Service Law – Municipal Recruitment – Sanitation Workers – Daily wage CLR workers with long years of service permitted to participate in selection pursuant to interim court orders – Selection conducted on merits along with Employment Exchange candidates – Wider zone of consideration permissible – No illegality in appointing daily wagers who succeeded in selection – Employment Exchange-only restriction not absolute – Writs by daily wage workers allowed; writs by Employment Exchange candidates dismissed [Paras 19–27].

Regularisation – Daily Wage / CLR Workers – No automatic right to regularisation – However, when daily wage workers were allowed to participate in a full, competitive selection process and emerged successful, their appointment cannot be denied – Distinction drawn between “regularisation as of right” and “appointment after due selection” [Paras 19–21].

Employment Exchange – G.O. dated 22.04.1982 – Employment Exchange sponsorship mandatory in ordinary circumstances – However, following Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao principle, Employment Exchange cannot be sole channel – Fair selection requires wider notification or inclusion of eligible workers – Daily wage workers validly included in selection pursuant to Court order – No bar to considering them on merit [Paras 20–22].

Constitutional Law – Equality in Public Employment – Restricting selection exclusively to Employment Exchange candidates may deprive eligible persons of opportunity – Court relied on Visweshwara Rao to uphold broader zone of consideration – Selection found fair, merit-based, and uniform for both groups [Paras 21–23].

Recruitment Process – Validity – Municipality produced consolidated select list; no allegation of exclusion, bias or mala fides – All candidates (Employment Exchange nominees + CLR workers) evaluated under same criteria – Selection upheld as lawful [Para 23].

Relief – Petitioners (CLR workers) in WP(C) Nos. 15142 & 15146/2023 directed to be appointed as Substitute Sanitation Workers as per merit list – WP(C) 15500/2023 & 20483/2025 (Employment Exchange candidates) dismissed except to extent selected candidates among them will be appointed – WP(C) 37605/2024 partly allowed with direction to include CLR workers with >10 years’ service in future selection in Thrippunithura Municipality [Final Paras].

Criminal Law – Police Harassment – Herbal Hookah in Restaurant – Petitioner alleged police interference with lawful restaurant operation citing alleged sale of tobacco-laced hookah – Petitioner claimed use of only herbal substances without nicotine – Held: Police not to interfere with restaurant business unless illegal activity is found – Direction issued to petitioner to approach FSSAI for certification [Paras 1-3, 7-8]

Tobacco Control – COTPA Act – Section 4A – Hookah Bars – State amendment prohibits hookah bars – Whether petitioner’s hookah product contains tobacco or nicotine is a factual issue to be verified by competent authorities – Held: Court cannot act on mere oral claims – Matter to be decided by FSSAI and not by the Court [Paras 5-6]

Food Safety – Jurisdiction of FSSAI – Products inhaled via hookah without tobacco/nicotine fall within the definition of “food” under Section 2(za) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – FSSAI to test samples and verify composition – If product is free of tobacco/nicotine, petitioner can continue operating hookah bar [Paras 6-9]

Police Powers – Surveillance vs Harassment – Though restaurant is located near educational institutions, police can only act if illegal activities are found – General interference in routine lawful business not permitted – Police liberty preserved to act if any illegality is detected [Paras 4, 10]

Decision: Petition disposed of – Petitioner directed to approach FSSAI with product ingredients – Police restrained from interference in lawful business unless illegality is found – Petitioner at liberty to continue business if products are certified tobacco/nicotine-free [Para 8]

Hindu Law – Joint Family Property – Sale by Karta – Plaintiffs, sons of the first defendant, challenged sale of 0.70 cents of ancestral property made by their father (first defendant) in favour of his brother (second defendant) – Property was ancestral, and plaintiffs had birthright – Held: Sale deed not binding on plaintiffs’ 2/3 share – Valid only to the extent of first defendant’s 1/3 share – Alienation by karta not for legal necessity or benefit of estate – Such sale is voidable, not void – Trial court’s finding upheld [Paras 14–20, 23(a)–(b)].

