Criminal Law - Excise Offences – Illegal Possession and Transport of Liquor – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for transporting illicit liquor containing ethyl alcohol unfit for human consumption – Trial Court convicted under Sections 32 and 34 of Karnataka Excise Act – High Court finds prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act and Section 102 CrPC – No search warrant, no timely production of seizure report or witness statements – Held: Violation of statutory safeguards renders search and seizure illegal – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13-20].

Criminal Procedure – Seizure and FIR – Prosecution failed to submit seizure mahazar along with FIR or show compliance with Section 102 CrPC – Delay in submission of witness statements and non-production of search report before Magistrate undermines prosecution case – Trial court failed to consider these procedural lapses [Paras 17-18].

Evidence – Hostile Witness – Independent panch witness (PW4) turned hostile and denied signing seizure mahazar at the spot – Official witnesses’ testimony not corroborated by any independent witness – Held: Conviction cannot rest solely on interested testimony of official witnesses in absence of reliable independent corroboration [Paras 15, 19-20].

Precedent – Reliance on Apex Court Ruling – Court followed K.L. Subbaiah v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 2 SCC 115 – Held: Non-compliance of Section 54 of Karnataka Excise Act renders search without jurisdiction – Acquittal justified [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of offences under Sections 32 and 34 of Karnataka Excise Act – Fine, if paid, to be refunded [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Conviction under Section 498A IPC – Evidence of physical and mental abuse – Prosecution proved that husband repeatedly abused, assaulted, and neglected his wife – Evidence of illicit relationship and alcohol addiction corroborated by multiple witnesses including son of deceased – Complaint by deceased wife prior to suicide revealed consistent ill-treatment – Held: Conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld as prosecution established cruelty [Paras 10–15, 24–28, 29–31].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Acquittal under Section 306 IPC – Prosecution failed to establish mens rea or specific instigation by accused to commit suicide – No direct act or provocation proved to have led to suicide – Mere cruelty not sufficient to convict under Section 306 IPC – Evidence lacked proximate link between accused’s conduct and suicide – Held: Conviction under Section 306 IPC unsustainable in absence of evidence of abetment [Paras 32–40].

Evidence Law – Inconsistencies and Hearsay – Prosecution witnesses largely family members – Some statements hearsay or general in nature – Complaint regarding dowry demand found inconsistent and unsupported by documentation – Dowry Prohibition Act charges not framed – Held: Conviction under Section 498A not affected as cruelty proved, but higher threshold for abetment to suicide not met [Paras 4–6, 29–31, 36–38].

Criminal Procedure – Sentence – Appellant already undergone over 2 years in custody – Sentence for 498A IPC (2 years) covered by time served – Directed to be set off under Section 428 CrPC – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Appellant not required to undergo further imprisonment [Para 41].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Sentence adjusted to time already served – No further imprisonment required.

Motor Accident – Compensation – Quantum – Income Assessment – Tribunal assessed monthly income of deceased at ₹15,680 based on Deputy Commissioner’s wage notification for skilled labour – Appellant insurer contended income should have been computed as ₹8,245 per minimum wage notification – Held: Deceased held valid licence for heavy vehicles and was rightly treated as skilled labour – Deputy Commissioner’s wage notification applicable – No perversity or illegality in Tribunal’s approach – Tribunal’s award of ₹19,60,000 with 7.5% interest upheld [Paras 3–11].

Appellate Review – Scope – Interference by appellate court only if findings are perverse or arbitrary – Mere alternative view not sufficient – Citing Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co., 2024 INSC 816, Court held that absence of contrary evidence justifies reliance on local wage notifications for income computation – Findings of Tribunal affirmed [Paras 6–9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award upheld – Appellant Insurance Company entitled to refund of statutory deposit of ₹25,000 [Paras 12–13].

