Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Cognizance Order – Appellant not named in FIR alleging fraudulent transfer of agricultural land allotted in 1997 – Cognizance/summoning order passed mechanically without specific role or prima facie material – Held: Cognizance order dated 20.03.2023 suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed [Paras 20, 22, 23, 24]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC – No evidence of dishonest intention at inception or use of forged documents by appellant – Allegations vague and omnibus – No mens rea or overt act established – Held: Basic ingredients of offences not satisfied – Criminal prosecution cannot rest on assumptions or conjecture [Paras 12, 18, 24]

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(f) – Applicability – FIR silent on caste-based motive – No specific allegation that act was committed because of the victim’s SC status – Land dispute not sufficient to invoke the Act – Held: Invocation of SC/ST Act provisions mechanical and legally unsustainable [Paras 13, 19, 30]

Investigation – Fabricated Evidence – Witnesses shown in charge sheet had died before investigation – IO shown to have recorded statements of deceased persons – Held: Investigation tainted, unfair and unreliable – Material irregularity vitiating entire proceedings [Paras 8, 24]

Delay – FIR lodged in 2022 for land transactions of 1997 – Unexplained delay of over two decades – No civil or revenue proceedings initiated for cancellation of allegedly fraudulent pattas – Held: Inordinate and unexplained delay fatal to prosecution case – Criminal proceedings afterthought and abuse of process [Paras 11, 26, 27, 32]

Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Predominantly revenue and civil dispute regarding pattas and land transfers – No foundational adjudication or evidence of criminality – Held: Dispute of civil nature cannot be converted into criminal prosecution – Proceedings quashed [Paras 5, 17, 25, 31]

Parity – Co-accused granted similar relief in earlier proceedings – Role of appellant not distinguishable – Held: Appellant entitled to same benefit – Prosecution against appellant discriminatory and arbitrary [Paras 25]

Abuse of Process – Continuing proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice – Held: Criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed [Paras 33–34]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2023, charge sheet dated 06.02.2023, and entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act quashed – Criminal proceedings held to be abuse of law.

Administrative Law – Paddy Procurement – Engagement of Women’s Self Help Groups – Policy Decision – Exclusion of WSHGs from KMS 2025–26 – WSHGs engaged continuously since 2019 pursuant to 2019 Guidelines – State undertook performance review in 2024 based on complaints of mismanagement – Decision taken to restrict procurement activities to PACS and selected agencies – Held: Engagement of WSHGs is policy-based and administrative – No vested or indefeasible right to continue indefinitely – Court declines interference under Article 226 [Paras 9–11, 18].

Paddy Procurement Policy – Expression of Interest (EOI) – Non-issuance of fresh EOI – Challenge by new and previously disengaged WSHGs – Held: Issuance of EOI under executive guidelines is not mandatory in all circumstances – Mere willingness to participate does not create enforceable legal right – Mandamus cannot be issued in absence of legal duty [Paras 10, 17].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Disengagement of WSHGs without notice or hearing – Performance-based administrative action – Held: Principles of natural justice not rigid – Application depends on nature of right and consequences – Disengagement not punitive or stigmatic – No blacklisting or civil disability imposed – Individual show-cause notice not mandatory in policy-driven, time-bound procurement decisions [Paras 14–16].

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Classification based on performance – Preference to PACS and continuance of satisfactory WSHGs – Performance-based differentiation has rational nexus with object of ensuring smooth and efficient procurement – No arbitrariness or discrimination established [Paras 13].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Policy and administrative decisions – Held: High Court does not sit as appellate authority over policy decisions – Interference permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala fides or statutory violation – None established in present case [Paras 18–19].

Women Empowerment – Observations – While upholding State action, Court observes that Government should consider, at policy level, providing opportunities to new and previously disengaged WSHGs in future procurement years subject to norms and efficiency considerations [Para 19].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – No interference with impugned orders dated 16.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 – Policy discretion of State upheld.

