Corruption Law – Public Servant – Kerala Cricket Association – Applicability of PC Act – Office bearers of Kerala Cricket Association (KCA), a society affiliated with BCCI, challenged preliminary enquiry under PC Act, claiming they are not public servants – Single Judge allowed writs, holding KCA not bound by public duty under positive law – Division Bench held: KCA performs public functions and is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 – Definition of “public servant” includes those performing public duties regardless of formal government appointment – Office bearers of KCA fall under Section 2(c)(viii) and 2(c)(xii) of PC Act – Public function does not require formal State authorisation if it affects public interest and is supported by public funds – Impugned judgment set aside [Paras 5, 10–16].

Interpretation – Public Duty – Not Restricted to Statutorily Mandated Functions – Court clarified that public duty under PC Act is not confined to duties created by statute or government direction – Even private bodies exercising pervasive control over public interest areas (e.g. sports governance) may owe public accountability – Concept of public duty includes functional public trust – Widened interpretation upheld in line with international anti-corruption standards and UN Convention [Paras 9, 12–15].

Criminal Law – Quashing FIR – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – FIRs Against KCA Officials Not Interfered With – Allegations involved receipt of undue pecuniary advantage and financial assistance from State – Complaints made out ingredients under PC Act – Court declined to quash FIRs or proceedings before Special Courts – Also held: No vagueness in statutory definition of "public duty" under PC Act [Paras 17–18].

Decision: All writ appeals allowed – Impugned judgment of learned Single Judge set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Criminal proceedings before Special Courts to continue as per law [Final Para].

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Plaintiff’s Discretion – In a suit for permanent injunction and compensation filed by the petitioner, third-party villagers claiming communal interest in the land were permitted to be impleaded as defendants by the Trial Court – Court below justified the order only on ground of avoiding multiplicity of litigation – Held: Plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead parties against whom no relief is sought – Where existing defendants have already raised identical pleas, presence of third-party interveners is not necessary – No independent stand or distinct legal interest shown by proposed parties – Impleadment held unjustified [Paras 7, 10-15].

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC – Scope – Addition of parties permissible only if necessary for effective adjudication – Repetition of existing pleadings by proposed parties not a valid ground – Trial Court failed to give cogent reasoning or satisfy test of necessity – Impleadment solely to prevent future litigation not a legally sustainable basis [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Plaintiff as Dominus Litis – Right to Choose Adversary – Plaintiff not claiming relief against third-party applicants – Law settled that plaintiff is the master of the suit – Addition of parties must be judicially justified and cannot be compelled by opposing defendants – Cited Supreme Court and High Court rulings reaffirm this legal position [Paras 7, 12].

Distinguished Case Law – Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 distinguished – Impleadment in that case arose at execution stage and was based on Commissioner's report – Held not applicable to trial-stage impleadment where no relief is claimed against proposed parties [Para 13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Trial Court's order permitting impleadment set aside – Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by third-party villagers dismissed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Reversal of Acquittal – Accused Gulab stabbed victim Raju during a scuffle while co-accused held the victim – Trial Court acquitted all four accused citing inconsistencies and lack of recovery – High Court held that intention to kill was not clearly made out but injury with sharp weapon and testimony of injured victim established offence under Section 324 IPC – Judgment of acquittal set aside – All accused convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 1–30]

Evidence – Injured Witness – Credibility – Testimony of injured Raju (PW-2) corroborated by PW-3 and PW-4 – Minor inconsistencies and contradictions in witness accounts held immaterial – High Court reaffirmed principle that injured witnesses are generally more reliable and their testimony cannot be discarded lightly in absence of major contradictions [Paras 13–19]

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Scope – Co-accused held victim while main assailant delivered knife blow – Though there was no pre-planned attack, co-accused did not prevent the stabbing and facilitated the act – Held: Their conduct established common intention to cause injury – All liable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 24–28]

Investigation – Defective Investigation – Lapses in seizure, non-examination of public witnesses, and recovery of weapon – Held: Such lapses, though present, were not fatal to prosecution case – Credible evidence from victim and corroborative testimony sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 22–23]

Sentence – Delay and Time Already Undergone – Incident occurred in 1998 – Appeal pending since 2002 – Accused had spent some time in custody during trial – Considering long passage of time, High Court sentenced accused to period already undergone [Para 31]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – All four accused convicted under Section 324/34 IPC – Sentenced to period already undergone – Appeal disposed of.

