Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Wife Residing Separately – Sufficient Cause Established – Wife ousted from matrimonial home due to cruelty and dowry harassment – Trial Court erred in holding she left without cause – Allegations substantiated by her continued attempts at reconciliation and absence of effort by husband to resume cohabitation – Held: Findings of Family Court contrary to evidence – Wife had sufficient cause to live separately [Paras 5, 10].

Maintenance – Quantum – Financial Capacity of Parties – Petitioner a qualified homeopathic doctor pursuing postgraduate education, temporarily engaged during COVID-19 with stipend, but currently unemployed – Respondent working as Technician (Mechanical) at ONGC earning ₹74,000/month – Held: Wife entitled to ₹15,000/month maintenance excluding period she received stipend – Subject to modification under Section 127 CrPC in case of change in circumstances [Paras 9, 11].

Marital Obligations – Gender Equality – Marital relationship does not negate wife’s right to develop herself – Husband’s duty extends to supporting wife’s educational and professional growth – Allegations of wife's desire to live separately from in-laws not supported by evidence – Court stresses on equality and mutual support in marriage [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal revision partly allowed – Order of Family Court rejecting maintenance set aside – Maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded to wife from date of application, excluding period of COVID-19 stipend – Subject to future modification under law [Para 12].

Service Law – Recruitment – Eligibility Criteria – AICTE Regulations, 2019 – Application to Ongoing Process – Recruitment Notice Issued on 25.02.2020 Without Mention of AICTE Norms – Government Adopted 2019 Regulations Before Last Date of Application – Clause 1.4(g) Mandates Corrigendum Where Interviews Not Held – Held: Regulations Framed Under Statutory Authority – Appointments Must Comply – Corrigendum Directed Valid – Appeal Dismissed [Paras 1–6, 20–27, 35–37].

Subordinate Legislation – Mandatory Compliance – AICTE Regulations Binding on State and Aided Institutions – Government Order Explicitly Adopted Qualifications Under 2019 AICTE Norms – Recruitment Advertisement Silent on Eligibility – Held: Statutory Rules Prevail Over Earlier Norms – Non-Compliance Inadmissible [Paras 19–25, 35].

Recruitment Process – No Vested Right to Appointment – Select List Not Conclusive – Advertisement Can Be Amended if Statutory Norms Apply – Appellant’s Position in Merit List Irrelevant If Prepared Under Invalid Criteria – Held: Selection Must Follow Existing Law at Time of Cut-off Date – Mere Placement in List Does Not Confer Enforceable Right [Paras 8–10, 26–27, 34].

Tej Prakash Pathak & K. Manjusree – Interpretation – Applicability – Supreme Court Clarified Rules Can’t Be Changed Midway Unless Rules So Permit – Karnataka High Court Held AICTE 2019 Regulations Form Part of Binding Subordinate Legislation – Present Case Falls Within Exceptions Recognized by SC – Held: No Contravention of Article 14 or Administrative Arbitrariness [Paras 28–31].

Education Law – Appointment in Technical Institutions – Standards in Higher Education – Qualification for Associate Professors – AICTE Regulations Prevail Over Institutional Discretion – Government’s Direction for Corrigendum Within Jurisdiction – Held: Ensures Uniformity and Standards in National Technical Education System [Paras 23–24, 36–37].

Decision: Writ Appeal Dismissed – State Government’s direction to amend advertisement to incorporate AICTE Regulations, 2019 upheld – No right to appointment merely on inclusion in merit list prepared contrary to binding regulations – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Conviction under Section 149 IPC Unsustainable in Absence of Shared Intent – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted along with others for murder under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149 and 323/149 IPC – Trial court applied vicarious liability under Section 149 based on presence at scene – Appellate court held that fatal injuries were inflicted solely by two co-accused (now deceased) – No overt act, shared intent, or deadly weapon attributed to present appellants – Held: Mere presence without active participation or common object insufficient to attract liability under Section 149 IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 3.1–3.7, 5–8].

Constructive Liability – Section 149 IPC – Applicability Requires Proof of Unlawful Assembly, Common Object, and Knowledge of Likely Offence – Reiterated that liability under Section 149 cannot be stretched to convict passive bystanders or those with no criminal intent – Citing Zainul v. State of Bihar, Mizaji v. State of U.P., and Subal Ghorai cases – Held: Prosecution failed to prove appellants were members of unlawful assembly with intent to kill – Acquittal warranted [Paras 3.5–3.8, 4–6].

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Evidence – Fatal Blows Attributed to Co-accused Only – No Role Ascribed to Surviving Appellants – Post-mortem report revealed only two blows leading to death – Both ascribed to two now-deceased accused – No evidence linking appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand to the assault – No weapons recovered from them – Held: Trial court erred in applying collective liability mechanically [Paras 3.1, 5–6].