Service Law – Transfer of Bank Officer – Mid-term and Frequent Transfers – Judicial Review – Petitioner, a specialised officer (Senior Manager (Law), Scale-III), transferred thrice within a short span including transfer within two months from Bahraich to Salem, Tamil Nadu – Despite normal tenure of three years prescribed under Bank’s Transfer Policy – Court examined repeated transfers in light of policy provisions and administrative exigency – Held: Frequent mid-term transfers without justifiable exigency violate the Bank’s own transfer policy and warrant interference [Paras 14–16].

Service Law – Transfer Policy – Binding Nature – Bank having framed an exhaustive Transfer Policy is bound to adhere to it – Clauses prescribing normal tenure and endeavour to complete transfers by 30th June cannot be ignored casually – Transfer in July 2025 without demonstrated exigency held contrary to policy – Authorities failed to justify deviation from prescribed norms [Paras 15, 17].

Service Law – Specialised Officers – Misuse of Specialisation – Petitioner transferred on the ground of being a specialised Law Manager – Court held that specialisation cannot be used as a tool for harassment – Frequent transfers of specialists impair efficiency and defeat institutional interest – Balance between administrative interest and humane working conditions emphasised [Para 16].

Service Law – Grievance Redressal – Non-application of Mind – Rejection of petitioner’s grievance and appeal found to be mere reiteration of earlier reasons – Bank failed to consider petitioner’s case afresh despite repeated directions of the High Court – Orders passed by Grievance Redressal and Appellate Authorities vitiated for non-consideration of relevant policy clauses [Paras 17–18].

Service Law – Scope of Interference in Transfer Matters – While transfer is an incident of service under Regulation 47 of the 1979 Regulations, Court can interfere where transfer is frequent, arbitrary or violative of policy – Case distinguished from general principle of non-interference laid down by Supreme Court – Interference justified in peculiar facts [Paras 13, 15–18].

Decision: Impugned order dated 10.11.2025 and consequential orders quashed – Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation within fifteen days – Competent authority directed to decide the same within six weeks strictly in accordance with law – Operation of transfer order dated 18.07.2025 stayed meanwhile – Writ petition allowed [Paras 18–22].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand of Bribe – Sine Qua Non – Proof of specific, clear and unequivocal demand of illegal gratification is foundational requirement for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act – Mere suspicion, insinuation or ambiguous conversation insufficient – Demand must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by cogent evidence [Paras 25, 44–46, 51].

Acceptance and Recovery – Recovery from Floor – Alleged tainted currency notes found scattered on floor and not from conscious possession of accused – Phenolphthalein test of accused’s hands negative (solution sandy, not pink) – Held: Such recovery does not establish acceptance – Mere recovery divorced from voluntary acceptance insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 47–48, 60].

Trap Proceedings – Failure of Verification – No prior verification of demand by recording conversation on 13.07.2007 – Delay of 12 days in lodging complaint unexplained – No independent witnesses examined though Railway Magistrate and court staff present at site – Prosecution case held doubtful and unsafe for conviction [Paras 16, 48].

Section 20 PC Act – Presumption – Foundational Facts Absent – Presumption under Section 20 arises only after proof of demand and acceptance – In absence of proof of demand and lawful recovery, presumption cannot be invoked – Trial Court erred in convicting without recording any finding on statutory presumption [Paras 49, 54–55].

Pendency of Work – Abuse of Position – Not Proved – Investigation against complainant conducted by another officer – Charge-sheet already prepared and forwarded for approval prior to trap – Accused not in position to extend any undue favour – Held: No pendency of work on date of trap and no abuse of official position proved [Paras 46, 77–79].

Section 13(1)(d) PC Act – Criminal Misconduct – Mens Rea – Dishonest intention and obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means must be proved – Erroneous or administrative acts not sufficient – Prosecution failed to establish dishonest intention or obtaining of any advantage [Paras 76–81].

Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Charge of conspiracy dependent on proof of principal offences under PC Act – Once offences under Sections 7 and 13 fail, charge of conspiracy automatically collapses [Para 83].

Appellate Re-appreciation of Evidence – Appellate court entitled to reassess entire evidence where trial court findings are perverse and contrary to settled law – Conviction based on conjectures and misapplication of law liable to be set aside [Paras 82–83].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 29.05.2023 set aside – Accused-appellants acquitted of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act and Section 120-B IPC – Bail bonds discharged – Direction to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC / Section 481 BNSS [Paras 84–85].

