Criminal Law – Assault on Minor – Injured Witness – Conviction under Section 324 IPC Affirmed – Appellants assaulted minor victim with iron rod causing bleeding head injuries – Injured victim’s testimony found cogent, natural and corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitnesses – Minor discrepancies as to time of incident held immaterial – Evidence of injured witness carries special evidentiary value – Conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC upheld [Paras 23–36].

Evidence – Injured Eye-Witness – Reliability – Victim sustained injuries during incident and deposed consistently regarding assault – Medical evidence corroborated version of assault with blunt weapon – Defence plea of accidental fall rejected – Law reiterated that testimony of injured witness should be relied upon unless major contradictions exist [Paras 24–29].

Section 504 IPC – Intentional Insult – Ingredients Not Made Out – Though abusive words were used, prosecution failed to establish specific intent or knowledge to provoke breach of peace – Abuse found to be a precursor to assault and not aimed at provoking public disorder – Conviction under Section 504 read with Section 34 IPC set aside [Paras 38].

Goa Children’s Act, 2003 – Section 8(2) – Child Abuse – Scope – Solitary incident of assault during a quarrel, though involving a child, does not by itself constitute “child abuse” – No evidence of cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment or sustained maltreatment – Legislative intent is to address serious forms of abuse and not isolated incidents – Conviction under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act set aside [Paras 39–43].

Relative Witnesses – Credibility – Evidence of relatives of victim cannot be discarded merely on ground of relationship – No material to show animus or false implication – Testimony found consistent and trustworthy [Paras 30–32].

Weapon Recovery – Absence of Blood Stains – Non-detection of blood on iron rod not fatal to prosecution case – Explanation of washing away due to rain accepted – Weapon identified by victim and panch witness – Recovery held reliable [Para 33].

Sentencing – Probation of Offenders Act – Mandatory Consideration – Offence under Section 324 IPC punishable with imprisonment up to three years – Trial court failed to consider applicability of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act – Benefit of probation required to be considered, especially for first-time offenders and in absence of subsequent misconduct – Matter remanded to Children’s Court for limited purpose of considering grant of probation after obtaining Probation Officer’s report [Paras 44–49].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC confirmed – Convictions under Section 504 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 8(2) of Goa Children’s Act set aside – Matter remanded to Children’s Court for consideration of probation – Fine paid under Goa Children’s Act directed to be refunded [Paras 50].

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C – Allegation of Voyeurism – Section 354C IPC – Ingredients of Offence Not Made Out – Private complaint alleging taking of photograph of complainant while laying clothes for drying – Sworn statement did not disclose that complainant was engaged in a “private act” or that her privacy was violated – No allegation of exposure of private parts or expectation of privacy as contemplated under Section 354C – Held: Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7–10, 11].

Voyeurism – Meaning of “Private Act” – Explanation to Section 354C IPC – Scope – Act of laying clothes for drying in front of house – No material to show complainant was not properly dressed or engaged in any act reasonably expected to provide privacy – Mere presence of accused or flashing of light insufficient to attract offence – Cognizance taken without foundational facts – Proceedings unsustainable [Paras 8–10].

Information Technology Act – Section 66E – Violation of Privacy – Capture of Image of Private Area – Essential Requirement – Sworn statement of complainant did not allege photographing of naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breasts – No prima facie case under Section 66E made out [Para 10].

Protest Complaint – Credibility – Contradictory Versions – Initial complaint, investigation reports and protest complaint disclose material inconsistencies – Two police refer reports finding complaint false – Radical change in version at protest stage – Statements of witnesses inconsistent with complainant’s own version – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance in absence of sufficient materials [Paras 3–5, 7, 11].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Abuse of Process – Accused compelled to face prosecution without sufficient grounds – Held: Ends of justice require interference – Proceedings in C.C No.555/2018 quashed against Accused Nos.1 to 3 [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.555/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara quashed.

