Criminal Law – Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage – Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Appellate Court dismissed application for production of additional documents in appeal against conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Held: Power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to secure ends of justice and where non-receipt of evidence may result in failure of justice – Additional evidence not confined to cases where judgment cannot be pronounced but where its absence may occasion miscarriage of justice – Impugned order set aside and petitioner permitted to adduce additional evidence [Paras 8, 12-14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction under Section 138 – Appeal Pending Since 2017 – Application for Production of Ledgers and Cheque Records – Appellate Court rejected plea treating it as dilatory tactic and holding that documents would not conclusively prove unlawful custody of cheques – High Court held that appellate court ought not to draw adverse inference on merits at stage of considering application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and should examine necessity of evidence for just decision of appeal [Paras 10-11, 14].

Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Parameters for Exercise of Power – Additional evidence permissible where party was prevented from producing evidence despite due diligence or where facts came to light during pendency of appeal – Evidence must be necessary to avoid failure of justice – Reliance placed on Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC v. State of U.P. – Wide discretion vested in appellate court but to be exercised judiciously [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Order dated 25.07.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.22 of 2023 in Crl.A. No.859 of 2017 set aside – Application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. allowed – Petitioner permitted to adduce additional evidence – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Robbery – Doubtful Identification – Nighttime Crime – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners (A1 & A3) convicted for stabbing and robbing two employees carrying ₹16 lakhs – Conviction confirmed by appellate court – However, eye-witnesses (PW1 & PW2) admitted to contradictions regarding identity, absence of lighting, prior exposure to accused photographs, and conflicting testimonies on sequence of events – Test Identification Parade conducted 45 days post-arrest after exposure to accused undermined its probative value – Held: Identification highly doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13-18, 22].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Lack of Corroboration – Acquittal Justified – Evidence of PW1 and PW2 contradictory and unsupported by independent witnesses – Medical records silent on crucial aspects such as chilli powder allegedly used – Doctor did not confirm stated injuries or circumstances – PW3 and PW5 claimed to have transported victims to hospital but hospital registers mention different names – Place of occurrence itself in dispute – Held: Trial and appellate courts failed to appreciate contradictions – Evidence insufficient for conviction [Paras 12, 15-16, 18].

Criminal Trial – Parity Principle – Similar Role, Disparate Outcome – Conviction Discriminatory – Co-accused A2 and A4–A8 acquitted despite similar evidence – No weapon recovery traced to petitioners – No specific overt act attributed to them – Conviction based solely on disputed identification – Held: Principle of parity mandates that petitioners be given same benefit of doubt as others – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23-26].

Investigation – Recovery and Confession – Procedural Irregularities – Witness Credibility Doubtful – Confession and recovery allegedly made in presence of PW7 (VAO) and PW8 (Village Assistant) who admitted to being stock witnesses – No independent witness or house owner (Rajendran) examined – Typed confessions using laptop and mobile printer at scene not supported by evidence – Held: Recovery procedure artificial and unsupported – Evidence unreliable [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Petitioners to be released forthwith unless required in any other proceedings.

Criminal Law – Section 498A IPC – Applicability to Void Marriages and Live-In Relationships – Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 2 could not claim protection under Section 498A as the marriage was void owing to his subsisting marriage with another woman – Held: Section 498A covers not only legally valid marriages but also void or voidable marriages and relationships in the nature of marriage – A man who induces a woman into cohabitation under the false pretense of marriage cannot escape liability under Section 498A – Relationship with trappings of marriage falls within scope of the section [Paras 13.1–13.16].

Criminal Procedure – Section 498A – Parallel Proceedings – Two separate criminal cases pending against petitioner for offence under Section 498A in Shivamogga and Bengaluru arising out of related facts – Held: Permitting parallel trials under Section 498A in different fora would lead to conflicting judgments – Directed: Case pending in Shivamogga transferred to Bengaluru court for joint trial with pending proceedings [Paras 14.1–14.3].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Admissibility of Statement by Surviving Complainant – Petitioner challenged statement recorded by Head Constable as not fulfilling requirements of dying declaration under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act – Held: Respondent No. 2 survived – Statement is not a dying declaration but a regular witness statement – Evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Procedural irregularities in MLC registration not grounds for quashing proceedings at pre-trial stage [Paras 15.1–15.13].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitions filed to quash proceedings in two FIRs alleging dowry harassment and attempt to murder – Allegations include setting complainant on fire and suppression of prior marriage – Held: Allegations are serious and require full trial – No grounds made out for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitions dismissed [Paras 16.1].

