Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Age Determination – Essential Requirement – Acquittal Upheld – Prosecutrix claimed to be 13 years old but no documentary proof (school record, birth certificate) or medical evidence (bone ossification test) produced by prosecution – Investigating Officer admitted failure to collect age proof – Held: In absence of reliable age determination, accused could not be convicted under charges involving a minor – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution for non-compliance with mandatory protocols [Paras 17–27]

Criminal Trial – Sexual Assault – Refusal of Medical Examination – Investigating Agency’s Failure – Prosecutrix’s mother refused internal gynecological examination, despite serious nature of charges – No MLC report available – Held: Absence of medical corroboration substantially weakened prosecution’s case – Investigating Agency failed to discharge duty to collect essential evidence in sexual assault cases [Paras 29–31]

Criminal Law – Consent and Elopement – Public Travel and Cohabitation – Evidence of Voluntary Accompaniment – Prosecutrix travelled over 300 km in public transport with accused and stayed at his home for 2–3 days without raising any alarm – She admitted in cross-examination that she wanted to marry accused and had prior relationship with him – Child Welfare Committee also recorded voluntary elopement – Held: Circumstances indicated consensual relationship and belied theory of abduction or force – Consistency and credibility of deposition not established [Paras 32–38]

Appellate Review – Scope in Acquittal Appeals – Reversal of Acquittal – When Permissible – Acquittal not found perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Trial Court rightly found prosecution failed to prove essential elements of crime beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Appeal against acquittal must show perversity or manifest illegality – No compelling reason found to overturn acquittal [Paras 40–42]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court upheld – No interference warranted in absence of perversity or manifest illegality – Respondent stands acquitted of all charges

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Court Fee – Suit for Damages – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff claimed damages of ₹2 crore in suit for malicious prosecution but affixed only nominal court fee of ₹100 claiming tentative valuation – Held: When a specific amount is claimed, even if termed “tentative,” ad valorem court fee is mandatory under Section 7(i) of Court Fees Act – Trial Court erred in treating suit under Section 7(iv) and allowing provisional fee – Plaintiff directed to affix appropriate court fee within one month failing which plaint to be rejected [Paras 6–8]

Court Fees Act – Section 7(i) vs. Section 7(iv) – Scope Distinguished – Referring to State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 464, Supreme Court clarified that liberty to value relief under Section 7(iv) is limited to specified categories – For suits involving quantified monetary relief, ad valorem fee under Section 7(i) is mandatory – Present case being a damages suit falls within Section 7(i), hence attracts ad valorem fee [Paras 7–8]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference Justified – Trial Court wrongly permitted under-valuation of court fee by accepting tentative fee despite specific monetary claim – Discretion misapplied – High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to ensure compliance with statutory mandate [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.07.2023 set aside – Plaintiff directed to affix ad valorem court fee on ₹2 crore within one month – Failing which, plaint shall stand rejected

Service Law – Recruitment – Eligibility Criteria – AICTE Regulations, 2019 – Application to Ongoing Process – Recruitment Notice Issued on 25.02.2020 Without Mention of AICTE Norms – Government Adopted 2019 Regulations Before Last Date of Application – Clause 1.4(g) Mandates Corrigendum Where Interviews Not Held – Held: Regulations Framed Under Statutory Authority – Appointments Must Comply – Corrigendum Directed Valid – Appeal Dismissed [Paras 1–6, 20–27, 35–37].

Subordinate Legislation – Mandatory Compliance – AICTE Regulations Binding on State and Aided Institutions – Government Order Explicitly Adopted Qualifications Under 2019 AICTE Norms – Recruitment Advertisement Silent on Eligibility – Held: Statutory Rules Prevail Over Earlier Norms – Non-Compliance Inadmissible [Paras 19–25, 35].

Recruitment Process – No Vested Right to Appointment – Select List Not Conclusive – Advertisement Can Be Amended if Statutory Norms Apply – Appellant’s Position in Merit List Irrelevant If Prepared Under Invalid Criteria – Held: Selection Must Follow Existing Law at Time of Cut-off Date – Mere Placement in List Does Not Confer Enforceable Right [Paras 8–10, 26–27, 34].

Tej Prakash Pathak & K. Manjusree – Interpretation – Applicability – Supreme Court Clarified Rules Can’t Be Changed Midway Unless Rules So Permit – Karnataka High Court Held AICTE 2019 Regulations Form Part of Binding Subordinate Legislation – Present Case Falls Within Exceptions Recognized by SC – Held: No Contravention of Article 14 or Administrative Arbitrariness [Paras 28–31].