Property Law – Validity of Sale – Ancestral Property – Settlement deed in favour of first defendant does not convert ancestral property into self-acquisition – Nomenclature of document irrelevant – Legal character of property remains unchanged – Coparceners cannot be divested of birthright through unilateral settlement by father [Paras 15–16].

Burden of Proof – Legal Necessity – Under Mitakshara law, burden lies on purchaser (second defendant) to prove sale by karta was for legal necessity – Mere indebtedness or personal hardship of the karta not sufficient – Held: Second defendant failed to discharge burden – Plaintiffs entitled to protection of their undivided share [Para 17].

Partition – Sale During Minority – Plaintiffs, being minors at the time of sale, entitled to challenge the alienation – Since sale not shown to be for necessity or benefit of family, transaction is not binding on their share – However, second defendant entitled to seek equitable allotment in final decree from vendor’s (first defendant’s) share [Paras 19–21].

Equity – Final Decree Proceedings – Trial court’s direction to allot “0.70 share” to second defendant modified – Held: Precise metes and bounds to be fixed during final decree based on value and soil condition – Sale deed to be honoured only to the extent of first defendant’s share [Paras 21–22, 23(c)].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with modification – Sale deed dated 10.10.2005 held valid only to the extent of first defendant’s 1/3 share – Not binding on plaintiffs’ 2/3 share – Second defendant entitled to equitable allotment from first defendant’s share in final decree – No order as to costs [Para 23].

Preventive Detention – Verification of In-Camera Statements – Subjective Satisfaction – Petitioner challenged preventive detention under MPDA Act alleging non-compliance with procedural safeguards – Contended that Detaining Authority failed to personally verify in-camera statements of witnesses – Held: It is not a legal requirement that the Detaining Authority must personally verify in-camera statements – Verification by a senior police officer such as Assistant Commissioner of Police suffices and provides necessary procedural safeguard – Assistant Commissioner personally interacted with witnesses, visited incident spot, and verified genuineness of statements – Detaining Authority perused entire record, including verification report, and recorded subjective satisfaction [Paras 4–11].

Preventive Detention – Procedural Safeguards – Compliance with Legal Requirements – Grounds of detention, in-camera statements, and verification report were supplied to the detenu – Detaining Authority noted and considered all relevant material before passing the detention order – Detention order satisfies requirements of Section 8 MPDA Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution – No breach of procedural safeguards found [Paras 6–10, 12].

Judicial Review – Subjective Satisfaction – Scope – Courts cannot substitute their own opinion for the subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Reasonableness of satisfaction is not to be tested objectively – Judicial interference not warranted unless procedural illegality or arbitrariness is established – Held: No infirmity found in detention order – Petition lacks merit [Paras 5, 12–13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Interim application also disposed of as infructuous.

Criminal Law – Cross-Examination – Statutory Right – Accused facing charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 & 392 IPC – Opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 (prosecutrix) and PW-2 (her mother) closed by trial court on first day of their examination as defence counsel was unwell – Subsequent application under Section 311 CrPC for recall of witnesses also rejected – Held: Cross-examination is a vital statutory right under Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act – Denial of such opportunity vitiates fair trial [Paras 1–6, 7–8]

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 CrPC – Recalling Witnesses – Trial court rejected application under Section 311 CrPC without considering that defence counsel was medically indisposed – Held: Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to recall and re-examine any witness if their evidence appears essential for a just decision – Power must be exercised to further the cause of justice – Failure to recall key witnesses in this case amounted to miscarriage of justice [Paras 9–10]

Judicial Discretion – Principles for Recalling Witnesses – Reliance placed on Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013) 14 SCC 461 – Court reiterated that Section 311 CrPC should be used judicially, with fairness to the accused as a paramount consideration – Discretion must aim to ensure a complete and just adjudication of criminal trial [Para 11]

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders dated 03.04.2024 and 10.05.2024 set aside – Trial Court directed to re-summon PW-1 and PW-2 and afford petitioner opportunity to cross-examine them – All pending applications disposed of.

