Corruption Law – Quashing of FIR – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR for disproportionate assets – Allegations against petitioner No.1 of acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Preliminary enquiry not mandatory in all corruption cases – FIR upheld despite lack of preliminary enquiry – Supreme Court precedents on preliminary enquiry and FIR registration discussed – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Preliminary Enquiry – Requirement and Scope – Preliminary enquiry not always required before FIR in corruption cases – Sufficient material in source report justifying FIR registration – Petitioners argued lack of preliminary enquiry and challenged asset valuation – Court found source report detailed and prima facie case made out – Cites multiple Supreme Court judgments affirming FIR registration without preliminary enquiry [Paras 4-20].

Disproportionate Assets – Burden of Proof – Accused’s burden to explain disproportionate assets – Court emphasized investigating officer’s role limited to collecting evidence – Held preliminary enquiry not mandatory in all cases of disproportionate assets – Investigation and evidence evaluation to occur during trial, not at FIR stage [Paras 18-24].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Court found FIR and subsequent investigation justified based on substantial material evidencing disproportionate assets – Preliminary enquiry deemed non-mandatory under current legal standards.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 CrPC – Complaint under Section 138 of NI Act – Chief Financial Officer's Liability – Dismissal of Petition

Quashing Petition – Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act against petitioner, Chief Financial Officer of Accused No.1 company – Petitioner contends liability cannot be based solely on being signatory of the cheque – Rejection of petition on grounds of sufficient averments against petitioner being in charge and responsible for conduct of company’s business at the relevant time [Paras 2-7, 15-18].

Liability under NI Act – Supreme Court precedent in S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan emphasized – Persons signing cheque or having authority to sign can be assumed responsible for company’s business – Petitioner's role as Chief Financial Officer and signatory satisfies Section 141 NI Act requirements [Paras 10-12, 15].

Section 28 NI Act Argument – Petitioner's argument based on Section 28 NI Act (agent signing without indicating role) found inapplicable – Complaint correctly framed under Section 141 NI Act, focusing on petitioner’s responsibility and charge over company’s business [Paras 6, 16-17].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – Petition dismissed with the complaint fulfilling the Section 141 NI Act requirements – No merit in petitioner's submissions, including reference to Sivagurunatha Pillai judgment – No impact on petitioner’s defense in trial court [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Conviction and Sentence – Appeal against conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Allegations of demanding and accepting bribe by a Sub-Inspector from the complainant for favoring him in a case investigation – Prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt – Inconsistencies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Non-production of crucial evidence like the bribe money and the scooter during the trial – Benefit of doubt given to the appellant – Conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 1-45]

**Proof of Demand – Analysis – Held – Demand of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Mere recovery of currency notes not sufficient without proof of demand – Prosecution's evidence inconsistent and contradictory – Legal presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act not applicable in absence of proven demand. [Paras 14-32]

**Acceptance and Recovery of Bribe – Insufficient Evidence – Held – Prosecution failed to produce the case property (scooter and keys) during the trial – No independent public witnesses involved during the recovery – Doubtful recovery of currency notes – Prosecution failed to establish acceptance and recovery of bribe conclusively. [Paras 33-38]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appeal allowed – Appellant acquitted of charges under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Judgment of conviction and sentence by the trial court reversed due to lack of sufficient evidence proving demand and acceptance of bribe. [Paras 43-45]

Criminal Law – Right to Access Documents under CrPC and POCSO Act – Affidavit Requirement by Special Judge – Held Unwarranted – Accused’s Right to Certified Copies Upheld – The High Court of Kerala quashed the order of the Special Judge directing the petitioner’s counsel to file an affidavit stating that the copy of the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC would not be misused. The Court held that the accused has a statutory right under Section 207 CrPC to access relevant documents, including statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, without such conditions, as the statutory provisions and Supreme Court directives sufficiently safeguard the interests of victims. [Paras 1-14].

Constitutional Law – Right to Practice Profession – Protection of Legal Practitioners’ Duties – The High Court emphasized that imposing conditions on lawyers without any foundation is an interference in their right to practice, which is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and governed by the Advocates’ Act. The Court held that lawyers, as officers of the court, are expected to perform their duties legally and ethically, and unnecessary apprehensions should not lead to imposing unwarranted conditions. [Paras 13-14].

Evidence Evaluation – Safeguards Against Misuse of Victim’s Statements – Adequacy of Existing Legal Provisions – The Court noted that various statutory provisions, including Section 228-A IPC, Sections 23 and 33(7) of the POCSO Act, and the IT Act, along with Supreme Court directives in cases like Sakshi v. Union of India and Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, provide adequate protection against the misuse of victims' statements and identity disclosure. Therefore, additional affidavits were deemed unnecessary. [Paras 4-12].

Decision – Quashing of Special Judge’s Order – Directive for Issuance of Certified Copies – The Court directed the Special Judge to issue certified copies of the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC to the petitioner forthwith, reaffirming the accused’s right to these documents under Section 207 CrPC and Section 31 of the POCSO Act. [Para 14].

