Criminal Appeal – Anticipatory Bail – Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C – Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail against charges under various sections of the Wild Life Protection Act – Petitioner apprehends arrest – Prosecution alleges possession of prohibited commodity – Confession statement of co-accused implicates the petitioner – Key issue revolves around whether the recovered articles are indeed banned commodities as per the provisions of the Act. [Para 1-4]

Consideration of Evidence – Laboratory examination pending to determine if recovered fillets are prohibited – Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner, allowing for custodial interrogation if necessary upon conclusive evidence – Order not barring initiation of proceedings based on future findings – Conditions imposed on petitioner’s bail, including executing a bond and daily reporting to police. [Para 6]

Conclusion – Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner, pending laboratory examination – Court’s focus on objective evidence and legal provisions related to the alleged offence. [Para 6, Conclusion]

Friendly Loan - Nature of Transaction - Loan Agreement - Defendant approached plaintiff for a personal loan of Rs. 10 Crores for a hotel project - Plaintiff agreed to provide Rs. 5 Crores as per Loan Agreement - Defendant requested additional loan of Rs. 2.5 Crores through email - Plaintiff provided the additional loan - Defendant claimed it was not a loan but an investment - Plaintiff's claim supported by emails and documents - Defendant failed to prove defense. [Para 48-64]

Interest Rate - Usurious Loans Act, 1918 - Stipulated interest rate of 5% per month - Court finds it excessive - Interest awarded at 6% per annum from disbursement till payment. [Para 71-79]

Limitation - Defendant's acknowledgment through emails creates a fresh contract - Suit not barred by limitation. [Para 87-92]

Relief Granted - Plaintiff entitled to recover Rs. 2.4 Crores as loan amount - Transaction fee of 2% awarded - Interest at 6% per annum from disbursement till payment - Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff. [Para 94-97]

Insurance Law - Repudiation of Claim - Pre-existing Illness - Writ Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus – Insurance company repudiated claims for two life insurance policies on grounds of suppression of material facts, specifically chronic diseases (diabetes mellitus and hypertension) of the insured – Insurance Ombudsman upheld the repudiation – High Court found no independent investigation by the insurance company connecting the cause of death to these chronic diseases – Held, no element of fraud by the insured pleaded or proved – Materiality of suppressed fact not established as claim was repudiated after two years of policy issuance – Writ petition allowed – Insurance company directed to pay the insurance amount with interest. [Paras 1-15]

Role of Evidence in Insurance Claims – Analysis – Held, evidence did not establish any connection between the chronic diseases and the cause of death – Mere existence of a chronic disease without evidence of its contribution to the cause of death does not justify claim repudiation – The fact to be material must have a direct bearing on the cause of death – No fraud by the insured established – Repudiation based on the suppressed fact is invalid under Section 45 of the Insurance Act. [Para 10]

Decision – Allowance of Writ Petition and Payment of Claim – Court quashes the Insurance Ombudsman’s order rejecting the claims – Orders the insurance company to pay the insurance amount with 9% interest per annum from the due date until actual payment – Suppression of pre-existing illnesses not proven to be material or fraudulent – Claims deemed to have been rejected based on non-material facts. [Para 14]

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Disproportionate Assets and Benami Transactions - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Held, granting regular bail in cases of disproportionate assets where most evidence is documentary - Petitioner, an ex-MLA, alleged to have acquired assets beyond known sources of income - Bail granted considering the completion of investigation and submission of documentary evidence to the prosecution - The court acknowledged that the primary issue for trial was whether the petitioner financed certain transactions, which were recorded as benami without proper adjudication. The court granted bail, emphasizing that documentary evidence had already been submitted, and further incarceration would unnecessarily restrict personal liberty​​ .

Evaluation of Evidence - Admissibility of Documentary Proof - Analysis - Held, documentary evidence is crucial and already submitted, rendering further custody unnecessary - The court noted that the state's arguments did not convincingly show that the petitioner's income was disproportionate to his known sources, as various legitimate earnings were not considered by the investigating agency. The argument that certain expenditures should be considered benami transactions lacked adjudication under the Prohibition of Benami Property Act, 1988​​ .

Decision - Grant of Regular Bail - Court finds no reason to deny bail given the nature of the evidence and the petitioner's cooperation during the investigation - The court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail, subject to the conditions of surrendering his passport and furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court​​ .

Criminal Appeal - Dowry Death - Cruelty - Insufficient evidence of cruelty or harassment by husband or relatives of husband - Failure to establish demand for dowry - Benefit of doubt to accused - Acquittal. (Para 6)

Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 73, 113A, 113B - Presumption in dowry death cases - Failure to prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand - Presumption rebutted - Benefit of doubt to accused - Acquittal. (Para 10)

Admissibility of Documents - Non-compliance with Sections 91, 230 Cr.P.C. - Letters produced during trial - Not admissible as evidence - Benefit of doubt to accused - Acquittal. (Para 18)

Credibility of Witnesses - Inconsistent statements - Denial of statements made during investigation - Improving version during trial - Material contradictions and defects - Unreliable evidence - Benefit of doubt to accused - Acquittal. (Para 22)

Burden of Proof - Prosecution's initial burden - Failure to establish essential elements of dowry death - Burden not shifted to accused - Benefit of doubt to accused - Acquittal. (Para 28)

Duty of the Court - Judicial process based on credible evidence - Mere suspicion insufficient for conviction - Reasonable doubt in favour of accused - Benefit of doubt - Acquittal. (Para 32)

