Judicial Conduct – Misbehavior and Procedural Impropriety – Writ petition filed by Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association seeking inquiry into Presiding Officer’s conduct – Allegations of misbehavior, nepotism, and arbitrary orders – Previous petitions by private parties raised similar issues – Court directed a preliminary scrutiny by the Chairperson, DRAT – Emphasized the need for reasoned and transparent decision-making in judicial conduct inquiries [Paras 1-17].

Strike by Bar Association – Impact on Judicial Functioning – Court acknowledged the strike by the Bar Association hampered DRT's operations – Directed resumption of work and cooperation by advocates – Noted significant disposal of cases following Court orders – Underlined the importance of continuous judicial functioning for litigants' interests [Paras 4-8].

Central Government’s Role – Examination of Grievances – Directed Chairperson, DRAT to submit a preliminary report on Presiding Officer’s conduct – Central Government to take a reasoned decision based on the report – Reinforced statutory obligations under Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Writ Petition Disposed of – Held – Directed Chairperson, DRAT to submit preliminary report on Presiding Officer’s conduct within four weeks – Central Government to make a reasoned decision on the report within four weeks thereafter – Clarified no opinion on the merits of allegations against Presiding Officer [Para 17].

Promotion and Transfer – Conditions of Service – The petitioner company transferred the respondent from Mahape, Navi Mumbai, to Aurangabad on promotion. The respondent, alleging harassment and mala fide intentions behind the transfer, filed a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, seeking interim relief. The Industrial Court temporarily restrained the petitioners from implementing the transfer order. The High Court evaluated whether the transfer was made in administrative exigency or as a vindictive action [Paras 1-17].

Existence of Administrative Exigency – The petitioners cited the retirement of key personnel at Aurangabad as the reason for transferring the respondent. Email correspondence and other documents were presented to justify the need for the respondent's posting at Aurangabad [Paras 15-17].

Allegations of Mala Fides – The respondent argued that the transfer was a retaliatory action due to his involvement in union activities and previous litigations. However, the court emphasized that allegations of mala fides require a high degree of proof, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the respondent. The burden of establishing mala fides lies heavily on the person who alleges it [Paras 18-22, 24-25].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – The court found that the transfer was justified by administrative exigency and not actuated by mala fides. The interim order of the Industrial Court was set aside, allowing the petitioners to proceed with the transfer and promotion of the respondent [Paras 17-25].

Kerala Police Act – Section 119(1)(a) – Quashing of Proceedings –

Petition to quash proceedings under Section 119(1)(a) of the Kerala Police Act for alleged sexual gestures in public degrading the dignity of women – Accused’s actions not specified in FIR or Final Report – No evidence of discernible sexual gestures – Court found the prosecution case to be meritless – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1-8].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Powers – Quashing Proceedings –

High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings lacking material evidence – Importance of specificity in charges for offenses involving sexual gestures – Directed dissemination of order to all Station House Officers in the State for adherence [Paras 7-8].

Decision:

Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – All further proceedings pursuant to the FIR and Final Report in Crime No. 2539/2023 of Attingal Police Station, pending as C.C. No. 45/2024 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal, quashed – Registry directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director General of Police for dissemination to all Station House Officers.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioner Biplab Jana @ Rohit sought quashing of proceedings in Marishda Police Station Case No. 148 of 2015, charged under Sections 306/34 IPC for abetment of suicide – Allegations included continuous harassment and attempted molestation leading to the victim’s suicide – The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry and cited torture by the victim’s maternal uncle and aunt – Court found insufficient evidence to sustain charges, noting inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of direct instigation – Petitioner’s claim of a consensual relationship with the victim and conflicting reports in local newspapers considered – Proceedings against petitioner quashed due to absence of prima facie case [Paras 1-28].

Reinvestigation Request – Judicial Review – De-facto complainant’s request for reinvestigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. dismissed by the trial court as the trial had commenced – High Court examined whether the rejection of reinvestigation was justified – No new substantial evidence found to warrant reinvestigation – Emphasized principles for allowing additional investigations requiring new material facts and the necessity of a reasoned decision by authorities [Paras 11-13, 29-30].