Principle – Rule of Prudence in Section 149 IPC Cases – Courts Must Guard Against Convicting Innocent Bystanders Based on Proximity Alone – Presence at the scene without participation or shared object does not establish guilt – Doctrine of caution to be applied in cases involving large number of accused – Held: Prosecution failed to produce credible material to show appellants shared the common object – Acquittal justified [Paras 3.8, 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149, and 323/149 IPC set aside – Appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC to secure presence in case of further appeal [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Defamation – Accused were members of Apartment Owners' Adhoc Committee – Petitioners issued a private letter to complainant’s husband expressing concerns over suspicious activities in the flat, based on reports from security staff – Incident of a man jumping from balcony half-naked cited – Husband allegedly used this letter to publicly malign complainant through Church representatives – Held: Letter addressed privately, not published publicly by petitioners – No evidence of mala fide intent or conspiracy with husband – Protection of Ninth and Tenth Exceptions to Section 499 IPC attracted – Petitioners’ actions done in good faith for safety and interest of residents and children [Paras 6–9]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – No prima facie case made out against petitioners for offence of defamation – Letter issued in private, not with intention to defame – Continuation of proceedings against petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law – Held: Criminal proceedings against petitioners quashed [Paras 7–9]

Apartment Governance – Communication with Resident Owners – Responsibility of Association Members – Information about security violations conveyed to one of the owners – Court held that internal communication on issues affecting community safety, even if referring to another resident, is protected if issued in good faith and without malice – Not actionable as defamation when private and non-malicious [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal proceedings against petitioners (Accused Nos. 5 to 7) in C.C. No. 12 of 2021 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam quashed – Held to be an abuse of process of law [Para 9]

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Rejection of Bail – 500 grams of Mephedrone recovered from applicant’s conscious possession – Seizure made in presence of panch witnesses after informing accused of rights under Section 50 – Contraband verified and certified by Magistrate under Section 52A – Chemical Analyzer’s report confirmed presence of Mephedrone and Methamphetamine – Held: Recovery from applicant is prima facie established – Mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied – Bail rejected [Paras 1–8, 31–38].

Presumption under Section 54 – Burden on Accused – No Explanation Offered – Rebuttal Not Established – Possession of Narcotic Substance from Applicant’s Person Not Denied – Held: Mere denial insufficient – No plausible explanation for possession offered by applicant – Presumption under Section 54 applicable [Paras 28–29].

Prior Criminal Antecedents – Relevant for Likelihood of Reoffending – Applicant had three prior NDPS cases – Court held prior conduct relevant under second limb of Section 37 – Bail denied on ground that applicant likely to reoffend [Paras 24, 32].

Field Test & Delay in Sending Samples – Not Fatal to Prosecution – Forensic Report Confirmed Substance – Court held field test is not conclusive proof – Delay in sending sample not material where seal intact and certified by Magistrate – Chemical Analyzer’s report prevails [Paras 14–17, 21].

Procedural Compliance – Sections 42, 50, and 52A – Search and Seizure Conducted Lawfully – Recovery made after information recorded under Section 42(2) – Rights under Section 50 explained – Contraband sealed and produced before Magistrate – Inventory and photographs certified under Section 52A – Held: Procedural safeguards followed, no prejudice caused to accused [Paras 2–3, 9–13].

Public Interest vs. Personal Liberty – Balancing under NDPS Act – Court reiterated that in serious drug offences, personal liberty must yield to larger societal interest – Held: Bail not routine – No exceptional circumstances made out to override bar under Section 37 [Paras 33–36].

Decision: Bail Application dismissed – Applicant found in possession of commercial quantity of narcotics – No reasonable ground to believe he is not guilty or unlikely to reoffend – Section 37 bar attracted – Application rejected.

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Telecom Stores Scam – Conspiracy – Diversion of Materials – Misappropriation – The prosecution proved that A1 to A5 and A7 to A12 conspired with contractor A6 (deceased) to raise false indents, obtain telecom materials from Chennai Stores and divert them to private scrap dealers – Evidence of PW-46, PW-47 and lorry booking registers established diversion – Held: Convictions of A1, A8, A9 and A12 confirmed; convictions of A5 and A7 upheld but sentences reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment – Acquittal of A10 and A11 affirmed [Paras 2, 3.1–3.3, 4.23–4.24, 30–31].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Competent Authority – A1 contended that sanction was invalid as it was issued by PW-2, Assistant Director General – Court held that PW-2 was duly authorised; sanction valid; no prejudice caused; Trial Court findings affirmed [Paras 4.1–4.3].

Evidence – False Indents – Violation of Departmental Procedure – Indents not countersigned by Divisional Engineers; not routed through Chief General Manager; A7 issued unauthorized issue orders; compliance with material issuance norms violated – Held: Procedural deviations established intentional misconduct under the PC Act [Paras 4.24–4.35].

Acquittal – A10 and A11 – Trial Court found that goods pertaining to indents raised by A10 and A11 were actually delivered to the concerned stores – Held: Acquittal justified and confirmed [Para 3.3].

Sentence – Modification – Proportionality – For A5 and A7, while conviction was upheld, sentence reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment for each charge – concurrent – fine unchanged – set-off allowed – 8 weeks time granted for surrender [Final Order: Sections III and IV].

