Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Requirement for Preliminary Enquiry – Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with a request to refer it for preliminary enquiry – Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, returned the application citing non-compliance with procedural requirements – High Court noted that while petitioner lacked receipts for stolen motor pump set and wires, this alone could not justify denying reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Directed Judicial Magistrate to refer the complaint for enquiry without insisting on receipts, provided other conditions were met [Paras 3-7].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition allowed – Judicial Magistrate directed to refer the petitioner’s complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for preliminary enquiry without requiring receipts for the stolen items, if other procedural requirements are met.
 

Service Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition – Availability of Alternative Remedy – Existence of alternative remedy not an absolute bar against maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 – Statutory appeal against order by President barred by Rule 15 of All India Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1969 – Memorial under Rule 25 not equated to statutory appeal – High Court’s plenary powers under Article 226 not fettered by mechanical retreat due to alternative remedy – Learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the OA based on non-exercise of right to prefer a memorial [Para 20].

Violation of Natural Justice – Supply of Documents – Failure to supply Preliminary Inquiry Report (PIR) and related documents to the petitioner during disciplinary proceedings – Decision to penalize petitioner before considering his reply to the Inquiry Report constitutes violation of principles of natural justice – DA’s formation of mind on punishment prior to consideration of petitioner’s reply invalid [Paras 3-7, 22].

Disproportionate Punishment – Misconduct – Charges proved against the petitioner did not cause financial loss to employer – Imposition of penalty of dismissal from service unduly harsh and disproportionate to alleged misconduct – High Court applied doctrine of proportionality considering petitioner’s service record and the nature of charges [Paras 24, 28, 30].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 limited to assessing decision-making process and reasonableness, not reappreciation of evidence – Review of DA’s decision to impose dismissal focused on procedural fairness and proportionality of punishment [Paras 26, 29].

Final Relief – Reinstatement and Benefits – Order of dismissal dated 12^th February, 2013 set aside – Respondents directed to impose lesser punishment of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay from date of original punishment until retirement – Petitioner reinstated with continuity in service without back-wages but entitled to retirement benefits for notional continuity [Paras 31-32].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Orders of dismissal set aside – Respondents directed to reinstate petitioner with reduction in pay scale as lesser punishment – Petitioner entitled to notional continuity in service for retirement benefits.

Employees’ Compensation – Liability of Principal Employer – Appeal against the award of compensation by the Commissioner Employees Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner) Doda, in favor of the respondent widow – Appellant contended that the deceased was employed by a contractor, not directly by the appellant – High Court held appellant liable as the principal employer under Section 12 of the Act – Award of compensation with interest upheld [Paras 1-18].

Principal Employer’s Liability – Section 12 of the Employees’ Compensation Act – High Court emphasized that principal employer is liable for compensation even when the worker is employed by a contractor – Appellant liable for compensation due to the death of a worker during execution of work contracted by the appellant [Paras 17-18].

Assessment of Compensation – Calculation of compensation based on provisions of Section 4 read with Schedule IV of the Act – Interest awarded under Section 4-A(3) – High Court found no illegality or perversity in the award – Compensation and interest calculations upheld [Paras 14-15].

Non-joinder of Necessary Party – Contractor not joined as a party in the proceedings – High Court held that the appellant, as the principal employer, remains liable for compensation even if the contractor is not joined – Reference to Section 12(1) of the Act confirming the principal employer’s liability [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Award of compensation with interest upheld – Directions for release of deposited compensation amount to the respondent – Liberty granted to respondent to seek execution of the award for any unpaid compensation [Paras 22-23].

Divorce Petition – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Appellant’s application to reject the divorce petition based on desertion and adultery dismissed by Family Court – High Court upheld Family Court’s decision, emphasizing that a petition cannot be rejected in part and needs to be considered as a whole – Adultery allegations and non-joinder of alleged adulterer as a party did not warrant rejection of the petition [Paras 1-18].

Ground of Desertion – Requirements under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA – Appellant contested that desertion was not established as cohabitation continued till July 2022 and petition filed in May 2023 – Respondent claimed desertion since November 2021 – Court held that evidence on desertion needs to be evaluated during trial, and this alone cannot lead to rejection of the petition [Paras 4-9].

Ground of Adultery – Non-joinder of Alleged Adulterer – Alleged adulterer need not be a party to the divorce proceedings – Adultery can be proved through witness testimony or other evidence without impleading the third party – Court referenced Supreme Court’s decision in Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, emphasizing that a plaint cannot be rejected in part [Paras 10-15].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Family Court’s decision to not reject the divorce petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC – Noted that allegations concerning cruelty and desertion required full trial to be adequately assessed [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Destruction of Evidence – Appellants convicted for beating Rajinder Singh @ Bhura to death and disposing of his body – Trial court’s judgment based on testimonies of eyewitnesses, recovery of weapons, and forensic evidence – High Court reverses conviction due to significant inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the prosecution’s case.

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Inconsistencies – Testimonies of key witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-5) found to have material contradictions and improbabilities – Witnesses failed to report the incident immediately despite having the opportunity – Doubts raised about their presence and the credibility of their statements [Paras 11-16, 26-34].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Impact on Prosecution Case – FIR lodged after an unexplained delay of six days – High Court holds that such delay corrodes the credibility of the prosecution’s case and casts doubt on the spontaneity and reliability of the allegations [Paras 19-27].

