Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Issued as Security – Accused issued cheque for ₹10 lakhs, allegedly in discharge of loan liability – Defence claimed cheque was given as security for registration charges in real estate transaction – Trial Court held real estate transaction and RTGS payment occurred on same date, lending credence to defence – Held: Cheque not proved to have been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Acquittal upheld [Paras 5, 10, 11].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles – High Court reiterated that unless trial court’s view is perverse or impossible, appellate court will not interfere – Omission in statutory notice and doubtful version of complainant regarding earlier cheques considered relevant – Held: Trial Court’s view plausible and not liable to be disturbed in appeal [Paras 6, 12].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Accused denied liability and explained cheque was given as security – Complainant failed to prove that cheque was issued in discharge of existing debt – Held: Presumption rebutted – Burden not discharged by complainant – DW-1’s testimony partially favourable but insufficient to prove complainant’s case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 8, 10].

Pleadings – Omission in Statutory Notice – Complainant admitted two earlier cheques were issued and replaced by impugned cheque – Omission to mention earlier cheques in statutory notice undermined credibility – Held: Such omissions can raise doubt about genuineness of transaction when key part of liability is left out [Paras 5, 11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Trial Court upheld – No perversity or illegality found in the reasoning – Complainant failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act successfully rebutted.

Judicial Officers – Disciplinary Proceedings – Bail Order – Alleged Extraneous Motive – Charge of Misconduct – NDPS Act – Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – Rule 16, CCA Rules, 1958 – Officer dismissed for allegedly granting bail to accused under NDPS Act with oblique motive upon change of advocate – Enquiry Officer held charge proved – Full Court accepted report and recommended dismissal – Governor passed dismissal order – Held: The bail order was a statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., not based on discretion or favouritism – No charge-sheet filed within 90 days; officer was bound by law to grant bail – Allegation of extraneous consideration baseless [Paras 21–33].

Evidence – Perversity of Findings – Use of Extraneous Material – Enquiry Officer relied on irrelevant bail orders of other accused (Ramesh and Ayub) not forming part of charge – Held: Findings based on extraneous and irrelevant evidence – Such reliance vitiates enquiry report – No reasonable person could reach conclusion of guilt on record evidence [Paras 34–38].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Article 311(2) – Opportunity before Full Court was granted; petitioner failed to avail – No further hearing required at stage of punishment by Governor – Governor’s order not invalid for want of speaking order – Full Court’s administrative decision deemed to have been made after due application of mind [Paras 40–42].

Vague Charge – Extraneous Consideration Not Particularized – Judicial Independence – Charge alleging “oblique motive” unsupported by any evidence of specific motive or benefit – Following Abhay Jain v. Rajasthan High Court, (2022) 13 SCC 1, and Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad – Held: Disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers cannot be based merely on judicial orders unless tainted by proven malice or corruption – Findings suffer from perversity [Paras 33–34].

Judicial Review – Scope under Articles 226 & 227 – High Court not to act as appellate court over Full Court’s administrative decision unless process is vitiated by perversity or violation of procedure – However, where enquiry findings are arbitrary and unsupported by evidence, interference justified [Paras 36–38].

Relief – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Dismissal order dated 08.04.2010 set aside – Petitioner deemed reinstated till retirement (28.02.2011) – Entitled to full back wages, continuity of service, and consequential pensionary benefits to legal heirs [Paras 44–46].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Enquiry report, Full Court resolutions, and Governor’s dismissal order quashed – Petitioner deemed reinstated with full back wages and all consequential benefits – Pensionary benefits to be paid to family of deceased officer [Para 46].

Criminal Law – Rape – Conviction Reversed – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 4(2) POCSO Act for allegedly raping the prosecutrix in a hotel after luring her under the pretext of performing religious rituals – Trial Court relied primarily on the victim’s statement and late-produced school register – Appellate Court found significant contradictions between the victim’s written complaint, statement under Section 164 CrPC, deposition during trial, and statement to the doctor – Held: Inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s version, lack of corroboration from medical or independent evidence, and non-examination of crucial witnesses create serious doubt about the prosecution’s case. Acquittal [Paras 22–27, 34].

POCSO Act – Age Determination – Radiological examination placed age of victim between 16–17 years – Following the +2 year margin of error rule, Court held victim may have been over 18 years on date of alleged occurrence – No valid school records produced during trial, and late-marked admission register lacked authentication – Held: Prosecution failed to establish that victim was a minor – Charges under POCSO Act unsustainable [Paras 28–33].