Procedural Deficiencies – Abuse of Process – Court highlighted the lack of corroborative evidence against the petitioner and mechanical submission of the charge sheet by the investigating officer – Criticized the failure to properly investigate the call records and SMS which were vital for establishing the alleged harassment – Emphasized that vague allegations without supporting evidence cannot constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC – Continuation of proceedings against petitioner deemed abuse of judicial process – Cited case law on necessary elements for abetment to suicide, stressing the need for clear evidence of instigation [Paras 19-25, 23-24].

Decision:

• Writ Petition CRR 1548 of 2017: Dismissed – De-facto complainant’s request for reinvestigation rejected as infructuous.
• Writ Petition CRR 4134 of 2015: Allowed – Proceedings in Marishda Police Station Case No. 148 of 2015 quashed against petitioner Biplab Jana @ Rohit.
• Orders: Interim orders vacated, case diary returned, parties to act on server copies of order.

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Conviction and Sentencing – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC for causing a fatal accident while driving a tanker in a rash and negligent manner. Trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fines. Conviction and sentence upheld by appellate court, leading to the filing of the present revision petition​​.

Evidence – Witness Identification and Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Absence of TIP does not invalidate witness identification during trial. Multiple witnesses, including the Matador driver, identified the petitioner. Evidence found reliable and trustworthy despite minor inconsistencies​​.

Defective Investigation – Impact on Conviction – Defective investigation does not automatically entitle the accused to acquittal. Independent scrutiny of evidence determines reliability. Non-examination of certain witnesses like the mechanic considered a procedural lapse that did not materially affect the prosecution's case​​.

Sentencing – Consideration of Age and Probation – Court refused to modify sentence or grant probation based on petitioner's age, emphasizing strict punishment for motor vehicle accidents causing death. Petitioner had only served 29 days of sentence, considered too lenient for the offense committed​​.

Decision: Revision petition dismissed, conviction and sentence upheld. Compliance and information dissemination directed to concerned trial court and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal​​.

Evidence – Reliability of Victim’s Testimony – Victim alleged rape by the appellant; initial FIR filed on the basis of the victim’s written report. During the trial, discrepancies arose between the victim’s written report and her oral testimony, including the sequence of events and identification of the appellant. The court found significant inconsistencies and a lack of corroborative evidence to support the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 3-14, 36].

Medical Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Medical examination of the victim did not reveal injuries consistent with recent sexual assault; forensic evidence was found unreliable due to mishandling and discrepancies in the description of the seized items. The prosecution’s failure to properly conserve and timely dispatch evidence to the forensic laboratory further weakened the case [Paras 16-25, 37].

Land Dispute Motive – Defence argued that the accusation was motivated by an existing land dispute between the appellant and the victim’s family. Testimonies indicated long-standing litigation, adding credence to the possibility of a false allegation. The prosecution failed to investigate or rebut this motive, leading to reasonable doubt [Paras 5, 35].

Application of Sections 29 and 30 POCSO Act – The court noted the prosecution’s failure to invoke the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which could have shifted the burden of proof to the accused. Given the doubts raised, the court did not find it appropriate to apply these presumptions [Paras 40].

Investigation Lapses – The court criticized the investigation for not thoroughly exploring the context of the allegations, including potential motivations and inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony. The investigator’s omissions significantly impacted the credibility of the prosecution’s case [Paras 34, 39].

Decision- The conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court ordered the appellant’s immediate release from jail if not detained in any other case [Paras 41-45].

Superannuation Pension – Effective Date of Pension – Retired employees of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank challenged the date from which they were granted superannuation pension – Petitioners argued for pension commencement from the next day of their retirement, citing anomalies in the pension regulations and Supreme Court rulings – Court found regulations binding, noted petitioners had agreed to terms by opting into the pension scheme – Writ petition dismissed without costs [Paras 1-39].

Regulations – Pension Regulations Formation – Petitioners claimed anomalies in the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018 – Court held regulations were properly formed in consultation with stakeholders and approved by NABARD and the Central Government – Emphasized petitioners’ acceptance of the terms by refunding corpus to the Pension Fund [Paras 6-37].