Rent Control – Eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act upheld – Challenge in High Court against eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller – Ownership and jural relationship of tenancy not disputed by tenants – Tenants failed to file written statement and cross-examine respondent – Court found no infirmity in the eviction order – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Eviction petition by landlord claiming ownership through registered sale deed and family settlement – Tenants' challenge based on ownership and availability of alternate accommodation – Court held family settlement valid despite being unregistered – Tenants' failure to provide evidence of alternate accommodation – Eviction order upheld. [Paras 2-9]

Evidence Evaluation – Tenants admitted pleadings and evidence of respondent unchallenged – Family settlement accepted as documentary record – Ownership through sale deed and family settlement deemed sufficient – Petitioners did not utilize opportunity to challenge evidence. [Paras 3, 6-8, 10]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The eviction petition is upheld due to unchallenged evidence and pleadings, with no infirmity found in the Additional Rent Controller's order. [Paras 10-11]

Service Law – Trifurcation of Directorate General of Security (DGS) – Reorganization and Pay Parity – Petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order directing resolution of service condition disparities among ministerial staff post-trifurcation – Tribunal’s directive to devise a package and rectify lacunae affirmed – Relief limited to addressing pay grade disparity for Assistants.

Discrimination in Service Conditions – Held – Tribunal’s decision to remand matter to the Union of India for informed decision on grade pay of ₹4,600/- to Assistants in SSB upheld – Parity in pay with counterparts in ARC and SFF mandated – Petitioners to implement within three months – Tribunal’s broader directives for equitable treatment endorsed but specific prayer for 15% special allowance not pressed by respondents. [Paras 53-58]

Decision – Tribunal’s Order Upheld – Petition dismissed with direction to the Union of India to comply with Tribunal’s instructions regarding pay parity for Assistants in SSB – Applications for impleadment of additional parties dismissed as they were not parties before the Tribunal. [Paras 51-61]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Petitioners seeking police protection from petitioner No.1’s family and protection for attending marriage registration under Special Marriage Act – Held – Marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman under Special Marriage Act does not validate the marriage under personal laws, which consider such marriage irregular (fasid) – Petitioners are not entitled to police protection solely for the purpose of solemnizing such marriage – Reliefs sought for non-registration of criminal case denied – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Marriage Laws – Inter-religious Marriage – Special Marriage Act – Legal Validity – Analysis – Marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman without conversion remains an irregular (fasid) marriage under Muslim personal law – Such marriage cannot be validated by registration under Special Marriage Act – Personal law supersedes statutory provisions in validating such marriages – Consummation of fasid marriage does not create mutual inheritance rights. [Paras 12-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – No protection for inter-religious marriage without conversion under Special Marriage Act – Marriage remains irregular under personal law – Petition for police protection and preventing criminal proceedings against petitioner No.2 denied – Petition dismissed. [Paras 16-17]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Petition for quashing FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, and relevant sections of the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Adhiniyam 2005 – FIR related to misuse of JCB machine for manual labor work under MGNREGA – Petitioner retired and no charge-sheet filed – Provisions of Rule 9(3) of Pension Rules, 1976 applied – Held, no judicial proceedings initiated within four years from the FIR registration – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed. [Paras 1-14]

Application of Rule 9(3) of Pension Rules, 1976 – Analysis – Held – Proceedings initiated after more than four years from FIR registration, post retirement – Violation of statutory provision – Judicial proceedings cannot be initiated after retirement for acts done beyond four years – Charge-sheet not filed, rendering judicial proceedings non-instituted. [Para 4, 10]

Facts and Irregularity – Not Embezzlement – Held – No mens rea or criminal intent – Work executed via JCB paid appropriately – No misappropriation for personal gain – FIR reflects payment and method – Departmental inquiry gave clean chit – Only procedural irregularity, not criminality. [Para 5, 8, 12-13]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Subsequent Proceedings – FIR and subsequent legal proceedings quashed based on Rule 9(3) of Pension Rules, absence of criminal intent, and clean chit from departmental inquiry – Petition allowed. [Para 14-15]

Bail – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – NDPS Act – Prolonged Custody and Delay in Trial – Bail applications by petitioners arrested with 23600 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride. Petitioners in custody since 27.11.2020, with trial progress minimal, citing only 3 out of 13 witnesses examined over 3.5 years. Held: Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court precedents support bail when custody exceeds a substantial part of the prescribed sentence and trial delay not attributable to petitioners. Bail granted. [Paras 1-13]

Criminal Law – Bail in NDPS Cases – Twin Conditions under Section 37 – Supreme Court in _Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha_ interpreted prolonged incarceration and delayed trials as grounds for bail despite Section 37 NDPS Act conditions. Constitutional courts retain bail discretion on Part III violations. [Paras 5, 8-10]

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioners Ranjeet Singh and Preetpal Singh granted bail due to prolonged custody and lack of trial progress. Petitioners must furnish personal bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each. Conditions include mandatory court appearance and non-misuse of bail. [Paras 12-14]