Writ Jurisdiction – Fraudulent Registration – Unilateral Deeds – Writ Petitions Maintainable – Appeal against quashing of registered deed of cancellation, deed of declaration, and gift deed executed by borrower without authority – Appellants argued alternative remedy and pendency of civil suits – Held: High Court rightly exercised writ jurisdiction considering the egregious fraud and abuse of legal process – Registration of cancellation/declaration by non-parties to assignment was impermissible – Senior Sub-Registrar’s actions found to be unlawful and without jurisdiction [Paras 6–7, 17–26, 30]

Property Law – Mortgage – Assignment of Debt – Borrower Cannot Unilaterally Cancel – ARCIL, as assignee of Indian Overseas Bank under a registered assignment agreement, acquired rights over mortgaged property – Borrower’s subsequent declaration and cancellation deeds purporting to void assignment were fraudulent and ultra vires – Gift deed based on such declarations also invalid – Held: Appellant had no right to nullify or override valid assignment and mortgage [Paras 7–13, 22–24]

Stamp Act – Impounding Without Notice – Action by Anti-Corruption Council – Abuse of Power – Senior Sub-Registrar impounded resolution plan executed between borrower and ARCIL based on submission by Anti-Corruption Council – No notice to ARCIL – Court held impounding illegal and violative of natural justice – Anti-Corruption Council’s locus and possession of private commercial documents unexplained – Apparent misuse of registration office [Paras 2–3, 20–22]

Administrative Law – Inquiry Against Public Officer – Senior Sub-Registrar’s Conduct – Court took note of memo by State Government confirming cancellation of registered documents and initiation of inquiry against Sub-Registrar – Future criminal proceedings contemplated – In light of action taken, Court refrained from further observations on official misconduct [Paras 27–29]

SARFAESI – Enforcement of Security Interest – Borrower’s Attempt to Derail Recovery – Despite ARCIL taking possession under SARFAESI, borrower executed false documents, initiated suits, and filed complaints to obstruct enforcement – High Court upheld ARCIL’s rights and struck down manipulative actions [Paras 8–11, 14–16]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge upheld – Cancellation, declaration, and gift deed rightly quashed – State inquiry into Sub-Registrar’s conduct ongoing – No costs – Pending applications disposed.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Illegal Gratification – Proof of Demand and Acceptance Mandatory – Appellant, a police officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act for allegedly accepting ₹10,000 as bribe to avoid arresting the complainant’s relative – Complainant (PW-7) turned hostile and denied having any direct interaction with the appellant – Panch witness (PW-8) gave contradictory testimony regarding raid and was unaware of crucial facts – Complainant’s friend (PW-11) also did not support the prosecution version – Held: Demand and acceptance not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal [Paras 5–16].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Complainant and other key witnesses failed to support the prosecution case – Their testimonies inconsistent and materially contradictory – Panch witness admitted he was unaware of facts and signed blank papers – Court held that prosecution failed to prove factum of demand and acceptance of gratification, which is a sine qua non for conviction under PC Act [Paras 5–15].

Burden of Proof – Demand and Acceptance – Standard Reiterated – Citing B. Jayaraj and Neeraj Dutta, Supreme Court decisions – Court reaffirmed that proof of both demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act – Mere recovery or possession of money is insufficient – Even circumstantial evidence must unerringly establish demand and acceptance [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged [Paras 17–19].

Tender Conditions – Judicial Review – Turnover Criteria – Challenge to Clause 5.2 of the tender document prescribing a minimum annual turnover of ₹9 crores for eligibility and awarding marks based on turnover brackets – Petitioner alleged the clause to be arbitrary, vague, and designed to favour a specific class of bidders – Held: Tender inviting authority justified the clause based on the scale of operations (1134-bedded hospital) and need for financial capacity to provide seamless service for 2–3 months without payment – Clause not found to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21 – No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 1–2.2, 5–6, 13–15]

Level Playing Field – Discrimination and Arbitrary Conditions – Court reaffirmed that while State action in contractual matters is subject to judicial review, interference is limited to cases of manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, or absence of nexus with the object of the tender – Test of arbitrariness lies in whether the impugned condition furthers the objective sought or unfairly restricts competition – In present case, requirement of high turnover held to have rational nexus with the hospital's operational needs [Paras 6, 13–15]

Scope of Judicial Review – Tender and Contractual Matters – Courts cautioned against substituting administrative decisions made by expert bodies unless the action is arbitrary, biased, or lacks justification – Reliance placed on principles from Michigan Rubber, Master Marine Services, Balaji Ventures, and Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour – Procedural fairness ensured via pre-bid consultation – Petitioner’s objections duly considered [Paras 9–12.1]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Turnover clause upheld – No costs [Paras 16–17]

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity – Section 138 NI Act – Accused issued cheque of Rs.5,00,000 which was dishonoured for insufficient funds – Trial Court acquitted accused holding complainant failed to prove her financial capacity to lend the money – Appellate Court held that unless accused disputes financial capacity with evidence, presumption under Section 139 operates – Held: Trial Court erred in doubting complainant’s capacity without any rebuttal by accused – Complainant’s explanation regarding source of funds from property sale found credible [Paras 9-10].