Recovery of Weapons – Doubtful Evidence – Recovery of danda and fan-belt from the crime scene was questionable due to tampered dates on the recovery memo and improbability of weapons being left in an accessible location – Testimony of recovery witness found unreliable [Paras 36-37].

Forensic Evidence – Blood Sample Analysis – Prosecution failed to link the blood samples found at the scene conclusively to the deceased – Blood was reportedly washed away immediately after the incident, contradicting forensic findings [Paras 38-39].

Burden of Proof – Prosecution’s Failure – High Court emphasizes that strong suspicion cannot replace legal proof – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the acquittal of all appellants [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith, subject to providing personal bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. [Paras 43-44].

Criminal Law – Conviction – Appeal – Validity of Evidence – Appellant convicted for repeated rape and criminal intimidation of step-daughter, aged 12, leading to pregnancy – Defense argued on grounds of improbable prosecution narrative, unreliable evidence, delay in FIR, and manipulated documents – Prosecution relied on consistent and corroborated testimonies, medical evidence, and timely police action – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-17].

Sexual Offenses – Minor Victim – Testimonies and Corroborative Evidence – Victim’s detailed account of abuse supported by mother’s testimony and medical confirmation of pregnancy – Delay in FIR deemed reasonable under circumstances – Appellant’s behavior patterns supported credibility of allegations – Court found no merit in arguments of unreliable evidence or manipulated documents [Paras 12-16].

Preventive Measures – DNA Test – Considerations for Victim’s Safety – Inquiry on absence of DNA test during pregnancy – Prosecution cited risks to victim and fetus – Court found explanation reasonable, emphasizing safety and well-being of victim and unborn child [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt [Para 17].

Search and Seizure – Compliance with Legal Provisions – The appellants contended non-compliance with Sections 42 and 100(4) Cr.P.C. – Court held that since the search was conducted at 7:30 AM, during sunrise, there was no requirement for a warrant or recording the grounds of belief – Proper procedure under Section 42 of the NDPS Act was followed – Conviction upheld [Paras 10-14, 16-18].

Procedure under Section 42 of NDPS Act – Legal Obligations – Section 42 is in two parts: the first part allows searches between sunrise and sunset without a warrant if information is taken down in writing; the second part requires recording grounds of belief for searches between sunset and sunrise – Court found compliance with Section 42, as the search occurred in the morning based on prior written information [Paras 12-14, 18].

Witness Testimony – Minor Discrepancies – Appellants argued inconsistencies in the statements of police witnesses regarding the search and seizure – Court held minor contradictions do not affect the core of the prosecution case – Independent witnesses, PW3 Sanjeev Kumar and PW4 Dev Raj, did not support the prosecution, but this was not prejudicial to the appellants [Paras 26-28, 42].

Possession of Contraband – Conscious Possession – Appellants were found in possession of 70.340 kg of poppy husk – Court noted the large quantity and high cost of the contraband, making it unlikely to be planted – Prosecution proved conscious possession through credible police testimony and documentation [Paras 41-43].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Appellants pointed out inconsistencies regarding the mode of receiving secret information and how the vehicle was intercepted – Court found such contradictions did not undermine the prosecution’s case – The substantial evidence supported the conviction [Paras 29-32, 33-36].

Weighing Scale – Alleged Procedural Lapses – Appellants argued there was no explanation for calling weighing scales from Kolar despite availability at Bohlion – Court found no merit in this contention, as the prosecution was not obligated to offer explanations on such points – Appellants did not cross-examine witnesses on these aspects [Paras 37-40].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence by Special Judge affirmed – Prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt – No interference warranted as findings do not suffer from any perversity or illegality – Appeal dismissed along with any pending applications [Paras 44-45].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Claim under Section 163A – Entitlement of Legal Representatives – Appeal against the Tribunal’s order denying compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal held the insurance company not liable as the deceased was riding the vehicle owned by his father – High Court converted the claim to Section 166 considering negligence – Compensation awarded with future prospects and general damages [Paras 1-24].

Liability of Insurance Company – Driving by Deceased – Insurance company contended policy did not cover the owner driving the vehicle – High Court noted the insured’s son, as a third party, entitled to claim – Compensation assessed under Section 166 for just compensation [Paras 13-20].

Determination of Compensation – Multiplier Method – Future Prospects – Compensation calculated using the multiplier method – 40% added for future prospects – Deduction for personal expenses at 50% as the deceased was a bachelor – General damages for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and pain and suffering enhanced by 20% since 2017 [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation of Rs. 6,88,800/- awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till deposit – Respondent insurance company directed to deposit the amount within six weeks – Tribunal judgment set aside [Paras 24-29].
 

Partition – Ancestral Properties – Plaintiffs sought partition of A to C schedule properties into 12 equal shares, claiming 7 shares – Defendants contested on the grounds of independent acquisitions and pre-existing partitions – Trial Court granted plaintiffs 7/12^th share – On appeal, High Court examined the evidence and upheld the Trial Court’s decree [Paras 1-24].

Proof of Will – Requirement under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act – Defendants produced a registered Will allegedly executed by Sundarayya – Propounder failed to prove Will as required – Evidence showed inconsistencies in attestation – Will not deemed genuine [Paras 18-22].

Acquisition and Self-Acquired Properties – Defendants contended certain properties were purchased independently – Evidence revealed no independent income source – Presumption that properties acquired from joint family funds – Items declared as joint family properties [Paras 15-17].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s decree upheld – Plaintiffs entitled to 7/12^th share in ancestral properties – Registered Will declared invalid – Costs to be borne by respective parties [Para 25].