Legal Precedents – Parity with Sponsor Banks – Court referenced various rulings on pension parity between Regional Rural Banks and Nationalized Commercial Banks – Affirmed the regulatory process and compliance with Supreme Court directives on pension parity – Regulations found consistent with legal standards [Paras 33-37].

Constitutional Challenge – Articles 14, 21, 300A – Petitioners claimed regulations violated their rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution – Court found no merit in claims, stating regulations were uniformly applied and petitioners were not deprived of due process or property without law [Paras 9-28, 36].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Court upheld the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018 – No order as to costs – Connected applications disposed of [Para 39].

Criminal Law – Tampering of Recruitment Documents – Petitioner allegedly tampered with recruitment examination records to secure the post of Sub Inspector of Police – Utilized forged documents to move Central Administrative Tribunal for appointment – Complaint registered for offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of IPC – Final report filed and taken on record by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry – Petitioner seeks quashing of final report claiming lawful appointment and subsequent promotions [Paras 1-10].

Procedure under RTI Act – Fabrication of Documents – Petitioner obtained information through RTI, allegedly by manipulating records to show higher marks – Investigation revealed access to and tampering of examination documents – Statements of witnesses indicated involvement in furnishing false information [Paras 2-7].

Judicial Review – Prima Facie Case – High Court finds sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with trial – Dismisses petition to quash final report, emphasizing need for full-fledged trial to uncover truth – Cites Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh to highlight protection against vexatious prosecution not applicable here [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Criminal Original Petition Dismissed – Held – Material collected during investigation supports proceeding with charges – Petition dismissed, Miscellaneous Petitions closed [Para 11].

Food Adulteration – Conviction and Sentence – Petitioner, an employee of M/s M.K. Oil & Flour Mill, convicted for selling adulterated mustard oil – Case initiated after mustard oil sample collected by A.C.M.O.H. found adulterated with rice bran oil by Public Analyst – Trial Court sentenced petitioner to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000 fine, in default further 6 months rigorous imprisonment – Appellate Court upheld conviction – High Court revises conviction, highlighting inconsistencies in testing reports and procedural lapses [Paras 1-16].

Conflicting Laboratory Reports – Discrepancies between Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory Reports – Initial Public Analyst Report found rice bran oil in mustard oil – Central Food Laboratory Report found no rice bran oil but indicated different Bellier Test Temperature – High Court observes significant contradictions creating doubt on prosecution’s case – Central Food Laboratory’s findings preferred as per statutory mandate under Section 13(3) of PFA Act [Paras 2-10, 12-13].

Procedural Compliance – Section 13 of PFA Act – Prosecution’s procedural lapses in sample collection and testing – Lack of public witnesses during sample collection – Violation of mandatory provisions of Section 10(9) of PFA Act – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – High Court emphasizes need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in food adulteration cases [Paras 5-13].

Application of Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Non-compliance – High Court notes failure to comply with mandatory provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. during trial – Affected fairness of trial – Importance of giving accused opportunity to explain incriminating evidence highlighted [Para 3b, 13].

Evidence Discrepancies – Reports’ Contradictions – Public Analyst Report indicated presence of rice bran oil and normal Bellier Test Temperature (25.5°C) – Central Food Laboratory Report showed absence of rice bran oil and higher Bellier Test Temperature (28.3°C) – High Court finds reports’ discrepancies critical in casting doubt on reliability of prosecution’s evidence [Paras 2-13].

Lack of Mens Rea – Petitioner as Employee – Petitioner neither manufacturer nor owner of oil mill – Lacked mens rea for adulteration – High Court notes petitioner acted under direction of employer – Benefit of doubt extended to petitioner as discrepancies in evidence and procedural lapses significant [Paras 3, 13].

Decision – Revisional Application Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner acquitted of charges under Section 16(1)(A) read with Section 7(1) of PFA Act – Petitioner discharged from bail bonds forthwith – High Court mandates proper adherence to procedural safeguards in food adulteration cases [Paras 17-22].