Evidence – Medical and Forensic Lapses – Doctor (P.W.1) found no recent signs of sexual assault, lacerations were old and healed – No visible physical injuries – Appellant was arrested same day, yet no medical examination was conducted – Non-compliance with Sections 53A and 54 CrPC held to be fatal to the prosecution case [Paras 27–28].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Prosecutrix – Victim gave inconsistent versions regarding place of occurrence, events, and family involvement – Contradictions between her own accounts and those of her mother – Court held she could not be treated as a “sterling witness” as per Supreme Court’s test in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated and doubtful testimony [Paras 22–27, 34].

Investigation – Lapses – No seizure of victim’s clothing, no CCTV footage, visitor registers or call detail records collected – No independent witnesses examined – Defence established significant procedural failures in investigation – Held: Cumulative effect of these lapses undermined the prosecution version [Paras 15, 19, 23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4(2) POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted by granting benefit of doubt – Appellant to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Paras 35–37].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Securities Market Fraud – Consent Order by SEBI – Not a Bar – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR alleging conspiracy in IPO scam through fraudulent demat accounts to corner retail investor quota – Alleged offences under IPC include cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust – Petitioners contended SEBI's consent order settling regulatory proceedings precluded criminal prosecution – Held: Consent order under SEBI Act does not obliterate criminal liability – Fraud committed is a public wrong affecting financial markets and investor trust – Quashing refused [Paras 24–30, 38–39].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Allegations of systemic fraud, forgery, and conspiracy warrant full trial – Court should not exercise power under Section 482 to stifle legitimate prosecution in serious economic offences – Quashing can only be considered where complaint is manifestly absurd or mala fide – Present case involves triable issues requiring evidence – Held: No case for interference under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 31–37].

Securities Law – SEBI Consent Mechanism – No Immunity from Criminal Prosecution – Consent orders under SEBI Act are regulatory settlements – They do not amount to acquittal or exoneration from criminal liability – Where the alleged act constitutes both regulatory violation and criminal offence, both remedies can proceed independently – SEBI’s action does not curtail the State’s power to prosecute [Paras 24–30].

Market Integrity – IPO Manipulation – Alleged offence involves fraudulent opening of 14,000 demat accounts with fictitious identities – Syndicate cornered retail quota and made illicit gains – Not a case of mere regulatory non-compliance but deliberate exploitation of financial system – Held: Offences have serious implications on capital market integrity and public trust [Paras 17–23, 31–33].

Decision: Criminal application dismissed – FIR and criminal proceedings not quashed – Petitioners to face trial in accordance with law [Paras 39–40].

Land Acquisition – Market Value Determination – Comparable Sale Evidence – Appellants challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for land acquired for Gas Cracker Project – Reference Court enhanced land value from ₹1,00,000 to ₹3,00,000 per bigha but declined to accept sale instance (Exh. 47) showing ₹6,00,000 per bigha as comparable – Held: Sale instance executed by appellant after notification under Section 4 not reliable without evidence of market stability – Reference Court justified in rejecting sale instance due to proximity and self-serving nature – No error in market valuation at ₹3,00,000 per bigha [Paras 47-52].

Compensation – Severed Land – Partial Award Justified – Appellants sought full compensation for 1B-2K of severed land claiming it had become unusable – Reference Court awarded 1/3rd value – Held: Appellants retain ownership and potential for alternate use – Reference Court’s approach logical and not arbitrary – No interference warranted [Paras 53].

Zirat Compensation – Deduction from Land Value Improper – Reference Court deducted ₹85,77,898 already paid as zirat compensation from enhanced land compensation – Held: Market value of land and zirat are distinct heads under Section 23(1) of the Act – Deduction of zirat from land value contrary to statutory scheme – Reference Court’s deduction set aside – Appellants entitled to receive full land compensation and zirat separately [Paras 59-61].

Compensation Assessment – Parity with Encroachers – Appellants alleged discriminatory zirat compensation vis-à-vis encroachers – Held: Zirat value based on nature and quantity of improvements, not land area – No material on record to support higher entitlement – No interference called for on this ground [Paras 54-57].