Presumption under NI Act – Section 139 – Accused did not rebut presumption – Accused neither entered witness box nor challenged issuance or signature of cheque – No defence evidence led – Held: Presumption under Section 139 NI Act remained unrebutted – Conviction proper [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Legal Notice – Notice returned as “Unclaimed” – Held: Due service presumed – Complaint filed within limitation – All conditions under Section 138 NI Act fulfilled – Accused did not respond to notice nor deny liability [Paras 8-9].

Compensation and Sentencing – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 directed to be paid to complainant as compensation under Section 357A CrPC – In default, accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months [Para 11, Order].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – Accused convicted under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 payable to complainant as compensation – Default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment.

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 302 IPC for allegedly raping and murdering a 13-year-old girl in a secluded area – Trial Court relied on extrajudicial confessions made before a co-villager (P.W.3) and a doctor (P.W.11) and on the appellant’s suspicious conduct at the crime scene – High Court finds that neither P.W.3’s testimony about the confession was reliable nor corroborated by prior police statements or other witnesses – Medical officer (P.W.11) did not record any confession in his report and his oral testimony contradicted documentary evidence – Confessional evidence not put to appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Held: Extrajudicial confession not reliable or admissible to base conviction [Paras 11–12].

Circumstantial Evidence – Guilt Not Proved – Prosecution case entirely based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant’s presence at crime scene explained plausibly and supported by hostile witness (P.W.7) – Forensic reports failed to find blood, semen, or saliva on appellant’s clothes or body – Court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not exclude every hypothesis of innocence – Conviction based on suspicion or conjecture unsustainable in law [Paras 13–15].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Deceased died of asphyxia due to compression of neck, chest, and abdomen – Signs of recent violent sexual intercourse found – Though rape and homicidal death established, identity of perpetrator not conclusively proved [Paras 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled [Para 15].

Constitutional Law – Live-in Relationship – Right to Protection – Petitioners in consensual live-in relationships alleged threats to life from private individuals and sought police protection – Held: Right to cohabit without marriage is protected under Article 21 – Personal autonomy cannot be compromised by societal disapproval – Police directed to grant protection if petitioners are adults and living willingly [Paras 1–3, 22, 45–49, 51–52]

Live-in Relationships – Legality and Social Morality – Court held that live-in relationships, though not widely accepted socially, are not illegal or punishable under law – Such arrangements are not barred by any legislation and are protected by constitutional rights to life, liberty and equality [Paras 6–9, 18–21, 30–33, 45–48]

State Obligation – Protection under Article 21 – Rejected State's contention that police cannot protect non-marital couples – Observed that State is duty-bound to protect life and liberty irrespective of marital status – No justification to deny anticipatory protection where threat is genuine or credible [Paras 12–13, 22, 46]

Personal Autonomy – Right to Choose Partner – Emphasised that major individuals have full autonomy under Article 21 to choose life partners and live together – State or family cannot compel marriage or interfere – Morality cannot override legality [Paras 6–7, 22, 33, 48–49]

Presumption of Marriage – Long-term Cohabitation – As per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 119(1) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, long-standing cohabitation gives rise to presumption of marriage – Ensures protection of women and children from such relationships [Para 50]

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature – Court relied upon extensive Supreme Court and High Court rulings recognising live-in relationships and protecting individual choice – Distinguished the contrary view in Kiran Rawat as not binding and factually distinguishable [Paras 18–21, 24–33, 40–44]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Petitioners declared free to live together peacefully – Police directed to provide protection upon verification of age and willingness – No coercive action to be taken unless FIR is registered – Petitioners may produce educational documents or undergo ossification test to prove majority if required [Paras 51–53]