Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 294(b), 506(ii), 323, and 447 IPC – Validity of Cognizance Without Considering Refer Report – Kerala High Court Directions for Reconsideration – The High Court quashed the cognizance orders of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court in cases arising from protest complaints after the police submitted refer reports. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate must consider the refer report and decide on cognizance based on both the complainant's materials and the police investigation report. The matter was remitted back for reconsideration in light of established legal principles [Paras 2-7].

Legal Principles – Requirement to Consider Police Refer Report Before Taking Cognizance – Kerala High Court reiterated that when a Magistrate is presented with a refer report from the police, it is mandatory to evaluate the report along with the complainant's evidence before taking cognizance. Ignoring the refer report and proceeding with cognizance solely based on the complaint constitutes a violation of established legal procedures, warranting the quashing of such cognizance orders [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Quashing of Cognizance Orders – Held – The orders taking cognizance in CC Nos. 350/2014 and 355/2014 are quashed, and the cases are remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in line with the legal requirements. The Magistrate is directed to re-evaluate the cases considering both the refer reports and the complainant’s materials, following precedents established in Parameshwaran Nair v. Surendran and Kader v. State of Kerala [Paras 7-10].

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Appellant challenged the validity of the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that it was granted without application of mind and by an incompetent authority. The court held that the sanction order lacked necessary documentary evidence to show that the powers were properly delegated to the sanctioning authority. The absence of relevant materials and the authority’s failure to demonstrate a conscious application of mind rendered the sanction invalid [Paras 9-16].

Demand and Acceptance – Proof Requirements – The prosecution’s case was based on allegations of demand and acceptance of a bribe for reducing a fine imposed on the contractor’s firm. The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence regarding prior demands and the demand on the day of the trap. The complainant’s testimony lacked independent corroboration, and the evidence of the shadow witness failed to conclusively prove a demand, particularly when the alleged demand was made through gestures (raising eyebrows) [Paras 31-39].

Tape Recorder Evidence – Contradictions in Testimonies – The court noted contradictions in the testimonies regarding the use of a tape recorder during the trap, which further weakened the prosecution's case. The failure to provide consistent evidence on key aspects of the investigation raised doubts about the veracity of the incident [Paras 30-40].

Presumption of Guilt – Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – The court emphasized that a presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Act can only arise once foundational facts are established. Given the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, the court found no basis for such a presumption in this instance [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The conviction and sentence of the appellant were quashed and set aside. The accused was acquitted of all charges, including those under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act​.

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Appeal allowed – Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act – Respondent issued cheque towards loan repayment, which was dishonored – Trial Court acquitted respondent, failing to properly apply presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act – High Court held that once execution of cheque is admitted, presumption of liability arises – Burden shifts to accused to rebut presumption, which respondent failed to do – Trial Court’s approach flawed in placing onus on complainant instead of accused – Appeal allowed, acquittal set aside [Paras 11-20].

Section 313 CrPC – Statement not sufficient for rebuttal – Respondent’s statement under Section 313 CrPC admitting signature on cheque but denying liability – Held insufficient to rebut statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act without supporting evidence – High Court emphasized that mere denials in Section 313 statement do not suffice for rebutting presumption – Proper legal analysis of evidential burden is crucial in NI Act cases [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned acquittal set aside – Case remanded to Trial Court for further proceedings in light of the proper application of presumptions under the NI Act.

Criminal Procedure – Dismissal of Complaint – The Trial Court dismissed the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. for non-appearance of the complainant on the date fixed for hearing. The complainant argued that his absence was due to an error in noting the date by his counsel. The High Court, upon review, found that the complainant’s presence was not essential on the said date as the court was only required to put the notice of accusation to the accused, which could proceed in the complainant’s absence [Paras 8-15].

Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Application and Misapplication – The High Court emphasized that under Section 256 Cr.P.C., a complaint should not be dismissed for default if the presence of the complainant is not necessary. The Trial Court’s action of dismissing the complaint was found to be erroneous as the complainant’s presence was not required for the specific proceedings scheduled on that date [Paras 12-16].

Decision:

The appeal was allowed. The High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court dismissing the complaint and restored the complaint to its original position, directing the Trial Court to proceed further in accordance with the law [Paras 17-20].