Service Law – Terminal Benefits – Right to Gratuity – Delay in Payment – Liability of Employer – Withholding of terminal dues of retired employees on ground that PACS had not remitted its share to DCCB – Petitioners, all senior citizens, rendered unblemished service and retired between 2009 and 2013 – Held: Right to gratuity is a statutory and enforceable right under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act – Delay in payment without legal justification violates Sections 4 and 7 – Interest @10% awarded from due date till payment [Paras 24–28].

Administrative Law – State Liability – Article 12 Entities – DCCB and PACS held to be 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution – Financial incapacity of PACS cannot be accepted as defence against statutory obligation – Both entities held jointly and severally liable – Respondents directed to release terminal dues within 8 weeks with liberty to recover inter-se [Paras 34–36, 41(i)-(ii)].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 and Article 300-A – Right to Property and Livelihood – Denial of pensionary and terminal dues without due process held violative of Articles 21 and 300-A – Refusal to disburse terminal benefits without lawful justification affects right to dignity and life – Reference made to SC precedents in Deokinandan Prasad, D.S. Nakara, Gagan Bihari Prusty – Right to pension and gratuity treated as enforceable constitutional property right [Paras 29–33, 39].

Elderly Rights – Protection of Senior Citizens – Petitioners aged and vulnerable – Court deprecated prolonged denial of retirement benefits and noted decline in societal values concerning dignity of aged persons – Stressed need to uphold welfare of retired employees who served without blemish – Symbolic costs of ₹10,000 imposed on each respondent in favour of petitioners [Paras 37–38, 41(iii)].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – DCCB directed to release all terminal benefits with 10% interest within 8 weeks – Liberty to recover share from PACS – Respondents directed to pay ₹10,000 each as costs to petitioners – Delay and financial incapacity no ground to deny statutory and constitutional entitlements [Paras 41–42].

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent Based on Promise of Marriage – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 415 IPC for allegedly raping the complainant under a false promise of marriage – Evidence revealed complainant was above 20 years at the time of the incident – Admitted romantic relationship between the parties – Repeated sexual acts over time without immediate complaint – No medical or documentary evidence of pregnancy or abortion – No proof that promise of marriage was false from inception – Held: Consent was not obtained under misconception of fact – Physical relationship was consensual – Conviction for rape and cheating unsustainable – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 17–34, 38–50, 52].

Delay in Complaint – Continued Relationship – Effect on Credibility – No prompt complaint made despite alleged repeated sexual assault – Continued voluntary association of complainant with the accused over 2–3 years – Conduct inconsistent with allegation of rape – Held: Long silence and continued physical intimacy undermine veracity of claim – Raises strong presumption of consensual relationship [Paras 24, 32–34, 45–46].

False Promise of Marriage – Distinction Between Breach of Promise and Deception – Reiterated that not every breach of promise results in rape – False promise must be shown to be mala fide from inception – Where relationship is consensual and failure to marry occurs later due to unforeseen reasons, offence of rape not made out – Evidence showed relationship was affectionate, with intention to marry, though marriage ultimately did not happen [Paras 28–30, 49–51].

Medical Evidence – Non-examination of Material Witness – Effect – Victim alleged abortion due to pregnancy from accused – Claimed herbal medicine was given by one Bina Devi – Prosecution failed to examine Bina Devi or produce medical proof of pregnancy or abortion – Held: Serious gap in prosecution case – Adverse inference drawn for non-examination of crucial witness under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act [Paras 38–41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant discharged from bail bonds – Directed to furnish bail under Section 437A CrPC for six months.

Criminal Law – Rape under Section 376 IPC – POCSO – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Refusal – Child Witness – Material Contradictions – Tutoring Not Ruled Out – Matrimonial Discord Between Parents – Possibility of False Implication – Trial Court’s View Reasonable – Double Presumption of Innocence – No Interference Warranted [Paras 4–7, 10–14, 18–19].

Child Witness – Evidentiary Caution – Multiple Statements (Exs. P-1 to P-3) Contradictory as to Location, Manner of Occurrence, Presence of Family Members – Statements Recorded in Presence of Mother After She Took Custody Amid Matrimonial Litigation – Held, possibility of tutoring established; reliance cannot be placed without corroboration [Paras 4–6, 8–9, 14–17].

Medical Evidence – Torn Hymen – Inconclusive – No Lacerations, No Redness, No Irritation – Cause Could Be Non-Sexual Activities Including Cycling, Trauma – History Provided Mainly by Mother – Held, medical evidence not supportive of prosecution version as alleged [Para 7].

Matrimonial Dispute – Motive for False Implication – Mother living separately for 5 years, multiple cases between spouses, child abandoned—accused was husband’s brother – FIR lodged only after mother forcibly took child – Held, circumstances create serious doubt about prosecution case [Paras 4, 6, 8–13].