Decision: Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Proceedings in CC No. 630/2019 pending before III Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) and JMFC, Shivamogga transferred to 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to be tried along with CC No. 28129/2023 – Criminal proceedings to proceed in accordance with law.

NDPS Act – Vehicle Confiscation – Owner Not Accused – Confiscation Order Set Aside – Trial Court convicted two accused under Section 20(b)(i) NDPS Act and ordered confiscation of truck bearing Reg. No. ABK-799 used to transport ganja – Appellant, who was the registered owner but not an accused in the criminal case, challenged the confiscation – Held: Appellant was not involved in the crime and has remained in possession of vehicle under orders of this Court – Confiscation order liable to be set aside as appellant’s ownership was undisputed and prosecution did not implicate her [Paras 2, 9-10]

Criminal Procedure – Section 454 CrPC – Appeal Against Confiscation – Maintainability – Appeal filed under Section 454 CrPC against order of confiscation passed as part of judgment in Sessions Case – Appellant established interest in property and had been granted interim release (zima) upon furnishing security – Held: Long pendency and absence of clarity on appeals by convicts warrants allowing appeal – Confiscation quashed [Paras 1, 4-11]

Evidence – Lack of Record – Inability of State to Confirm Status of Vehicle – Despite repeated directions, State unable to produce record of vehicle or confirm status of criminal appeal by convicts – Excise Officer reported that case record related to confiscation could not be traced – Held: No useful purpose served by prolonging litigation – Confiscation order unsustainable [Paras 6-8]

Interim Relief – Zima Granted and Security Furnished – Final Relief Accorded – Vehicle was released to appellant during pendency of appeal on furnishing cash and property security – Security stood for over three decades – Held: Security to be released, confiscation set aside, appeal allowed [Paras 4, 11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Confiscation order dated 11.02.1994 in Sessions Case No. 229 of 1993 set aside – Security furnished by appellant released – No costs [Para 11]

Civil Law – Second Appeal – Limitation – Dismissal of Appeal on Ground of Delay – Plaintiff-Appellant challenged sale of religious Math property by Mahant, claiming such property was public trust – Suit dismissed; appeal dismissed for limitation – Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC filed challenging dismissal of first appeal – Held: Appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal on ground of limitation – Appellant failed to show “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Mere ignorance of judgment despite public notice held insufficient – Appeal rightly held time-barred [Paras 6, 7, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22].

Limitation – Delay in Filing Appeal – Section 5, Limitation Act – Appellant filed first appeal nearly 2 years and 10 months after decree – Claimed delay due to late knowledge of judgment – Held: Delay not properly explained – Appellant was aware or should have been aware via public notice published in 2011 – Long delay without valid justification fatal – No sufficient cause shown – Liberal interpretation of delay cannot apply where negligence and lack of diligence are proved – Law must be applied with full rigour in absence of bonafide explanation [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16].

Representative Suit – Locus Standi – Right to Appeal – Appellant not a party in original representative suit – No leave obtained to file appeal – No evidence of connection to Math or authority to represent it – Held: Appellant lacked locus standi – Not an “aggrieved person” as required under law – Appeal not maintainable without leave of court – Cited precedents including V.N. Krishna Murthy v. Ravikumar and Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties – Mere sentimental or imagined grievance not sufficient to sustain appeal [Paras 10, 11, 17, 18, 19].

Civil Procedure – Person Aggrieved – Right to Appeal by Stranger – A person not party to a decree can appeal only with leave of court – Must show he is prejudicially affected or bound by the decree – Held: Appellant failed to prove prejudice or binding effect – No substantial right affected – Allegations of collusion between plaintiffs and defendants not supported by any evidence – Leave to appeal rightly not granted [Paras 17, 18, 20].