Education Law – Appointment in Technical Institutions – Standards in Higher Education – Qualification for Associate Professors – AICTE Regulations Prevail Over Institutional Discretion – Government’s Direction for Corrigendum Within Jurisdiction – Held: Ensures Uniformity and Standards in National Technical Education System [Paras 23–24, 36–37].

Decision: Writ Appeal Dismissed – State Government’s direction to amend advertisement to incorporate AICTE Regulations, 2019 upheld – No right to appointment merely on inclusion in merit list prepared contrary to binding regulations – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Defamation – Accused were members of Apartment Owners' Adhoc Committee – Petitioners issued a private letter to complainant’s husband expressing concerns over suspicious activities in the flat, based on reports from security staff – Incident of a man jumping from balcony half-naked cited – Husband allegedly used this letter to publicly malign complainant through Church representatives – Held: Letter addressed privately, not published publicly by petitioners – No evidence of mala fide intent or conspiracy with husband – Protection of Ninth and Tenth Exceptions to Section 499 IPC attracted – Petitioners’ actions done in good faith for safety and interest of residents and children [Paras 6–9]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – No prima facie case made out against petitioners for offence of defamation – Letter issued in private, not with intention to defame – Continuation of proceedings against petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law – Held: Criminal proceedings against petitioners quashed [Paras 7–9]

Apartment Governance – Communication with Resident Owners – Responsibility of Association Members – Information about security violations conveyed to one of the owners – Court held that internal communication on issues affecting community safety, even if referring to another resident, is protected if issued in good faith and without malice – Not actionable as defamation when private and non-malicious [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal proceedings against petitioners (Accused Nos. 5 to 7) in C.C. No. 12 of 2021 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam quashed – Held to be an abuse of process of law [Para 9]

Property Law – Family Settlement – Proof – Plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession based on oral family settlement and subsequent memorandum dated 02.02.2006 – Courts below held that no oral settlement was proved and memorandum Ex.P7 did not reference any prior settlement – Held: No evidence to establish original oral partition – Memorandum of settlement dated 02.02.2006 not proved in accordance with law and not admissible without registration under Section 17 of Registration Act as it created new rights in immovable property – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–12].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Findings of fact by both courts below that family settlement was neither proved nor registered – No substantial question of law arose – Held: High Court in second appeal has limited jurisdiction and cannot interfere with findings of fact even if erroneous – Reliance placed on SC rulings in Randhir Kaur, Mst. Sugani, and Avtar Singh – Appeal rejected [Paras 13–16].

Possession – Plaintiffs Failed to Prove – Reliance on Aabiyana receipts and electricity bills to show possession over agricultural land – Held: Receipts were vague, lacked land identity, and contained inconsistencies – Plaintiffs at best shown to reside in Dhani as ousted licensees – Not sufficient to prove lawful possession [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law found – Concurrent findings upheld – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 14–19].

Money Laundering – Predicate Offence – Requirement of Scheduled Offence – Validity of Arrest under Section 19 PMLA – Petitioner challenged the arrest of her husband (MLA, Chitradurga Constituency) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) pursuant to ECIR/BGZO/19/2025, contending absence of a valid predicate scheduled offence – ED relied on multiple FIRs (2011–2024) alleging illegal online betting and gambling networks linked to the accused – Petitioner argued all FIRs except FIR No.218/2022 (Harohalli P.S.) were quashed or closed, and even in that case, a ‘B’ report was filed – Held: existence of a predicate offence is foundational for ECIR registration under PMLA, but respondent’s investigation revealed large-scale betting and laundering operations connected to accused through entities like FonePaisa, Simtech IT Solutions, and foreign casinos – Sufficient material existed for “reason to believe” under Section 19 PMLA – Custodial interrogation justified – Arrest upheld [Paras 10–26].

PMLA – Reason to Believe – Nature of Satisfaction Required – Court reiterated that “reason to believe” under Section 19 PMLA must be based on material indicating involvement in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime – Preliminary investigation and statements of witnesses revealed direct control and benefit by accused from online betting apps (King567, Raja567) and foreign casino operations – Such material constituted adequate foundation for arrest – Mere filing of ‘B’ report in predicate FIR does not nullify ECIR unless accepted by court [Paras 14–18, 25].

Online Betting Racket – Linking of Predicate FIR with Larger Laundering Operation – Though FIR No.218/2022 involved only ₹30,000 alleged fraud, ED established nexus between the accused’s network and larger fraudulent gaming operations involving hundreds of crores laundered through multiple entities – Court held that “proceeds of crime” include property derived from any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence and not confined to amount mentioned in predicate FIR [Paras 21–23].