Public Premises – Unauthorised Occupation – Expiry of Licence – Definition under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act – Licence granted up to 31.03.2011 not renewed thereafter – Mere acceptance of licence fee after expiry does not amount to implied renewal – Continued occupation after expiry of licence held unauthorised – Eviction under Section 5(1) justified [Paras 18–27].

Public Premises – Eviction Proceedings – Compliance with Procedure – Estate Officer issued notice under Section 4 – Opportunity of hearing and evidence afforded – Findings recorded after considering oral and documentary evidence – No violation of principles of natural justice – Eviction order upheld by appellate authority under Section 9 – No interference warranted under Article 227 [Paras 22–30].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction maintainable against appellate order under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act – Interference limited to jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of law – Orders of eviction found legal and proper [Paras 17, 28–30].

Public Premises – Recovery of Licence Fee – Arrears – Petitioner liable to pay licence fee at agreed rate with annual increment of 5% till date of sealing of premises – Acceptance of licence fee by authority does not regularise occupation – Order for arrears upheld [Paras 35–36].

Damages – Assessment under Section 7(2) – Requirement of Evidence – Damages must be assessed on basis of cogent evidence of market rental value – Mere reliance on internal policy insufficient – No evidence led regarding prevailing market rent or comparable properties – Award of damages held unsustainable [Paras 39–40].

Shop Policy, 2014 (BHEL) – Applicability – Industrial Premises – Policy not incorporated into licence by execution of fresh deed – No renewal under policy framework – Without contractual adoption of policy, damages cannot be mechanically levied on its basis – Order granting damages under Shop Policy set aside [Paras 36–38, 40].

Damages – Exorbitant Levy – Judicial Scrutiny – Damages enhanced from ₹3,718 per month to ₹3,84,820 per month – Increase more than 100 times – Held arbitrary, excessive and without authority of law – Estate Officer exceeded jurisdiction [Para 40].

Enforcement – Removal of Belongings – Section 6 – Conditional Right – Petitioner permitted to remove temporary structures and articles subject to payment of arrears – Failure to pay arrears entitles authority to recover dues by auction [Para 41].

Decision: Eviction order under Section 5(1) upheld – Order for arrears of licence fee upheld – Order directing payment of damages under BHEL Shop Policy, 2014 set aside – Petitions partly allowed – No order as to costs.

Death Penalty – Post-Mercy Judicial Review – Article 21 – Even after confirmation of death sentence and rejection of mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161, the fundamental right to life and human dignity continues to subsist – Constitutional Courts are empowered to examine supervening circumstances affecting fairness, humanity and constitutionality of execution – Scope of judicial review confined to post-conviction events without reopening guilt [Paras 25–27, 52].

Solitary Confinement – Illegal Segregation Prior to Finality of Sentence – Appellants kept in separate cells from 21.12.2006 to 2009 before exhaustion of judicial and constitutional remedies – Such segregation held illegal and violative of Article 21 – Section 30(2) of Prisons Act applicable only when death sentence becomes final, conclusive and executable – Reliance on Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration – Illegal solitary confinement itself a valid ground for commutation [Paras 28–33, 39–43, 53(i)].

Punjab Jail Manual – Statutory Segregation – Constitutional Limits – Provisions permitting confinement “apart from other prisoners” cannot be enforced to impose complete social and sensory isolation – Jail authorities lack power to add punitive solitary confinement beyond judicial sentence – Any segregation resulting in denial of sight and communication with fellow prisoners held unconstitutional [Paras 29–31, 43].

Delay in Disposal of Mercy Petitions – Executive Apathy – Mental Torture – Unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than four years attributable to State authorities at multiple stages – Failure to inform appellants of right to file mercy petitions and denial of legal aid post dismissal of review – Misrouting of mercy petitions, prolonged inaction despite repeated reminders by MHA, erroneous reliance on Sriharan judgment, and one-year delay in communicating rejection by Governor – Held: Delay caused severe mental agony and violated Article 21 [Paras 34–37, 44–49, 53(ii)].