Trade Union Recognition – Statutory Mechanism – West Bengal Amendment Act, 1983 – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Petitioner union sought recognition as constituent of joint bargaining council and derecognition of rival union – Held: Recognition of trade unions and disputes regarding legality of registration are exclusively governed by Sections 28A/28B and Section 7 of the Trade Unions Act – Proper authority is Registrar of Trade Unions – Writ petition dismissed for non-availment of statutory remedy [Paras 20–27].

Writ of Mandamus – Absence of Enforceable Legal Right – Recognition of Trade Union Not a Fundamental or Legal Right Enforceable in Writ Jurisdiction – Employer is a private entity not discharging public duty – Relief seeking direction for recognition by private employer impermissible under Article 226 [Paras 11, 18–19, 22].

Alternate Remedy – Doctrine of Exhaustion – Petitioner failed to approach Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No.5) for recognition or challenge to alleged illegal registration of rival union – Held: When statute provides complete machinery, writ court should not be invoked in the first instance [Paras 21–26].

Trade Unions Act – Section 7 – Identical or Deceptively Similar Names – Jurisdiction of Registrar – Allegation that two unions registered with identical names – Held: Issue squarely falls within powers of Registrar of Trade Unions – High Court declined to adjudicate in writ jurisdiction [Paras 24–25].

Industrial Relations – Inter-union Rivalry – Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction – Disputes relating to membership strength, recognition and bargaining rights between rival unions are matters for statutory authorities and industrial adjudication – Not for determination under Article 226 [Paras 15, 18–19].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty implied to petitioner to approach Registrar of Trade Unions for appropriate relief under the Trade Unions Act and the West Bengal Amendment Act – Interim orders vacated – Connected applications disposed of.

Indian Succession Act – Succession Certificate – Christian Intestate – Deceased leaving widow and lineal descendants – Trial Court refused certificate on ground that mother of deceased is also legal heir – Held, erroneous – Under Sections 32 and 33, where intestate is survived by widow and lineal descendants, mother does not inherit – Estate devolves upon widow and children – Refusal of succession certificate unsustainable in law [Paras 6-7].

Indian Succession Act – Distribution of Estate – Section 33 – Intestate leaving widow and lineal descendants – One-third of property to widow and remaining two-thirds to lineal descendants – Mother excluded when direct lineal descendants exist – Trial Court misconstrued statutory scheme – Impugned order liable to be set aside [Paras 6-7].

Succession Certificate – Shares in Company – No nomination – Requirement of certificate by company for transmission – Appellants, being widow and sons of deceased, entitled to seek certificate under Section 372 – Dismissal despite prima facie entitlement improper – Appellate Court directed issuance of certificate within specified time [Paras 3, 8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 08.11.2019 in P & S.C. No.532/2018 set aside – Trial Court directed to grant succession certificate in favour of appellants forthwith in accordance with law.

Land Acquisition – National Highways – Multiplier Factor – Conflict between Central and State Notifications – Acquisition initiated under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act for National Highway project – Central Government notification dated 09.02.2016 under Section 30(2) read with First Schedule of the Act of 2013 prescribing multiplier factor of 2.00 – State Government notification dated 05.10.2021 and GRs dated 06.10.2021 and 14.01.2022 prescribing multiplier factor of 1.00 even for national highways – Held: For acquisition of land for national highways, Central Government alone is the “appropriate Government” under Section 3(e)(v) of the Act of 2013 and Entry 23 of List I – State Government lacks jurisdiction to prescribe multiplier factor for such acquisitions – State notifications and GRs quashed to that extent [Paras 15–24].

Constitution of India – Legislative Competence – National Highways – Entry 23, List I – Exclusive domain of Union – State Government cannot trench upon powers of Central Government in matters relating to acquisition for national highways – Notifications and GRs issued by State Government insofar as they apply to national highways held unconstitutional and unsustainable [Paras 18, 22–23].

Compensation – Multiplier Factor – Award under National Highways Act – Award dated 13.01.2023 applying multiplier factor of 1.00 based on State Government GRs – Held: Award vitiated as it ignores binding Central Government notification prescribing multiplier factor of 2.00 – Award quashed – Direction issued to pass fresh award applying multiplier factor of 2.00 within six weeks [Paras 25, 29(iii)–(iv)].