Judicial Discretion – Delay Condonation – Principles Reiterated – Courts must adopt liberal but cautious approach – Delay cannot be condoned merely on equitable grounds – Sufficient cause must be real, substantial, and shown with evidence – Delay arising from negligence, inaction or want of bonafide not condonable – Cited Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer – Emphasized that legal rights cannot be resurrected by vague pleas or procedural sympathy [Paras 13, 14, 16].

Appeal Dismissed – No Merit – Appellant failed to point out any legal error or infirmity in judgment of trial or appellate court – No error in appreciation of evidence – Trial Court rightly held Defendant to be lawful Mahant with ownership as per family tradition and documents – Sale of land found valid – No procedural irregularity shown – Second Appeal dismissed for lack of merit and limitation [Paras 6, 19, 20, 21, 22].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Appellant failed to establish locus standi, sufficient cause for delay, or any illegality in concurrent findings – Pending applications disposed [Paras 22, 23].

Criminal Law – UAPA – Regular Bail – Section 43-D(5) – Prolonged Custody – Appellant in custody for over 2 years and 10 months without trial due to pendency of sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA – No evidence linking weapons recovered from appellant to terrorist activity or declared terrorists – Held: Long incarceration without trial violates Article 21 – Bail granted despite UAPA charges [Paras 3, 10, 12]

UAPA – Prima Facie Case – Section 43-D(5) – Standard of Review – Prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe accusations under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA to be prima facie true – No evidence linking accused to any act of terrorism – No record of WhatsApp communication or joint jail presence with alleged terrorists – Court held mere possession of arms without terror link insufficient for continued detention under UAPA [Paras 9-10]

Criminal Law – Parity in Bail – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Appellant's role not graver than co-accused already granted bail – Persons from whom arms were recovered, and others who allegedly supplied the weapons, all released on bail by Trial Court or Coordinate Bench – Held: Parity and lack of distinguishing features support grant of bail [Paras 10, Table under Para 10]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail as Safeguard – Delay in framing charges and conclusion of trial despite completion of investigation violates fundamental right under Article 21 – Supreme Court precedents in K.A. Najeeb, Jalaluddin Khan, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen, and Javed Shaikh applied – Held: Bail cannot be denied solely on seriousness of charges where trial is indefinitely delayed [Paras 11–16]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposed stringent conditions including ₹10 lakh bond, weekly police attendance, undertaking for trial participation, and prohibition on inducement or fresh offences – Prosecution permitted to seek cancellation if conditions breached [Paras 17–19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 22.12.2023 denying regular bail set aside – Appellant granted regular bail subject to stringent conditions including high bond, weekly marking, and undertaking for trial compliance – Observations made not to affect merits of trial – Trial Court permitted to impose additional safeguards – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 17–21]

Contract Law – Term Sheet – Specific Performance – Appeal from Order dismissed – Term Sheet between Plaintiff developer and Defendant landowners provided for refundable deposit and joint development of land – Dispute arose on whether Term Sheet was a concluded and enforceable contract or merely an agreement to agree – Held: Validity Clause with Long Stop Date was a condition precedent – Plaintiff failed to perform obligations before Long Stop Date – No extension pleaded or agreed – Term Sheet automatically stood terminated – Plaintiff entitled only to refund of ₹11 crores – No right to seek specific performance survives – Appeal dismissed [Paras 17, 21–31, 35, 50–52, 53].

Contract Construction – Long Stop Date – Significance – Long Stop Date under Clause 12 of Term Sheet operated as contractual deadline for due diligence and execution of transaction documents – Clause began with non-obstante expression – Held: Clause 12 overrode other terms including Clause 11 on enforceability – Failure to comply by Long Stop Date resulted in automatic termination of contract – No open-ended or implied extension recognized in absence of mutual agreement – Court upheld commercial certainty and enforceability of Long Stop Date [Paras 24–34, 51–52].