Mercy Petition – Procedural Safeguards – Mandatory Compliance – MHA guidelines requiring immediate intimation to convicts and legal assistance for preparation of mercy petitions are binding – Non-compliance vitiates post-conviction process – Making convicts sign multiple mercy petitions without legal aid held impermissible – Procedural lapses constitute relevant supervening factor for commutation [Paras 44–50].

Gravity of Crime – Irrelevance in Post-Mercy Proceedings – Heinous nature of offence and brutality involved cannot be considered at post-mercy stage – Focus confined to delay, prison conditions, dignity, and fairness – Reliance on Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India [Paras 11, 36, 52].

Long Incarceration on Death Row – ‘Death Row Phenomenon’ – Appellants incarcerated for over twenty years under constant threat of execution – Prolonged uncertainty and psychological trauma recognised as infringement of Article 21 – Mental suffering outweighs relevance of physical health alone [Paras 35–37, 51, 53(iii)].

Maintainability – Letters Patent Appeal – Writ Based on Mercy Delay – Proceedings challenging delay in mercy petitions are independent of original conviction – Intra-court appeal maintainable against dismissal of such writ petitions – Supreme Court remand settled maintainability issue [Paras 7–8].

Sentence – Commutation – Life Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life – Cumulative effect of illegal solitary confinement, inordinate delay, prolonged incarceration and procedural lapses warranted commutation – Death sentence substituted with life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – No remission or premature release permissible – Balance struck between constitutional rights of convicts and societal interests [Paras 22, 54].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeals partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – Impugned judgment of Single Judge modified accordingly.

Permanent Injunction – Possession – Second Appeal – Trial Court dismissed suit holding plaintiff not in possession and pointing out discrepancies in pleadings and measurements – First Appellate Court reversed the judgment on reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence and granted injunction – High Court examined divergent findings – Held: No perversity or error in approach of First Appellate Court – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 9, 19–20].

Permanent Injunction – Test of Possession on Date of Suit – Suit for injunction simpliciter – Court required to examine who was in possession as on the date of filing of suit – Revenue records, tax assessment register, tax paid receipts and panchayath records stood in the name of plaintiff – Defendant admitted non-payment of tax and failed to produce documentary proof of possession – Held: Documentary evidence established plaintiff’s possession on date of suit [Paras 18–19].

Evidence – Documentary Evidence versus Oral Testimony – Plaintiff relied upon RTCs, tax registers and tax paid receipts – Defendant relied mainly on oral testimony claiming possession and construction of cattle shed – Defence witnesses found to be interested and admissions made regarding plaintiff’s ownership – Held: Documentary evidence outweighed uncorroborated oral claims of defendant [Paras 14–18].

Adverse Possession – Plea and Proof – Defendant pleaded adverse possession claiming possession for over 25 years – No cogent documentary evidence produced to substantiate hostile, continuous and exclusive possession – Mere assertion of long possession insufficient – Held: Plea of adverse possession not proved [Paras 5, 19].

Discrepancy in Measurement – Effect – Tax assessment register (Ex.P4) showed measurement as 15 x 143 feet whereas suit schedule mentioned 15 x 180 feet – First Appellate Court noticed discrepancy but treated it as minor and not affecting identity of property – Identity and location of suit property admitted by parties – Held: Minor discrepancy in measurement not fatal to injunction suit when possession otherwise proved [Paras 9, 18–19].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with findings of fact – High Court reiterated that reappreciation of evidence is not permissible unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Findings of First Appellate Court found to be based on proper appreciation of material on record – Held: No substantial question of law arises [Paras 10, 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 06.08.2021 in R.A.No.27/2020 confirmed.

Customs Law – Smuggling – Penalty – Section 112 – Procedural Lapses – Revenue appeals against CESTAT’s order setting aside penalties of up to ₹15 crores imposed for alleged gold smuggling based on statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act – Held: Penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) cannot be simultaneously imposed – CESTAT rightly found contradiction in statements and lack of direct evidence – No gold was seized in prior alleged instances, and seizure in the present case involved unrelated individuals – Appeals dismissed [Paras 5–6, 18].