Eviction – Unregistered Lease Agreement – Section 107 TPA – Clause Barred Eviction – Lease dated 11.07.1990 contained clause barring landlord from initiating eviction proceedings – Trial and revisional courts held the lease inadmissible as it was unregistered – Held: Clause 3 implied lease in perpetuity exceeding one year – Required registration under Section 107 of TPA and Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act – Courts below rightly excluded it from evidence – Petitioner’s claim of month-to-month tenancy was contradicted by the terms of the document [Paras 10–19]

Eviction – Service of Notice – Section 106 TPA – Service by Refusal – Petitioner alleged that refusal of notice was not proved by calling postman – Held: Presumption of service arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 14 of the Post Office Act when postal endorsement shows refusal – It is for the addressee to rebut the presumption by leading cogent evidence – Mere denial by tenant is insufficient – Trial and revisional courts rightly accepted notice as served [Paras 20–23]

Presumption of Valid Service – Statutory Interpretation – Post Office Markings – Court reaffirmed that postal endorsements such as “refusal” are prima facie valid – Cited authoritative judgments including Prem Bahadur Dalela, Ugrasen v. Parmeshwari Devi, and Ganga Ram v. Phulwati – Held: Sender need not examine postman unless presumption is rebutted [Paras 22–23]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Lease agreement rightly excluded from evidence due to lack of registration – Notice under Section 106 TPA deemed validly served by refusal – Order of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 24–25]

Municipal Employment – Daily Wage Workers – Regularization – Employer-Employee Relationship – Perennial Duties – Labour Contract Society Plea Unsupported – 28 Years of Continuous Service – Application of SC Judgment in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad – Award Granting SSR Wages and Regularization Upheld – Writ Appeal Dismissed [Paras 7–10].

Employment Law – Employer-Employee Relationship – Claim of engagement through Labour Contract Society rejected – Absence of any documentary proof of contractor engagement such as tenders, agreements, muster rolls or invoices – Wages paid directly by Municipality and work supervised by municipal officials – Held: Direct relationship established; appellant’s plea unsustainable [Paras 7(ii), 8–17, applied].

Labour Law – Perennial and Permanent Nature of Work – Workers engaged in water-supply operations continuously for 28 years – Work held to be essential, perennial and integral to municipal functioning – Daily-wage label cannot defeat legitimate claims of long-serving workers – Adverse inference permissible when employer withholds records [Paras 7(ii), 9, 8 (SC paras 11–15 referred)].

Regularization – Uma Devi Doctrine – Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments – Where engagement is long-term, work is perennial, and no valid contractor arrangement exists, regularization justified – Uma Devi cannot be used to perpetuate exploitation of daily wagers performing permanent duties – Followed: Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [Paras 8 (SC paras 14–17), 9].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Workers performing same duties as regular staff but paid less – Constitutes unfair labour practice – SSR wages rightly ordered by Industrial Tribunal – Tribunal’s award upheld by Single Judge and affirmed in appeal [Paras 8 (SC para 13), 9].

Industrial Disputes – Award of Industrial Tribunal – Tribunal’s finding that workmen entitled to SSR rates and regularization based on undisputed long service upheld – No perversity or legal infirmity found – High Court declines interference under writ appellate jurisdiction [Paras 7(i), 7(ii), 10].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Well-reasoned order of Single Judge affirming Tribunal’s award – No error of law or fact warranting interference – Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder – Extra-judicial confessions unreliable – CDR/tower-location unproved – No last-seen – Motive absent – Investigation defective – Chain incomplete – Acquittal – Prosecution failed to establish circumstances forming a complete chain consistent only with guilt; conviction unsustainable; benefit of doubt granted [Paras 8–45].

Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Panchsheel Principles – Court reiterates the five rules in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Hanumant; prosecution failed to prove each circumstance fully and conclusively; chain not unbroken [Paras 9–13].

Last Seen Theory – Not Established – No witness saw accused and deceased together close to the time of death; they left separately on morning of incident; time gap wide; possibility of third-party involvement not ruled out [Paras 14–17].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Unreliable – CDR Contradictions – Delay – Improper Conduct of Witnesses – PW1’s claim disproved by call logs; PW1 withheld information despite continuous phone contact with accused; PW4’s confession disclosure after 10 days held unnatural; tower data falsifies his version; confessions rejected [Paras 18–22, 36–38].

