Consumer Rights – Service Charge in Restaurants – Guidelines under CPA, 2019 – Upheld – CCPA guidelines prohibiting mandatory levy of service charge held valid – The Court upheld the guidelines issued by CCPA barring mandatory collection of service charge, observing that such charges cannot be imposed coercively, and must be voluntary – Held: Such mandatory collection is deceptive, amounts to unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of CPA, and violates consumer rights – CCPA empowered under Section 18(2)(l) to issue binding guidelines in the interest of consumers [Paras 83-85, 174(i), 174(iii)(iv)]. 
 
Freedom of Trade – Article 19(1)(g) vs. Consumer Interest – Reasonable Restriction – Upheld – The guidelines were found not to infringe Article 19(1)(g) as they imposed reasonable restrictions in public interest – Court held the limitation on the restaurant’s right to impose service charges was proportional and constitutional – Larger interest of consumers prevailed over business interests of establishments [Paras 83-85, 174(ii)]. 
 
Contract Law – Unconscionable Contracts – Service Charge Clause – Invalid – Even if a customer accepts service charge knowing its inclusion on the menu, the resulting contract is not enforceable – Court ruled the unequal bargaining power and lack of real choice renders such contracts void as unfair and unconscionable under the CPA [Paras 99-101]. 
 
Statutory Backing – Guidelines of CCPA – Binding Nature – Upheld – The Court held that guidelines issued under Section 18(2)(l) of the CPA, 2019 are binding and not merely advisory – The statutory scheme envisages enforcement of such guidelines through penal provisions under Section 88 of the Act [Paras 73-75, 136-138, 174(i)]. 
 
Misleading Practices – Terminology and Lack of Transparency – Service 
Charge Illegal – The use of terms like “levy” and “service charge” was held to be misleading and deceptive to consumers – The absence of visible and transparent disclosure of service charge violated the consumer’s right to know 
– Held to constitute unfair trade practice under CPA [Paras 170-171, 174(iv)]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Guidelines Validated – The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the restaurant associations and upheld the validity and enforceability of the guidelines issued by CCPA – Declared that the service charge must be voluntary and any mandatory imposition would be illegal [Para 174]. 
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Valid Loan Transaction and Dishonoured Cheque – Conviction Upheld - The petitioner contended that no loan was availed and the cheque was misused – The Court upheld concurrent findings of both courts holding that the accused had availed Rs.1 crore as loan and had issued cheque (Ex.P4) and acknowledgment (Ex.P2 & Ex.P3) – Defence that cheque was issued to one Santhosh for a smaller loan was found unsubstantiated and lacking in evidence – Conviction confirmed [Paras 10-19]. 
 
Evidence – Admission by Accused – Presumption not Rebutted - The accused admitted execution of crucial documents including Ex.P2 (consideration receipt), Ex.P3 (confirmation of balance), and Ex.P4 (dishonoured cheque) – No independent evidence was led to prove the defence that the cheque was given to Santhosh – Admission of execution and failure to examine Santhosh undermined the defence – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. 
Act stood unrebutted [Paras 14-18]. 
 
Power of Attorney – Substitution of GPA Holder – No Illegality - The petitioner contended that PW1 lacked authority due to subsequent substitution of GPA holder – The Court held that Ex.P1 continued to be valid as no material showed its withdrawal – PW1 was competent to depose on behalf of the complainant – The contention was rejected [Paras 11, 17-18]. 
 
Revision – Limited Scope – No Perversity Found – Dismissed - The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent illegality or perversity – Since both courts properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence, no interference was warranted – Revision dismissed [Para 19]. 
 
 

NDPS Bail – Prima Facie Evidence – Bail Rejected – The petitioner challenged her custody on the ground that her statement under Section 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible and the seizure was procedurally defective – The Court held that independent of the Section 67 statement, there were sufficient prima facie materials including parcel bearing petitioner’s name and number, deleted images of the parcel from her mobile, and links to other accused – Bail refused considering seriousness of offence and applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 3-6]. 
 
Section 52A Compliance – Not a Ground for Bail at Pre-trial Stage – Relying on NCB vs. Md. Kasif, the Court reiterated that compliance lapses under Section 52A NDPS Act, including inventory certification and sample taking, are procedural and to be tested at trial – Such irregularities alone do not justify bail at the pretrial stage [Paras 5-6]. 
 