Evidence – Concluded Contract vs Agreement to Agree – Clause analysis and conduct of parties – Despite use of term "enforceable" in Clause 11, contract was contingent on fulfilment of conditions precedent under Clause 12 – Plaintiff failed to accept title or execute transaction documents – Additional terms like third-party award payment introduced later – Held: No concluded contract – Specific performance not maintainable [Paras 19–20, 36–38, 43–44, 46].

Relief – Refund of Advance – Defendants permitted to deposit ₹11 crores – Trial court's refusal of injunction upheld – Appellant’s claim limited to alternate prayer for refund of deposit – Balance of convenience in favour of Defendants – No prima facie case made out for injunction – No enforceable obligation to convey development rights survives – Injunction rightly refused [Paras 47–49, 53–54].

Specific Relief Act – Contract not Specifically Enforceable – Section 14(1)(a) and (c) – Clause 12 made Term Sheet determinable – Monetary compensation sufficient remedy – Held: Agreement not enforceable in terms of Specific Relief Act – Injunction barred under Section 41(e) [Paras 49].

Industrial Disputes – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Absence Without Leave – Reinstatement Without Back Wages Upheld – Petitioner, a temporary Chawkidar whose services were regularised, absented without sanctioned leave from 02.11.1993 to 27.01.1994 – Tribunal found non-acceptance of joining illegal and ordered reinstatement but denied back wages – Held: Absence without leave and failure to inform employer disentitles petitioner from back wages – Reinstatement does not automatically confer entitlement to wages for period of absence [Paras 2, 10-13]

Labour Law – Burden of Proof – Gainful Employment Not Pleaded – No Evidence of Unemployment – Petitioner failed to plead or establish that he remained unemployed during disputed period – Held: Burden lies on workman to assert and prove non-employment; in absence thereof, no back wages can be granted [Paras 12-13]

Back Wages – Principles and Precedents – Flexibility in Relief – No Straightjacket Rule – Citing U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mithu Singh and Deepali Gundu Surwase, Court reiterated that award of back wages is not automatic – Various factors including nature of absence, length of service, and conduct must be considered – In present case, absence without communication justified denial of wages [Paras 6-9]

Medical Grounds – Mere Production of Medical Certificate Insufficient – No Leave Applied – Petitioner relied on medical certificate to justify absence – Held: Without any application for medical or casual leave or prior intimation to employer, plea of illness cannot be accepted as justification for unauthorised absence [Paras 10-11]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Award of Industrial Tribunal upheld – No entitlement to back wages – Petitioner found to be at fault for absence without intimation – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Vicarious Liability – Directors – Petitioners sought quashing of complaint filed in 1994 under IPC and Excise Act citing lack of specific allegations – Court held that in absence of averments indicating personal role or statutory vicarious liability, criminal prosecution against directors (Petitioners 3 to 9) is not sustainable – Complaint and proceedings quashed qua them [Paras 7.1, 8–10, 17(i)].

Taxation – Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 – Scope of Immunity – Petitioners argued that tax arrears settled under scheme granted full immunity from prosecution – Court held: Scheme does not apply retrospectively and cannot nullify criminal proceedings already instituted before 01.09.1998 – Petitioners not entitled to immunity for criminal complaint filed in 1994 [Paras 11–15].

Forgery – Prima Facie Case – False Declaration – Petitioners challenged maintainability of complaint under Section 468 IPC claiming discrepancy in glass thickness logs doesn't amount to forgery – Court rejected submission – Held: Misdeclaration before government authority to evade tax amounts to forged document under Section 464 IPC – Prima facie case made out against company and MD [Paras 4.9, 16, 17(ii)].

Criminal Law – Doctrine of Separate Legal Personality – Court reiterated that mere designation as director does not attract criminal liability – Active role or statutory provision required – Reaffirmed principle that vicarious liability in criminal law requires specific statutory mandate or evidence of involvement [Paras 7.1, 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Complaint quashed and proceedings dropped against Petitioners 3 to 9 (Directors) – Petition dismissed against Petitioner No.1 (Company) and Petitioner No.2 (Managing Director).