Alternative Remedy – Section 3-G(5), National Highways Act – Applicability – Objection relating to determination of multiplier factor involves jurisdictional conflict between Central and State Governments – Statutory arbitrator under Section 3-G(5), being a State functionary, lacks authority to decide such issue – Availability of alternative remedy not a bar to writ jurisdiction in present case [Paras 28–29].

Relief – Writ Petition Allowed – State Government notifications and GRs quashed insofar as applicable to national highway acquisitions – Impugned award quashed – Liberty reserved to petitioners to challenge fresh award on grounds relating to quantum of compensation under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act [Paras 29–30].

Plaint – Rejection of Plaint – Under-valuation – Advanced Stage of Trial – Application filed after examination of defence witness (DW.4) – Defendant sought rejection of plaint alleging that suit property was undervalued based on evidence of Sub-Registrar official regarding sale value of nearby properties – Trial Court dismissed the application holding that under-valuation was not substantiated and application was belated – Held: Evidence of DW.4 only indicated approximate value including land and building and did not conclusively establish market value of land alone – Valuation of construction varies depending on quality and age of building – No definite conclusion of under-valuation possible on such evidence – Disputed question of fact involved, requiring detailed enquiry – Rejection of plaint at such stage not warranted – No illegality or irregularity in impugned order [Paras 2–7].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Though application for rejection of plaint can be filed at any stage before disposal of suit – When plea involves disputed facts relating to valuation and requires evidence, plaint cannot be rejected summarily – Proper course is framing of issue and trial on valuation, if sought – Liberty granted to defendant to seek framing of issue on valuation before Trial Court [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2025 upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply before Trial Court for framing an issue on valuation of plaint – No costs – Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Bail – Corruption Case – Advocate Accused of Influencing Judiciary – Rejection of Bail – Petitioner, an Advocate practicing before the High Court, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR registered by CBI for demanding ₹30 lakhs as illegal gratification for securing a favourable judicial order in a matrimonial dispute – Allegation that petitioner claimed personal influence over a judicial officer and accepted part bribe through co-accused – Held: Bail declined in view of gravity of allegations and prima facie material [Paras 1–2, 8–9].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 7A – Applicability to Non-Public Servant – Contention that petitioner is not a public servant rejected – Section 7A covers any person who accepts or obtains undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means – Prima facie applicability of provision established at bail stage [Para 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Parameters Reiterated – While deciding bail, Court must consider prima facie involvement, nature and gravity of offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, antecedents and impact on administration of justice – Corruption offences, particularly those affecting institutional integrity, require a cautious and stringent approach [Paras 7–8].

Corruption Affecting Judicial Process – Seriousness Emphasised – Allegations of bribery by an advocate to influence judicial outcome strike at the core of public confidence in justice delivery system – Such acts treated as grave threat to sanctity of judiciary – Professional standing or age cannot dilute seriousness of offence [Paras 6, 8, 8.1].

Investigation Completed – Custody Period – Not Sole Ground for Bail – Filing of challan and custody of about 5½ months for offence punishable up to seven years considered but held not decisive – These factors cannot outweigh gravity and societal impact of allegations [Para 8.1].

Medical Grounds – Not Established – Medical assessment did not reveal any condition warranting bail on health grounds – Rejection of bail by Special Judge, CBI, found justified in absence of change in circumstances [Para 8].

Antecedents – Relevant Consideration – Pendency of another FIR under NDPS Act and IPC against petitioner taken into account while declining bail [Para 9].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Liberty granted to petitioner to apply afresh for regular bail after examination of complainant and victim witnesses – Observations confined to bail adjudication and not to affect merits of trial.