Evidence – Section 108 Customs Act – Admissibility – Compliance with Section 138B Mandatory – Statements recorded under Section 108 cannot be used as evidence unless conditions of Section 138B are fulfilled – Held: No witness who gave statements was examined; hence statements inadmissible – Reliance on untested statements violates principles of natural justice – Reiterated by reliance on Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. [2025 KHC Online 6762], Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. [(2016) 340 ELT 67], and Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. [(2021) 375 ELT 545] [Paras 14–18].

Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examine – Section 122A and 124 – Tribunal's view upheld that opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is part of fair hearing under Sections 122A and 124 – Statements not meeting Section 138B test cannot be relied upon without cross-examination – Tribunal was right in discarding them [Para 22].

No Adverse Inference – Failure to Give Statement – Failure of accused to give statement under Section 108 does not amount to guilt or waiver of defence – Statute does not permit adverse inference solely on that basis – Revenue's contention rejected [Paras 20–21].

Burden of Proof – No Direct Evidence – No Recovery – Except for statements, no direct or corroborative evidence was found linking respondents with seized gold – Tribunal found no link between respondents and alleged smuggling in past incidents – Cash and gold seized from others had been released for lack of nexus [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No question of law arises – Tribunal’s order upheld – Penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and (b) found unsustainable due to evidentiary defects and procedural violations [Final Para].

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on ground of cruelty – Allegations of dowry demand, forced medical tests, attempted strangulation and harassment – Evidence found unsubstantiated – Reliance on evidence from separate proceedings impermissible – No cruelty proved – Dismissal of divorce petition affirmed [Paras 10–26].

Cruelty – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegations of physical and mental cruelty must be proved by cogent, convincing and independent evidence – Mere allegations without corroboration insufficient to dissolve marriage – Family Court rightly insisted on strict proof [Paras 10, 19–21].

Medical Evidence – Alleged Forced Abdominal Scan – Appellant alleged ultrasound scan conducted to detect premarital abortion – Exhibits P2 to P4 only established that ultrasound of abdomen and pelvis was conducted on doctor’s advice – No indication of purpose being premarital abortion – Doctors not examined – Admission of appellant that respondent accompanied her for general check-up contradicted her plea – Allegation not proved [Paras 11–11.2].

Evidence from Other Proceedings – Limited Use – Appellant relied on depositions and documents from proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Exs. R30 to R32) – Held: Evidence recorded in separate proceedings cannot be mechanically relied upon in matrimonial proceedings unless witnesses are examined and evidence proved afresh – Supreme Court’s clarification while dismissing SLP reinforced such limitation [Paras 12–12.2, 14].

Attempt to Murder / Strangulation – Lack of Proof – Serious allegation of attempted strangulation unsupported by medical records, police complaint or independent witnesses – Panchayatdars not examined – Mere assertion without contemporaneous evidence insufficient to constitute cruelty [Paras 13, 14].

Dowry Demand and Criminal Proceedings – Pendency Not Proof – Registration of criminal case under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and dismissal of petition under Section 482 CrPC do not by themselves establish guilt or cruelty – Criminal trial pending – Family Court justified in not treating pendency of criminal case as proof of cruelty [Paras 17–18].

Conduct of Parties – Mental Cruelty Alleged by Respondent – Evidence indicated repeated complaints, letters to employer and RTI applications by appellant and her father – Family Court’s finding that respondent was subjected to mental harassment upheld – Appellate court found no perversity in appreciation of evidence [Paras 19–21].

Maintenance and Stridhana – No Automatic Relief – Claim of higher maintenance and non-return of stridhana rejected for want of proof – Maintenance already fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month in separate proceedings – No evidence of change in circumstances or proof of assets and liabilities – Liberty reserved to seek modification in accordance with law [Paras 22–25].

Scope of Appellate Interference – Family Court Findings – Appellate court will not interfere with well-reasoned findings of Family Court unless perversity or misreading of evidence shown – Impugned judgment based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No ground for interference made out [Paras 21, 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24/02/2022 passed in M.C.No.241/2017 by the Family Court, Shivamogga upheld – Divorce on ground of cruelty refused – Liberty reserved to appellant to seek modification of maintenance in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Para 26].