Comparable Sales – Evidentiary Value – Post-notification sales can be relied upon only if price trends remain static – Burden lies on claimants – Appellants failed to prove no price escalation after notification under Section 4 – Reference Court rightly declined reliance on such sale instance [Paras 50-51].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Reference Court’s order deducting zirat compensation from enhanced land compensation set aside – Appellants entitled to ₹85,77,898 as additional compensation, with statutory interest – Market value and severed land compensation upheld – Matter remanded to Collector for recalculation of payable balance with interest [Paras 61-62].

PIL - Constitutional Validity of the Kerala Finance Act, 2025 Court Fees – Constitutional Validity of Amendment – Legislative Competence – Entry 3 List II – Kerala Finance Act, 2025 upheld – Petitioner Association challenged the amendment to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 via the Kerala Finance Act, 2025 on grounds of arbitrariness and excessive burden – Held: State has legislative competence under Entry 3, List II of Seventh Schedule – Court recognised economic legislation must be judged with judicial restraint – Revisions made after long intervals (up to 63 years in some categories) are reasonable and justified [Paras 1–3, 15–16, 25, 41].

Article 14 – No Unreasonable Classification – Section 73A Exempting Government from Court Fees Valid – Petitioner challenged Section 73A granting Government exemption from court fees as arbitrary – Held: Provision upheld by previous Division Bench in Human Rights Protection Forum v. State of Kerala – Reasonable classification exists as State pays into its own exchequer – No fresh material to re-examine the settled view – Challenge dismissed [Paras 9–11, 49].

Article 21 – Access to Justice – No Violation by Enhanced Court Fees – Petitioner argued increased court fees restrict access to justice – Held: No concrete data or individual cases presented to show denial of access – Mere enhancement not violative of Article 21 – State's power to revise fees includes consideration of inflation, devaluation, judicial infrastructure costs – Right of access not absolute in fee context [Paras 22–24, 42–44].

Ad Valorem Fees – No Change in Rate – Challenge Not Pressed – Court held there was no change in percentage of ad valorem fees; only computation base modified – Petitioners conceded and did not press this point further – Hence, challenge to ad valorem fees rejected [Paras 13–14, 49].

Justice V.K. Mohanan Committee Report – Validity of Fee Revision Process – Report formed part of legislative background – Allegations of perfunctory process and arbitrary reasoning rejected – Revision based on long-standing stagnation, inflation, increased judicial expenditure – No requirement of mathematical correlation – Broad nexus between revenue and judicial cost sufficient [Paras 20–24, 28–29, 34–35, 41].

Public Interest Litigation – No Material to Justify Challenge – Blanket Challenge Unfounded – Petitioner failed to specify which classes or litigants were affected – Court emphasised need for precise pleading and evidence in PILs challenging legislation – No individual litigants or hardship shown – Challenge dismissed [Paras 43–45].

Court Fees and Infrastructure – Fee Collection Intended for Judicial Administration – Not General Revenue – State showed budgetary allocation for judiciary has grown significantly while court fee revenue lags – Consistent with All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India – Court fees validly levied to support justice delivery [Paras 32–33, 39].

Anticipatory Bail Applications – Specific Challenge Deferred – Court Fee Increase Not Unreasonable Per Se – Challenge to ₹500 court fee for anticipatory bail not substantiated – Court left issue open for adjudication in appropriate individual cases [Para 46].

Provision for Exemptions – Special Categories Protected – Financial Hardship Addressed in Act – Sections 72–75 of the Act of 1959 allow fee exemptions or remissions for weaker sections (SC/ST, women, poor, ex-servicemen, NGOs, etc.) – State Government empowered to notify additional remissions [Para 47–48].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – No violation of Articles 14 or 21 found – Amendment Act upheld as valid legislative exercise – Petitioners directed to approach State Government if any category of litigants requires exemption or relief – [Paras 50–52].

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Plaintiff’s Discretion – In a suit for permanent injunction and compensation filed by the petitioner, third-party villagers claiming communal interest in the land were permitted to be impleaded as defendants by the Trial Court – Court below justified the order only on ground of avoiding multiplicity of litigation – Held: Plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead parties against whom no relief is sought – Where existing defendants have already raised identical pleas, presence of third-party interveners is not necessary – No independent stand or distinct legal interest shown by proposed parties – Impleadment held unjustified [Paras 7, 10-15].