Review – Maintainability – New Counsel – Review application filed by a new counsel who was neither the filing nor the arguing counsel in the original case – High Court rejected the review application, noting that the original order was decided on merits and that changing counsel to file a review petition without addressing the maintainability constitutes an abuse of process – The court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000 to discourage such practices [Paras 6-9].

Mesne Profits – Deposit During Pendency of Appeal – The court reaffirmed the earlier order requiring mesne profits to be deposited in a Fixed Deposit/Recurring Deposit, with payments to be made by the 10^th of each month – Cited relevant Supreme Court judgments on the treatment of mesne profits during appeals [Paras 3-7].

Decision: Review Application dismissed with costs – Original order affirmed – The court emphasized the impropriety of changing counsel solely to re-argue matters already decided on merits [Paras 9].

Criminal Procedure – Further Investigation – Court quashed the Sessions Court's order directing further investigation by the CID – Held that the Sessions Court erred in directing a different investigating agency (CID) to conduct further investigation – The power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. lies with the original investigating agency unless the High Court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The Sessions Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the CID to take over the investigation [Paras 7-8].

Jurisdiction – Power of Magistrate – Reaffirmed that a Magistrate or Sessions Court has limited power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Only the High Court or Supreme Court can order reinvestigation or transfer investigation to another agency under their supervisory jurisdiction [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – The order of the Sessions Court directing the CID to conduct further investigation was quashed – Further investigation ordered to be conducted by the original jurisdictional police within three months [Paras 9].

Seniority – Fixation of Seniority – Petitioners challenged the seniority list published by the Department of Revenue and Forest – Contention that the date of appointment should be considered after the successful completion of training and not from the date of joining training – Held, the seniority should be counted from the date of joining training as per the 2015 Rules, which superseded the 1998 Rules – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-14]. 

Service Rules – Application of New Rules – The 2015 Recruitment Rules supersede the 1998 Rules – Seniority must be determined based on the new rules that count the training period as part of the service period – Changes in rules during the selection process must be applied prospectively – Petitioners’ reliance on the old rules rejected [Paras 15-20]. 

Judicial Review – Supervisory Capacity – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Writ of Certiorari can only be issued in case of jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice – Tribunal’s decision found to be reasoned and without error on the face of the record – Petition dismissed [Paras 21-30]. 

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Seniority list prepared by the Department upheld – No interference warranted in the Tribunal’s decision – Continuation of the previous interim order for four weeks to allow petitioners to approach the Apex Court [Para 46]. 

Criminal Law – Cheating and Extortion Allegations: Petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings and charge-sheet alleging offences of cheating, blackmailing, extortion, and defamation. The complainant, a business partner, accused the petitioners of threatening him and his family to extort money. The High Court found that the complaint was filed with mala fide intentions and suppressed material facts. The principles of invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. were applied, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of the process of court.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings: The High Court relied on precedents that allow for the quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious, or filed with an ulterior motive. The Court noted that the complainant had initiated the criminal case to shield himself from his own financial liabilities and had manipulated facts to invoke cognizable offences. The continuation of the case was deemed to cause grave miscarriage of justice.

Decision: The revision application was allowed, and all proceedings, including the charge-sheet under Dum Dum Police Station case no. 420 of 2019, were quashed. The Court emphasized the necessity of careful scrutiny in cases where the process of law is alleged to be misused.

Execution of Consent Decree – Transfer of Property – Petitioners sought enforcement of a consent decree involving transfer of office space and alleged improper compliance by respondents – Property transferred for Rs. 1001/- when valued over 2 crores – Tax liability on transfer under Section 50-C of the Income Tax Act disputed – Court found respondents failed to comply with prior orders and provide necessary undertakings – Held that executing court cannot impose tax liability contrary to statutory provisions [Paras 1-23.1]. 

Undertaking by Counsel – Binding Nature – Previous counsel’s undertaking regarding tax liability not honored by respondents – Court emphasized that such undertakings must align with statutory provisions – Court highlighted procedural irregularities in representation and contradictions by respondents [Paras 17-23.1]. 

Simultaneous Compliance of Decree Terms – Court noted that terms of the consent decree should be performed simultaneously to avoid complications – Lack of joint compliance undermines the intent of the decree [Paras 18-22]. 

Decision – Application dismissed – Held – Executing court cannot direct parties to shoulder tax responsibility contrary to Income Tax Act – Petitioners’ additional factual claims require evidence – Petition dismissed without costs [Paras 23-25].