Constitutional Challenge – Fundamental Rights – Articles 19 and 21 – Arrest not found arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights – ED acted within statutory powers under Section 19 PMLA – Compliance with D.K. Basu guidelines for arrest and communication to family was noted [Paras 3, 4, 25].

Decision: Petition dismissed – ECIR and arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 upheld – Observations confined to writ proceedings – Liberty reserved to accused to seek bail or other reliefs if the ‘B’ report in predicate FIR is accepted by the jurisdictional court [Paras 27–28].

Motor Accident Claims – Maintainability of Revision – Award Below Threshold – Petitioners (owner and driver) sought to challenge award of Rs.21,380/- passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal via Article 227 petition – Contention raised that appeal barred under Section 173(2) MV Act but revision not expressly prohibited – Held: Revision petition not maintainable where statute bars appeal for awards below Rs.1 lakh – High Court cannot be used to circumvent express statutory bar on appeal under guise of Article 227 [Paras 2–6]

Article 227 Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Petitioners relied on power of superintendence under Article 227 – Reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory remedies – High Court cited Bharti AXA (CR-6131-2016) and Shriram General Insurance (CR-1727-2025) to hold that intervention under Article 227 is not permissible where statute explicitly prohibits appeal – Supreme Court’s decision in Shalini Shyam Shetty followed to reaffirm limited, discretionary, and exceptional nature of Article 227 jurisdiction [Paras 5–7]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Tribunal award upheld – No interference warranted under Article 227 – Pending applications disposed of.

NDPS Act – Possession of Heroin – Sentence Reduced – Appellant found in conscious possession of 35 grams heroin and convicted under Section 21 NDPS Act – Trial Court sentenced him to 08 months' RI and ₹20,000 fine – Appeal filed only on sentence – Held: Though appellant is involved in other NDPS cases, he has already undergone 01 month 19 days in custody, trial lasted nearly five years, and no further unlawful activity reported – Sentence reduced to period already undergone while maintaining conviction [Paras 3, 7–8]

Criminal Procedure – Sentencing – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellant did not challenge conviction on merits – Protracted trial considered – No aggravating conduct shown during trial – Court exercised leniency and modified sentence – Fine amount and default sentence not interfered with [Paras 3–8]

Decision: Conviction under Section 21 NDPS Act upheld – Sentence reduced from 08 months’ imprisonment to period already undergone – Appeal disposed of

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Telecom Stores Scam – Conspiracy – Diversion of Materials – Misappropriation – The prosecution proved that A1 to A5 and A7 to A12 conspired with contractor A6 (deceased) to raise false indents, obtain telecom materials from Chennai Stores and divert them to private scrap dealers – Evidence of PW-46, PW-47 and lorry booking registers established diversion – Held: Convictions of A1, A8, A9 and A12 confirmed; convictions of A5 and A7 upheld but sentences reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment – Acquittal of A10 and A11 affirmed [Paras 2, 3.1–3.3, 4.23–4.24, 30–31].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Competent Authority – A1 contended that sanction was invalid as it was issued by PW-2, Assistant Director General – Court held that PW-2 was duly authorised; sanction valid; no prejudice caused; Trial Court findings affirmed [Paras 4.1–4.3].

Evidence – False Indents – Violation of Departmental Procedure – Indents not countersigned by Divisional Engineers; not routed through Chief General Manager; A7 issued unauthorized issue orders; compliance with material issuance norms violated – Held: Procedural deviations established intentional misconduct under the PC Act [Paras 4.24–4.35].

Acquittal – A10 and A11 – Trial Court found that goods pertaining to indents raised by A10 and A11 were actually delivered to the concerned stores – Held: Acquittal justified and confirmed [Para 3.3].

Sentence – Modification – Proportionality – For A5 and A7, while conviction was upheld, sentence reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment for each charge – concurrent – fine unchanged – set-off allowed – 8 weeks time granted for surrender [Final Order: Sections III and IV].

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of Trial Court based on extensive documentary and oral evidence – No perversity or illegality demonstrated – Held: No ground for interference in convictions of A1, A8, A9 and A12; partial relief only in sentencing of A5 and A7 [Paras 10–14].

Decision: Appeals of A1, A8, A9 and A12 dismissed – conviction and sentence confirmed. Appeals of A5 (Crl.A.No.43/2014) and A7 (Crl.A.No.61/2014) allowed in part – sentence reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment – fine maintained – sentences to run concurrently.