Anticipatory Bail – Prevention of Money Laundering – Organized Cyber Frauds – Petitioners alleged to be key operatives in third and second layers of laundering network – Large-scale layering of proceeds of crime through hundreds of mule accounts, conversion to cryptocurrency, and uploading to UAE-based PYYPL platform – ED investigation revealed deep involvement of petitioners in managing over 30 entities and routing ₹65 crore through fraudulent transactions – Custodial interrogation sought by ED – Held: Petitioners played significant role in laundering – Bail denied [Paras 2–3, 5–9]

Twin Conditions under Section 45 PMLA – Applicability to Anticipatory Bail – Petitioners argued that mere dealing in cryptocurrency is not an offence and relied on parity with co-accused granted bail – Held: Bail cannot be granted unless both twin conditions under Section 45 are satisfied – Plea of parity misplaced as co-accused were granted regular bail post-custody – Section 45 applies fully to anticipatory bail as well – There are no reasonable grounds to believe accused are not guilty or unlikely to commit offences while on bail [Paras 3, 4, 14–15]

Continuing Investigation – Need for Custodial Interrogation – Investigation ongoing with new complaints emerging – Petitioners allegedly wiped digital evidence, assaulted ED officers, and paid bribes to local police – ED requires custody to trace further layering and involvement of banking officials – Held: Court cannot override investigative necessity for effective interrogation and evidence collection – Bail would risk destruction of crucial evidence [Paras 7, 10–13]

Economic Offences – Seriousness – Impact on Public Confidence and National Economy – Money laundering offences viewed as aggravated economic crimes with transnational dimensions – Held: Economic offences constitute a distinct class – Investigation must be allowed full play before grant of bail can be considered [Paras 4.4–4.5, 9.3–9.5]

Constitutional Rights vs. Investigative Interests – Petitioners relied on Article 21 for anticipatory bail – Held: Right to liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against public interest in effective investigation – Article 21 cannot be used to block necessary custodial interrogation [Paras 4.2, 10]

Decision: Both anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Petitioners failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA – Custodial interrogation found necessary due to serious nature of allegations and risk of evidence tampering – No protection from arrest granted.

Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Conviction of Public Servant Affirmed – Appellant, Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police, demanded illegal gratification from complainant for not implicating him in criminal case under investigation – Initial demand made at police station followed by reiteration during trap proceedings at Tis Hazari Courts – Acceptance of tainted money through intermediary (Head Constable) pursuant to appellant’s directions – Held: Foundational facts of demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act sustained [Paras 26–27, 39].

Evidence – Complainant Not an Accomplice – Reliance on Sole Testimony – Complainant’s evidence found cogent, consistent and trustworthy – Law reiterated that complainant in bribery case is not an accomplice and his testimony does not mandatorily require corroboration – Non-examination of some witnesses, including complainant’s son or alleged accomplices, not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 26–27].

Trap Proceedings – Shadow Witness and Independent Witnesses – Shadow witness and independent witnesses supported prosecution in material particulars – Partial hostility of witnesses does not efface prosecution case – Portion of testimony supporting prosecution can be relied upon – Evidence to be weighed, not counted [Paras 28–30].

Electronic Evidence – Tape Recorded Conversation – Custody and Transcript – Allegation of improper custody and missing portion of transcript examined – Tape recording opened pursuant to court order and transcript prepared in presence of witnesses – Minor omission in transcript not relating to demand held inconsequential – Even otherwise, prosecution case does not rest solely on tape-recorded evidence [Paras 28–29].

Presumption under Section 20 PC Act – Applicability – Once demand and acceptance of illegal gratification established, statutory presumption arises – Accused failed to rebut presumption by any probable defence – Conviction justified on evidence on record [Paras 13.4–13.6, 39].

Contradictions and Omissions – Appreciation of Evidence – Alleged contradictions regarding visiting card, dialing of phone, crowd, firing incident, handling of currency notes and trap formalities held to be minor and not affecting core prosecution story – Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements cannot be used except for contradiction following procedure under Section 145 Evidence Act – No legally proved contradictions established [Paras 31, 35–37].

Investigation Lapses – Effect – Non-examination of advocate to whom bribe was initially directed, non-sending of articles for forensic examination, and alleged violation of CBI Manual not fatal – CBI Manual is administrative and not statutory – Defective investigation by itself cannot result in acquittal when substantive evidence proves guilt [Paras 32, 38].

Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value – Evidence of partially hostile witnesses can be relied upon to the extent it supports prosecution – PW3 and PW4 corroborated pre-trap, trap and post-trap proceedings in material aspects [Paras 28–30].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 39–40].