Appellate Interference with Acquittal – Principles – Only if Trial Court view is perverse or impossible – Here, appreciation of evidence was proper; discrepancies material; possible view taken – Double presumption of innocence applies – Leave declined [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed [Para 19].

Property Law – Title – Ancestral Property – Declaration of Ownership – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff Failed to Prove Exclusive Title – Plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership over 'B' schedule property based on oral partition with his brother and subsequent possession – Defendant contended 1/3rd share through father Natarajan, son of third wife of original owner Sepoy Kali – Trial court decreed suit – First appellate court reversed – High Court held plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proving that Natarajan was not legitimate heir – No independent evidence was led to disprove defendant’s lineage – Existence of patta, death certificates (Ex.B2 & B3), and a prior partition decree in O.S. No.235/2013 in favour of defendant remain unchallenged – Held: Plaintiff’s claim to exclusive title untenable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7-15].

Evidence Law – Burden of Proof – Relationship and Inheritance – Onus on Party Asserting Non-Existence of Heirship – Plaintiff challenged legitimacy of defendant’s father Natarajan as heir of Sepoy Kali – Held: Burden lies on plaintiff to disprove marriage of Sepoy Kali with Kullammal and legitimacy of Natarajan – Absence of birth or marriage certificates not fatal to defendant’s case when supported by revenue records and unchallenged partition decree – Findings of appellate court not perverse [Paras 8-14].

Civil Procedure – Possession – Injunction – Trespass Allegation Not Proved – Revenue Records Support Defendant – Plaintiff alleged trespass in July 2012 – Suit filed in 2013 – No concrete evidence of trespass or action to remove defendant’s name from revenue records – Defendant’s possession held lawful pending partition – Court refused mandatory injunction and possession relief [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court in A.S. No.1 of 2018 upheld – Plaintiff not entitled to declaration or possession – No costs awarded.

Partition Suit – Nature of Property – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6 vs. Section 8 – Plaintiff claimed that her grandfather’s properties were self-acquired and sought partition—Defendants contended that the properties were ancestral and already partitioned by a registered deed dated 19.12.1973—Held: Plaintiff failed to prove that properties were self-acquired—Father of plaintiff died before commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Properties held to be ancestral—Daughter not entitled to claim under Section 8—Registered partition of 1973 satisfied Section 6(5) Explanation—No right to reopen partition—Point No.1 answered against appellant [Paras 13–20].

Partial Partition and Non-Joinder – Though plaintiff attacked 1973 partition, she sought division only of properties allotted to her father, not those of her uncle—Such conduct amounts to admission of the earlier partition—Trial Court erred in treating the suit as bad for partial partition and non-joinder—Held: Finding on partial partition and non-joinder set aside—Point No.2 in favour of plaintiff [Para 21].

Limitation – Knowledge of Partition – Article 113 Limitation Act – Plaintiff claimed ignorance of 1973 partition until 2020—Cross-examination revealed awareness of partition during brother’s lifetime—Suit filed after nearly 50 years—Held: Even applying Article 113, cause of action arose in 1973—Claim extinguished under Section 27 of Limitation Act—Suit barred by limitation—Point No.3 against appellant [Paras 22–25].

Appeal – Maintainability – Decree of Dismissal – Trial Court rightly dismissed the claim as time-barred and unsupported by evidence—Appeal dismissed—No order as to costs in view of close family relationship [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court affirmed – No order as to costs.

Armed Forces – Recruitment – Medical Disqualification – Liver Function – Petitioner disqualified from Agniveervayu selection process due to abnormal liver function tests – Medical guidelines under Clause 83 of the Manual of Medical Examinations specify disqualification only in cases such as Grade II/III fatty liver, SOL, or portal hypertension – Court held: Mere abnormal LFTs without other listed conditions not a ground for rejection – Directions issued for fresh medical examination to determine applicability of disqualifying conditions [Paras 1, 4–5]

Administrative Law – Interpretation of Medical Guidelines – Para 3.5.3 of the Manual cited by respondents outlines procedural safeguards but does not override substantive criteria in Clause 83 – Court held that Clause 83(b) provides exhaustive list of disqualifications – Respondents unable to justify deviation from it [Paras 2–3]

Remedies – Re-examination – In view of improper application of disqualification criteria, Court directed R&R Hospital to constitute a Medical Board with a hepatologist/gastroenterologist to examine the petitioner – Outcome to determine further recruitment action – Petitioner undertakes to abide by the report’s findings [Paras 5–7]

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with direction for re-examination by a medical board at Army Research & Referral Hospital – Further recruitment process to proceed subject to the outcome of medical evaluation.