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of Trial Court based on extensive documentary and oral evidence – No perversity or illegality demonstrated – Held: No ground for interference in convictions of A1, A8, A9 and A12; partial relief only in sentencing of A5 and A7 [Paras 10–14].

Decision: Appeals of A1, A8, A9 and A12 dismissed – conviction and sentence confirmed. Appeals of A5 (Crl.A.No.43/2014) and A7 (Crl.A.No.61/2014) allowed in part – sentence reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment – fine maintained – sentences to run concurrently.

Property Law – Family Settlement – Proof – Plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession based on oral family settlement and subsequent memorandum dated 02.02.2006 – Courts below held that no oral settlement was proved and memorandum Ex.P7 did not reference any prior settlement – Held: No evidence to establish original oral partition – Memorandum of settlement dated 02.02.2006 not proved in accordance with law and not admissible without registration under Section 17 of Registration Act as it created new rights in immovable property – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–12].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Findings of fact by both courts below that family settlement was neither proved nor registered – No substantial question of law arose – Held: High Court in second appeal has limited jurisdiction and cannot interfere with findings of fact even if erroneous – Reliance placed on SC rulings in Randhir Kaur, Mst. Sugani, and Avtar Singh – Appeal rejected [Paras 13–16].

Possession – Plaintiffs Failed to Prove – Reliance on Aabiyana receipts and electricity bills to show possession over agricultural land – Held: Receipts were vague, lacked land identity, and contained inconsistencies – Plaintiffs at best shown to reside in Dhani as ousted licensees – Not sufficient to prove lawful possession [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law found – Concurrent findings upheld – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 14–19].

Succession – Validity of Will – Proof of Due Execution – Will dated 19.06.2006 bequeathing entire property to son – Plaintiffs (daughters) challenged genuineness – Trial and Appellate Courts found Will proved through attesting witness and Sub-Registrar – Held: Evidence fulfilled requirements of Sections 63 of Succession Act and 68 of Evidence Act – Will validly executed and attested – No illegality in findings [Paras 7–9].

Coparcenary Property – Rights of Daughters – Property claimed to be ancestral – Courts below held land was purchased by deceased through sale deed and not ancestral – Held: Daughters could not claim share under coparcenary law – Property held self-acquired, devolved via Will to son [Paras 8–9].

Pleadings – No Challenge to Will in Pleadings – Plaintiffs failed to plead fraud, coercion, or lack of testamentary capacity in the plaint – First time challenged Will during trial – Held: No foundational pleadings to support challenge – Allegations rightly disregarded by Courts below [Para 9].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellate findings based on factual appreciation of evidence and settled law – Held: No perversity shown – No question of law arose – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings upheld – Will dated 19.06.2006 held valid – Daughters not entitled to relief [Para 11].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Statutory Presumption – Section 139 – Execution of cheque admitted by accused – Held: Presumption arises that cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability – However, such presumption is rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities – Accused not required to prove defence beyond reasonable doubt – M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, followed [Paras 11–13].

Evidence – Rebuttal of Presumption – Financial Capacity of Complainant – Complainant failed to disclose date of issuance or execution of cheque either in complaint or affidavit – admitted contradictions in cross-examination regarding promissory note and cheque return – failed to produce partnership deed or authority to represent firm “Poornima Finance” – Absence of proof of financial capacity and contradictions in testimony sufficient to raise probable defence – Presumption under Section 139 held rebutted [Paras 8–10, 16].

Defence Evidence – Probable Case – Accused’s father (DW1) proved that cheque was issued blank towards balance payment for gold ornaments purchased from complainant’s jewellery on 15.04.2005, supported by Ext.D1 estimate and Ext.D2 account slip in complainant’s handwriting – Circumstances corroborate defence and cast doubt on existence of legally enforceable debt – Trial Court’s reliance on DW1’s evidence upheld [Paras 9–10, 18].

Burden of Proof – Standard – Accused only required to establish a probable defence by preponderance of probabilities – May rely on complainant’s own materials to raise doubt – Failure to establish source of funds or exact transaction date fatal to prosecution – ANSS Rajashekar v. Augustus Jeba Ananth, 2019 (1) KLD 492 and APS Forex Services (P) Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers, 2020 (1) KLD 313, followed [Paras 14–15].

Non-reply to Statutory Notice – Effect – Though non-reply can be an adverse circumstance, not conclusive of guilt – Court must consider totality of evidence to determine whether presumption stands rebutted – Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 (6) KHC 250 (SC), and M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd., 2002 KHC 241, referred [Paras 17–18].

Appellate Review – Acquittal – Findings of trial court based on proper appreciation of evidence and supported by material record – No perversity or illegality shown – High Court declines to interfere with acquittal under Section 138 NI Act [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Held: Complainant failed to establish legally enforceable debt or authority to represent firm; accused successfully raised probable defence supported by documentary evidence – No interference warranted [Para 19].