Evidence Act Compliance – Hash Values and Digital Certificates – Left Open for Trial – The petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to file proper digital certificates under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam for Call Detail Records and mobile forensic reports – The Court held that such objections pertain to evidentiary appreciation and must be adjudicated during trial, not at bail stage [Paras 6]. 
 
Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Considering the petitioner’s role, prima facie evidence and involvement in an international drug racket, bail prayer rejected – Trial court directed to expedite the trial after splitting the record against absconding accused [Paras 6-8]. 
 

Criminal Procedure – Challenge to Cognizance – Revision Already Dismissed – 482 Application Dismissed – The applicants sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 01.03.2024 on the ground of jurisdiction, alleging that the FIR was beyond territorial jurisdiction and constituted a second FIR – The Court found that the challenge had already been rejected in revision by a coordinate bench on merits and the dismissal had attained finality – The plea was not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 1-19]. 
 
Absconding     Accused     –     Non-cooperation     in Investigation – Inherent Powers Not Invokable – The Court held that the applicants, having absconded throughout the investigation and failed to appear despite issuance of non-bailable warrants and Red Corner Notices, were disentitled to invoke the Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot be used to circumvent the regular criminal process [Paras 19-21]. 
 
Inherent Powers – Discretion to be Exercised Sparingly – Petition Rejected – The Court reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly and cannot be granted to those who flout court processes – Applicants’ conduct of avoiding investigation and trial disentitled them from relief [Paras 20-22]. 
 
Decision – Application Dismissed – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Court refused to interfere with the criminal proceedings or the cognizance order challenged by the applicants [Para 22]. 
 

Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted - Applicants had undergone pre-trial incarceration for over 13 years without conclusion of the trial – The Court held that such prolonged detention amounts to pre-trial punishment and violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – The trial was stalled due to multiple pending applications and indefinite delay – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2-8, 16-28]. 
 Parity Principle – Identical Role as Co-Accused – Bail Allowed - The Applicants demonstrated that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail earlier – The Court accepted the plea of parity and held that denial of bail in such circumstances would amount to unequal treatment [Paras 4.2, 28]. 
 
Medical Grounds – Consideration under HIV Act – Applicant No.2's Bail Supported - Applicant No.2, being HIV positive, invoked Section 34(2) of the HIV Act which mandates priority in disposal of cases concerning HIV positive persons – The Court took judicial notice of his health condition while granting bail [Paras 4.3, 28]. 
 
Bail Principles – Article 21 – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – Reiterated - Relying on settled precedents, including Satender Kumar Antil, Maneka Gandhi, and Gudikanti Narasimhulu, the Court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception – Long incarceration without trial violates constitutional guarantees of liberty [Paras 12-17]. 
 
Decision – Bail Granted - Applicants released on bail subject to strict conditions to ensure presence at trial and prevent interference with the evidence – Application allowed [Paras 2830]. 
 

Civil Law - Land Dispute – Claim of Succession – Section 171 UPZA & LR Act – Relationship Not Established – Petitioner claimed inheritance rights over land previously held by Ruda Singh – Claimed to be nephew through maternal line – Court held: No reliable documentary or oral evidence was filed to establish familial relationship – Certificate from Gram Pradhan found vague and unauthorized – Earlier order vesting land in State unchallenged for decades – Held: No succession right established [Paras 3, 14, 21, 39– 44, 56–63]. 
 
Consolidation Proceedings – Effect of Prior Orders – Order Vesting Land in State Remained Unchallenged – Despite initiation of consolidation in 1995, earlier order dated 17.09.1984 under Section 194 UPZA & LR Act vesting land in State was never properly challenged – Revision against consequential order dismissed – Consolidation authorities erred in ignoring prior final order – Deputy Director rightly rectified error [Paras 9, 26, 41–48, 55, 69–71]. 
 
Pleadings and Conduct – Suppression and Contradictory Claims – Petitioner filed multiple objections under Section 9-A(2) with inconsistent grounds—initially on succession, later on unregistered will – No evidence of will brought – Serious discrepancies in age, identity documents, signatures, and name aliases found – Execution of gift deeds soon after name entry recorded in revenue record raised suspicion – Petitioner acting as proxy for third party with history of land grabbing – Held: Petition tainted by concealment, lacks merit [Paras 24–25, 52–54, 64–68, 70]. 
 
Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Deputy Director of Consolidation’s order upheld – Earlier unchallenged order of land vesting in State prevails – Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer erred in granting rights to petitioner without examining credibility and prior orders – Interim order vacated – Costs made easy [Paras 69–71]. 
 
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against conviction – Appellant (A1) convicted by Trial Court under Sections 302, 201, 420, 380, and 120-B IPC for the alleged murder of the deceased, his employer and relative – Allegation of staging accident using a car to eliminate deceased due to business rivalry – High Court found major contradictions in witness testimonies, missing crucial link in chain of circumstances – Prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the alleged crime vehicle (MO.1) at the instance of A1 – Hostile and unreliable witness (PW.21) and conflicting testimonies of PW.12 and PW.25 regarding vehicle repair and seizure – Delay and gaps in investigation, non-examination of key witnesses like the real car buyer, and discrepancies regarding the vehicle number and possession – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 16 to 47].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions – PW.1 (wife of the deceased) alleged motive based on financial disputes and missing diary – PW.1's deposition found to be improved during trial compared to earlier statements to police – PW.2 and PW.4’s statements about disputes and missing diary also marked by improvements and contradictions – Evidence of PW.8 and PW.16 about alleged collection of Rs. 3 lakhs after the deceased’s death inconsistent and contradicted by their own depositions – Suspicion cannot substitute legal proof – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 48 to 54].

Circumstantial Evidence – Seizure of MO.1 Vehicle – Seizure allegedly based on A1's confession – PW.21, one of the panch witnesses, turned hostile – PW.25’s version about seizure location contradicts prosecution case – PW.9 clarified that A1 was not the owner of the shop from where the car was allegedly seized – PW.13 testified that A1 had sold the car long before the incident – Delay in vehicle inspection and unexplained circumstances surrounding its possession raised serious doubt – Evidence insufficient to prove that MO.1 was used in the crime or linked to A1 – Held: Chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete [Paras 20 to 46].

Motive – Disputes regarding financial dealings, alleged recovery of Rs. 20 lakh, and alleged theft of diary – No documentary evidence submitted regarding loan to Madhusudhan Reddy or recovery from A1 – Failure to recover the diary or prove A1’s exclusive access to it – Alleged motive remained uncorroborated and speculative – Held: Absence of motive further weakens the prosecution case [Paras 48 to 54].

Principle of Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Reaffirmed that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof – The chain of circumstances must be complete and lead only to the hypothesis of guilt – Relying on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam – Held: Prosecution failed to establish conclusive proof [Paras 55-56].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant (A1) acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Para 58].
 

NDPS Act – Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Commercial Quantity – Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Accused in custody since 31.10.2023 for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)A, 22(c), and 25 of NDPS Act – Trial pending before Additional Sessions Judge-V, Thiruvananthapuram – Petitioner seeks bail citing prolonged incarceration and delay in trial – Held: Though commercial quantity is involved, prolonged incarceration due to prosecution’s laches militates against Article 21 – Petitioner can approach Trial Court for bail in light of Apex Court precedents [Paras 2, 4, 5, 6–11]. 
 
Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 vs Section 37 NDPS Act – Accused in custody for more than 20 months – Court observed that prolonged incarceration without fault of the accused violates Article 21 – Referenced SC decisions in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of M.P., Nitish Adhikary v. State of W.B., and Hasanujjaman v. State of W.B. which held that delay in trial caused solely by prosecution can override rigour of Section 37 NDPS – Also relied on Kerala HC’s own precedent in Shuaib A.S. v. State of Kerala [Paras 6–11]. 
 
Trial Delay – Prosecution's Lapses – Prosecution failed to cite all necessary witnesses initially – After examining existing witnesses, prosecution filed petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon more witnesses without clear purpose – Petition was dismissed; prosecution later given another chance to file proper petition – Delay attributed solely to prosecution, not to accused – Such delay justified consideration of bail despite Section 37 bar [Paras 9–11]. 
 
Decision: Bail application disposed – Petitioner allowed to file fresh bail application before Trial Court – Trial Court directed to consider bail on merits applying principles laid down by SC and HC in cited cases – To be decided within two weeks of application [Para 10]. 
 