Electricity Supply - Charging of electricity consumption for lawyers' chambers in court premises - Applicability of rate schedule - Whether legal profession constitutes a commercial activity - Distinction between profession and trade/business - Discrimination in charging electricity rates for similar premises within the same State - Writ petition filed for clarification and uniformity in charging - Interpretation of rate schedules and relevant legal provisions - Precedents on the nature of the legal profession and its exclusion from commercial activities - Analysis of the Electricity Act, 2003, and U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 - Consideration of specific rate schedules and their scope - Conclusive ruling that the legal profession is non-commercial and should be charged under domestic rate schedule - Direction to respondents for uniform application of rate schedule LMV-1 for electricity consumption in lawyers' chambers located within court premises in the State. Writ Allowed. (Para No.2,10,15, 22, 25, 28, 30, 37)

The petitioner, Nandakumar N, is the 2nd accused in Crime No.26/2021 of Excise Enforcement & Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam. He is charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)C, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The application for regular bail is submitted due to his prolonged judicial custody. [Para 2]

The prosecution argued that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in which the contraband was found concealed among boxes of mangoes. The prosecution cited the commercial quantity involved and the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in opposing bail. [Para 5-6]

The Court observed that the petitioner was driving the vehicle and that the contraband was found in a large quantity (140 KG), making it implausible that he was unaware of it. The Court emphasized the strict conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. [Para 6-7]

The petitioner's counsel cited Supreme Court decisions arguing for bail based on the length of detention. However, the Court distinguished these cases, noting that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be ignored. [Para 8-10]

The Court found that the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met and denied bail to the petitioner. The Court also directed the Sessions Judge to complete the trial within the period mentioned in a report dated June 15, 2023. [Para 11-12]

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application – Offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Application for bail under Section 439 CrPC – Alleged involvement of the Applicant in drug trafficking – Recovery of commercial quantity of contraband – Conspiracy with co-accused persons – Interpretation of Section 37 NDPS Act – Admissibility of statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – Retraction of statement – Analysis of electronic evidence – Consideration of Tofan Singh judgment. [Para 1-5]

Recovery of Contraband - Shared Residence: Recovery of Ganja from shared bedroom of Applicant and husband/co-accused – Disputed attribution of possession – Recovery made at the instance of husband – Court's analysis – Bedroom as a shared private space – Joint possession inferred – Knowledge of contraband – Shared relationship between spouses – Joint conscious possession established. [Para 7-15]

Recovery from Separate Office Premises: Recovery of contraband from separate office premises of co-accused/husband – Court's analysis – Separation by staircase – Exclusive control of husband established – Recovery not attributable to the Applicant – Different legal implications for different types of contraband – Hashish Chocolate recovery attributed to both the Applicant and husband – Commercial quantity recoveries not applicable to the Applicant. [Para 16-27]

Section 37 NDPS Act: Applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act – Analysis of recoveries and quantity – Commercial and intermediate quantity distinctions – No commercial quantity recovered from the Applicant – Rigors of Section 37 not applicable – Inapplicability of section 37 to recoveries. [Para 28-34]

Section 67 Statement: Inadmissibility of section 67 statements – Apex Court's stance – Court's analysis of complaint – Lack of new fact discovery – Retraction of statements – Lack of evidence linking pseudonym to Applicant – Chats not belonging to relevant group – Irrelevance of chats for bail decision. [Para 35-49]

Forensic Mobile Extraction Report: Reliance on forensic mobile extraction report – Chats relating to narcotic substances – Chats not directly linked to recoveries – Analysis of relevancy of chats – No dealing in commercial quantity established – Applicant's role as a consumer – Chats potential not equivalent to actual possession – Delay in trial – Comparison with released co-accused – Triple test of flight risk, evidence tampering, and witness influence – Imposition of stringent bail conditions. [Para 50-61]

Grant of Bail: Complete investigation – Charges not framed – Trial delay – Imposition of bail conditions – Conclusion of bail application – Observations without bearing on merits of the case. [Para 62-64]  

Criminal Misc. Case – Quashing of Proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC – Accused in a live-in relationship with the complainant’s husband – Whether the term “relative” under Section 498-A includes a woman in a romantic relationship with the husband – Strict construction of penal provision – Contextual interpretation – Quashing of FIR and Final Report in favor of the petitioner. [Para 1-8]

Facts:

The petitioner, Chandhini T.K, is the 4th accused in Criminal Case No. 116/2020 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. She is accused under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case arises from a strained relationship between the defacto complainant and her husband, the first accused. The petitioner, who is allegedly in a live-in relationship with the first accused, is accused of subjecting the complainant to cruelty. The police filed a final report after investigation, charging the petitioner and others under Section 498-A. [Para 2-3]

Issues:

1. Whether the term “relative” under Section 498-A of IPC includes a woman who is in a romantic relationship with the husband?

2. Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted under Section 498-A of IPC?

Observations:

The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the petitioner is not a relative of the first accused, the offense under Section 498-A of IPC is not applicable to her. The counsel relied on legal precedents to support this argument. The court noted that the petitioner is not related to the first accused by blood, marriage, or adoption, and her relationship with the first accused is characterized as a live-in relationship. The court examined the language and scope of Section 498-A of IPC, emphasizing the term “relative” and the definition of “cruelty” provided in the section. [Para 5-7]

Decision:

The court held that the term “relative” under Section 498-A of IPC does not include a woman who is in a romantic relationship with the husband. It explained that the word “relative” conveys a status conferred by blood, marriage, or adoption, and such status does not apply to a woman in a live-in relationship. The court, therefore, quashed the FIR and the final report against the petitioner, stating that prosecution under Section 498-A is not applicable to her in this context. The Criminal Misc. Case was allowed in favor of the petitioner. [Para 8]