Electronic Evidence – CDR and Tower Data – Not Scientifically Proved – IO sought no tower coordinates, distances, or technical certification; interpretations based on assumptions; CDRs do not establish movement or presence of accused near scene; unreliable [Paras 22, 31–34].

Recovery of Dead Body – Not Valid Section 27 Discovery – Alleged information by accused to PW1 not proved; even if assumed, recovery alone not incriminating without corroborating links such as last-seen or forensic support [Paras 23, 38].

Motive – Not Proved – Alleged suspicion of wife’s fidelity unsupported by proximate conduct; no quarrel or abnormal behaviour on previous night; absence of motive weighs in favour of accused in a circumstantial case [Paras 25–26].

Abscondence – Weak Circumstance – Supreme Court holds abscondence alone cannot justify adverse inference; relevant only when supported by strong incriminating circumstances, which are absent here [Paras 27–29].

Forensic Evidence – No Biological Link to Accused – No DNA, fingerprints, footprints or biological material of accused found on ligature, body or scene; medical evidence establishes homicide but not identity of assailant [Paras 31–32].

Investigation – Slipshod – Major Omissions – Phones registered in names of third parties; their statements not recorded; no subscriber forms verified; tower-distance information not collected; CDR evidence rendered ineffective; investigation lacked scientific method [Paras 34–35].

Conduct of PW1 – Suppression of Material Facts – PW1 remained in phone contact with absconding accused but concealed this; his account of call at 6:30 p.m. contradicted by CDR; credibility doubtful [Para 36].

Other Witnesses – Contradictions – Falsified by Tower Data – PW2 contradicted himself; PW7 and PW8’s motorcycle-dropping stories inconsistent with tower-location pattern; PW4’s delayed disclosure held suspect; testimonies insufficient to establish involvement [Paras 22, 37].

Chain of Circumstances – Missing Links – Alternative Hypotheses Possible – Absence of last-seen, motive, forensic connection, reliable electronic evidence, and trustworthy confessions results in incomplete chain; suspicion cannot replace proof; benefit of doubt must follow [Paras 39–44].

Decision – Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC quashed; accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled; sureties discharged; fine refunded within eight weeks [Para 45].

Criminal Law - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Non-standard Quality Drug – Quashment of Complaint – Jurisdiction of Magistrate – Complaint filed against manufacturer alleging offence under Section 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act for manufacture of drug not of standard quality – Petitioner contended that offence falling under Chapter IV could be tried only by Court of Sessions in view of Section 32 – Held: Section 36-A provides for summary trial by Judicial Magistrate First Class specially empowered where punishment does not exceed three years – Saving clause under Section 32(2) applies – Chief Judicial Magistrate duly empowered under SRO 44 of 2006 competent to try the offence – Objection rejected [Paras 12–14].

Drugs Sample – Compliance with Section 23(4) – Supply of Sample to Manufacturer – Petitioner alleged non-furnishing of portion of drug sample by Drugs Inspector – Record showed that copy of test report and sample were furnished to petitioner vide communication dated 25.06.2012 – Petitioner responded disputing report and sought retesting – Sample retested by Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta and again found not of standard quality – Held: Mandatory requirement of Section 23(4) duly complied with – Plea factually incorrect [Paras 15–16].

Cognizance – Application of Mind – Validity of Order – Initial order of cognizance passed by Mobile Magistrate was cryptic – However, upon transfer of case, Chief Judicial Magistrate passed fresh order dated 17.10.2015 after considering allegations and material on record – Prima facie offence found and process issued – Held: Subsequent order reflects due application of mind and cures earlier defect – Challenge rejected [Paras 17–18].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Petition filed at advanced stage when trial was almost complete – No abuse of process or miscarriage of justice demonstrated – Held: No ground made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings [Paras 9, 19].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Criminal proceedings before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar upheld – Interim directions vacated [Para 19].