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.

Adverse Possession – Legal Requirements – Defendants claimed ownership by adverse possession – Courts found defendants failed to prove hostile, open, and continuous possession – Claim of adverse possession inherently acknowledges the title of another party – Supreme Court precedent emphasized inconsistency in claiming both ownership and adverse possession simultaneously [Paras 5-7].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Tenancy Rights – First Appellate Court erred in finding defendants to be tenants, thus denying jurisdiction to Civil Court – Defendants had consistently claimed adverse possession, not tenancy – Civil Court jurisdiction upheld for possession claims where defendants deny title and assert adverse possession [Paras 8-12].

Denial of Title and Forfeiture of Tenancy – Denouncing plaintiff's title in written statements can result in forfeiture of tenancy rights – Civil Court jurisdiction affirmed based on precedents from higher judiciary – New claims or defenses not pleaded cannot be considered [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Plaintiffs entitled to possession of the suit land as title holders – Defendants' adverse possession claims dismissed – Judgments of trial courts restored – Decree of possession granted to plaintiffs in both civil suits [Paras 13].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles and Application – The prosecution must establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the five golden principles set out in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 for cases based on circumstantial evidence. The absence of direct evidence necessitated reliance on these principles to conclude guilt [Paras 5-8].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem report and expert testimony established the cause of death as manual strangulation, ante mortem, and homicidal in nature. The court found the evidence consistent with strangulation rather than accidental drowning, refuting the defense’s claim of atypical drowning [Paras 20-24, 32-33].

Section 106, Indian Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – The appellant’s failure to explain the circumstances of his wife’s death within the privacy of their home significantly contributed to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The court applied Section 106, emphasizing the necessity for the accused to offer a plausible explanation for facts peculiarly within his knowledge [Paras 37-47].

Conflicting Testimonies – The defense’s reliance on expert testimony to suggest accidental drowning was outweighed by consistent and credible prosecution evidence, including the post-mortem findings and witness statements. The inquest and post-mortem reports corroborated the prosecution’s case of homicidal strangulation [Paras 12-16, 29-31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed. The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a coherent and comprehensive chain of circumstantial evidence. The appellant’s explanations were deemed insufficient and inconsistent with the established facts [Paras 48-51].

Lease Agreement – Renewal and Termination – The original lease agreement executed on 24 July 1961 was for a period of 20 years, with provisions for renewal for two additional terms of 10 years each. The lease term ended on 15 April 2001, and a termination notice was issued on 18 April 2001. The defendant's contention that the lease was permanent and not terminable was rejected. The eviction suit under Section 41 of the PSCC Act was upheld by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai [Paras 1-38].

Mesne Profits – Determination – The Trial Court, based on evidence, fixed mesne profits at Rs. 93,227/- per month with 6% interest per annum from 1 June 2001. This determination was upheld by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. The defendant's challenge to these findings was dismissed [Paras 40-43].

Fairness in Executive Action – Emphasized the duty of state entities to act fairly and reasonably. The actions of the defendant, HPCL, should conform to the ‘doctrine of fairness’. The lease's renewal clause does not automatically extend the lease term but entitles the lessee to obtain a fresh lease following statutory requirements [Paras 29-38].

Decision – Civil Revision Applications Dismissed – The eviction decree and the determination of mesne profits were confirmed. Respondents permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited by the applicant in court along with accrued interest. A stay on the execution of the judgment was granted for eight weeks, with liberty to the applicant to apply for sufficient time to vacate if not challenging the judgment [Paras 44-47].

Hindu Succession Act – Coparcenary Rights – Plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased Murugan, claimed coparcenary rights in the ancestral properties – Defendants contended that the properties were self-acquired by D1 – High Court held that all the suit properties are ancestral and plaintiffs are entitled to coparcenary rights by birth under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Trial Court’s findings on coparcenary status and superstructures reversed – [Paras 14-35].

Evidence Act – Additional Evidence – Plaintiffs filed petitions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to receive additional documents – High Court allowed the petitions, marking the documents as Ex-A.8 to Ex-A.11 – Documents were vital to decide the dispute [Paras 15-18].