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC – Scope – Addition of parties permissible only if necessary for effective adjudication – Repetition of existing pleadings by proposed parties not a valid ground – Trial Court failed to give cogent reasoning or satisfy test of necessity – Impleadment solely to prevent future litigation not a legally sustainable basis [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Plaintiff as Dominus Litis – Right to Choose Adversary – Plaintiff not claiming relief against third-party applicants – Law settled that plaintiff is the master of the suit – Addition of parties must be judicially justified and cannot be compelled by opposing defendants – Cited Supreme Court and High Court rulings reaffirm this legal position [Paras 7, 12].

Distinguished Case Law – Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 distinguished – Impleadment in that case arose at execution stage and was based on Commissioner's report – Held not applicable to trial-stage impleadment where no relief is claimed against proposed parties [Para 13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Trial Court's order permitting impleadment set aside – Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by third-party villagers dismissed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent Based on Promise of Marriage – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 415 IPC for allegedly raping the complainant under a false promise of marriage – Evidence revealed complainant was above 20 years at the time of the incident – Admitted romantic relationship between the parties – Repeated sexual acts over time without immediate complaint – No medical or documentary evidence of pregnancy or abortion – No proof that promise of marriage was false from inception – Held: Consent was not obtained under misconception of fact – Physical relationship was consensual – Conviction for rape and cheating unsustainable – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 17–34, 38–50, 52].

Delay in Complaint – Continued Relationship – Effect on Credibility – No prompt complaint made despite alleged repeated sexual assault – Continued voluntary association of complainant with the accused over 2–3 years – Conduct inconsistent with allegation of rape – Held: Long silence and continued physical intimacy undermine veracity of claim – Raises strong presumption of consensual relationship [Paras 24, 32–34, 45–46].

False Promise of Marriage – Distinction Between Breach of Promise and Deception – Reiterated that not every breach of promise results in rape – False promise must be shown to be mala fide from inception – Where relationship is consensual and failure to marry occurs later due to unforeseen reasons, offence of rape not made out – Evidence showed relationship was affectionate, with intention to marry, though marriage ultimately did not happen [Paras 28–30, 49–51].

Medical Evidence – Non-examination of Material Witness – Effect – Victim alleged abortion due to pregnancy from accused – Claimed herbal medicine was given by one Bina Devi – Prosecution failed to examine Bina Devi or produce medical proof of pregnancy or abortion – Held: Serious gap in prosecution case – Adverse inference drawn for non-examination of crucial witness under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act [Paras 38–41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant discharged from bail bonds – Directed to furnish bail under Section 437A CrPC for six months.

Service Law – Terminal Benefits – Right to Gratuity – Delay in Payment – Liability of Employer – Withholding of terminal dues of retired employees on ground that PACS had not remitted its share to DCCB – Petitioners, all senior citizens, rendered unblemished service and retired between 2009 and 2013 – Held: Right to gratuity is a statutory and enforceable right under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act – Delay in payment without legal justification violates Sections 4 and 7 – Interest @10% awarded from due date till payment [Paras 24–28].

Administrative Law – State Liability – Article 12 Entities – DCCB and PACS held to be 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution – Financial incapacity of PACS cannot be accepted as defence against statutory obligation – Both entities held jointly and severally liable – Respondents directed to release terminal dues within 8 weeks with liberty to recover inter-se [Paras 34–36, 41(i)-(ii)].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 and Article 300-A – Right to Property and Livelihood – Denial of pensionary and terminal dues without due process held violative of Articles 21 and 300-A – Refusal to disburse terminal benefits without lawful justification affects right to dignity and life – Reference made to SC precedents in Deokinandan Prasad, D.S. Nakara, Gagan Bihari Prusty – Right to pension and gratuity treated as enforceable constitutional property right [Paras 29–33, 39].

Elderly Rights – Protection of Senior Citizens – Petitioners aged and vulnerable – Court deprecated prolonged denial of retirement benefits and noted decline in societal values concerning dignity of aged persons – Stressed need to uphold welfare of retired employees who served without blemish – Symbolic costs of ₹10,000 imposed on each respondent in favour of petitioners [Paras 37–38, 41(iii)].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – DCCB directed to release all terminal benefits with 10% interest within 8 weeks – Liberty to recover share from PACS – Respondents directed to pay ₹10,000 each as costs to petitioners – Delay and financial incapacity no ground to deny statutory and constitutional entitlements [Paras 41–42].