Criminal Law - Abduction for Ransom – Conspiracy and Execution – Section 364A, 120B IPC – Conviction Upheld - The appellants conspired and executed the abduction of Partha Roy Burman, inflicting gunshot injuries during the kidnapping and detained him at a secluded location to demand ransom – Multiple prosecution witnesses, including PW31 and PW32 (cooks), PW33 (co-accused turned prosecution witness), and PW35-PW55 (official and medical witnesses) corroborated the pre-planning, execution, custody of the victim, and ransom transaction – Held: The prosecution successfully proved the conspiracy and abduction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-10, 23-31, 35-45].

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Reliability of Other Evidence – Conviction Not Vitiated - Although some key witnesses, including PW26 (victim) and relatives like PW20, PW22, PW23 turned hostile, their testimonies regarding initial facts and identification of injuries, along with other documentary and corroborative evidence like seizure lists, forensic reports, voice samples, and confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC, stood consistent and reliable – Held: Conviction sustainable even when certain witnesses turned hostile [Paras 31-38, 53-55, 66-67].

Electronic and Forensic Evidence – Admissibility and Reliability – Voice Samples and Footprint Matches – Audio cassette recordings of ransom calls matched with the voices of appellants as confirmed by CFSL expert (PW67) – Footprint evidence also corroborated the presence of appellants at relevant places – Held: Properly proved and relied upon [Paras 66-69, 73-77].

Abduction for Ransom – Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 364A and 120B IPC – Conviction Upheld - Prosecution proved that appellants hatched a conspiracy to abduct Partho Roy Burman for ransom through meetings, arrangement of hideouts and vehicles, and execution of the abduction with the use of arms – Conspiracy corroborated by direct evidence of PW31, PW32, and PW33 who were privy to planning meetings, distribution of roles and captivity of the victim – Victim was injured, confined at Bhoot Bunglow, and released after ransom payment – Held: Appellants participated actively in the conspiracy and execution, warranting conviction [Paras 105-120].

Test Identification Parade – Delay – Non-fatal – Delay in conducting TIP explained due to appellants being absconders – Appellants identified both in TIP and by prosecution witnesses who had seen them repeatedly during conspiracy meetings and captivity of the victim – Held: TIP delay does not vitiate identification when corroborated by substantive evidence [Paras 99-128].

Evidence of Approvers – PW31, PW32, PW33 – Acceptable and Reliable – Appellants challenged credibility of PW31, PW32, and PW33 as approvers – Court held that they were not chance witnesses but insiders to conspiracy, who lived with the accused for substantial periods – Their depositions were consistent, corroborated by independent circumstances and other witnesses – Held: Evidence of these approvers reliable [Paras 113-120].

Electronic Evidence – Compliance with Section 65B – Voice Samples, Emails, Audio Cassettes – Prosecution relied on intercepted calls, emails, and audio tapes – Although formal certificate under Section 65B was partly absent, electronic records collected under Section 27, proved through official witnesses, and corroborated by oral evidence were held admissible – Court distinguished between primary and secondary electronic evidence and applied substantial compliance doctrine – Held: Electronic evidence validly relied upon [Paras 134-138].

Delay in Recording Statements – Defence Argument Rejected – Delay caused due to appellants absconding for long periods and bifurcation of trial – Court accepted prosecution’s explanation and held that delay did not prejudice the defence – Held: Conviction cannot be vitiated on this ground [Paras 129-133].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Complete – Defence plea of incomplete chain rejected – Court found complete chain of circumstances established through eyewitnesses, recovery of articles, forensic reports, and testimonies of key witnesses PW31, PW32, PW33 and others – Held: Conspiracy, execution, ransom demand, payment, and release of victim proved beyond doubt [Paras 120-140].

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Appellant Akhtar Hossain – Acquitted – Evidence insufficient to link Akhtar Hossain to supply of arms or direct participation – No evidence of his presence at Bhoot Bunglow or conspiracy meetings – Held: Conviction not sustainable against Akhtar Hossain – He is acquitted [Paras 141-143].

Final Decision – Convictions of all other appellants confirmed – Life imprisonment and fine upheld for Noor Mohammed @ Shahbaz, Jalal Molla @ Omar, Mizanur Rahman @ Shahjahan, Mujammel Sk. @ Akram, Ishaque Ahmed @ Dilsad, Arshad Khan, Tariq Mehmood @ Nayeem – Akhtar Hossain acquitted – Connected applications dismissed [Paras 141-144].