judicial application of mind to determine applicability of statutory bars to anticipatory bail [Paras 7-14].

Application of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Despite Charge Sheet – Cited precedents affirming that filing of charge sheet does not preclude consideration of anticipatory bail – Analyzed facts and circumstances to determine the merit of bail petition, concluding custodial interrogation unnecessary due to completed investigation [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Petition for anticipatory bail allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest with conditions for personal bond and sureties – Emphasized non-influence of this order on trial proceedings [Paras 16-17].

Bail – NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Petitioner (Accused No.2) involved in illegal possession and transportation of 48 kgs of Ganja – Arrested on 02.03.2024 and in judicial custody since then – Entire investigation completed except filing of charge sheet – Bail granted with conditions – Petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties – Required to appear before the Station House Officer once a week until charge sheet filing [Paras 2-9].

Investigation Status – Completion and Bail Considerations – Acknowledgment of completed investigation barring charge sheet submission – Court inclined to grant bail considering the petitioner’s prolonged detention without trial progression [Paras 4-8].

Bail Conditions – Personal Bond and Sureties – Requirement of Rs.10,000/- bond and sureties – Weekly appearance mandate before Station House Officer to ensure compliance and presence [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Criminal Petition allowed. Petitioner granted bail with specified conditions.