Civil Procedure – Sale Deeds and GPA – Transactions pending suit – Certain sale deeds and GPA executed by D1 in favour of D2 and others during the pendency of the suit – High Court held that transactions were done to defeat plaintiffs’ rights – Transactions not protected under proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Paras 30-33].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court modified – Preliminary decree granted to plaintiffs for 1/3 share each in ancestral properties – Suit dismissed in respect of certain properties due to prior valid sale deeds – CMP petitions allowed, additional documents received and marked [Paras 35].
 

Land Acquisition – Unauthorized Use of Land – Compensation – Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession, permanent, and mandatory injunction after their land was utilized for road construction without their consent or due process – Trial court directed the State to acquire the land following legal procedures and disburse the assessed compensation to the landowners – High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, reinforcing the obligation for due process in land acquisition and fair compensation [Paras 1-14].

Legal Obligation for Compensation – The State constructed the Auhar-Kohina road using plaintiffs’ land without written consent or formal acquisition – Notification for acquisition issued but not completed – High Court emphasized that utilizing private property for public projects requires legal acquisition and fair compensation, rejecting the argument of oral consent and public interest overriding the requirement of lawful process [Paras 2-4].

Judicial Findings – Concurrent Judgments – Lower courts found the State’s actions unlawful due to lack of written consent and incomplete acquisition process – The State’s appeal was dismissed for lack of a substantial question of law – High Court reiterated the principle that the State cannot utilize private land without adhering to legal procedures and ensuring compensation [Paras 4-5].

Statutory Compliance – Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act – The issuance of notification under Section 4 is a necessary preliminary step in the land acquisition process – Failure to proceed with subsequent steps led to the lapsing of the notification – The State’s failure to comply with statutory requirements invalidated its claim of lawful use of the land [Paras 2-4].

Compensation for Public Use – High Court held that public use of private land without compensation is impermissible – The construction of public infrastructure does not exempt the State from following due legal processes and ensuring landowner rights – Compensation is mandatory unless the landowner voluntarily transfers land in a legally recognized manner [Paras 4-5].

Decision:
Appeal dismissed – Judgments of the lower courts upheld – State directed to initiate proper land acquisition procedures and compensate landowners as per legal requirements.
 

Income Tax – Reassessment Notice – Legality of Sanction: Petitioner challenged the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. Contention was based on improper sanction obtained under Section 151(i) instead of 151(ii) for proceedings beyond three years from the relevant assessment year – Court held that the sanction was not obtained as per the statutory requirement under Section 151(ii) – Impugned notice and order quashed [Paras 1-9].

Section 151 of the Income Tax Act – Requirement of Sanction: Emphasis on statutory compliance under Section 151 – Court observed that for actions initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, sanction must be obtained from the Chief Commissioner or Director General as per Section 151(ii) – Approval in the present case was improperly granted under Section 151(i) [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 29 August 2022 under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 quashed – Other issues kept open – Rule made absolute with no costs [Para 9].

Arbitration – Contract Disputes – Payment for Construction Work – Appeal under Section 37 – Dispute over payment for clearing and grubbing (C&G) and earthwork in embankment below Original Ground Level (OGL) – Arbitral Tribunal awarded payment for embankment work below OGL – Held, payment justified as per contractual terms – Appeal against this issue dismissed [Paras 1-23]. 

Arbitration – Delay in Raising Dispute – Time-Barred Claims – Contract required dispute to be referred to Dispute Review Expert (DRE) within 14 days – Delay in approaching DRE due to its non-existence – Tribunal held delay justified – Held, delay acceptable as DRE was constituted later and appellant participated without objection – No grounds for interference [Paras 24-30]. 

Arbitration – Price Escalation – Application of Price Index – Tribunal applied uniform price index for withheld payments at final bill stage (IPC 78) – Held, consistent with contract – No error in application of price index – Appeal against this issue dismissed [Paras 31-35]. 

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned orders of learned Single Judge upheld – Registry directed to return Bank Guarantee deposited by respondent. 

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​​.