Tenancy Law – Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Joint Ownership – Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act – Eviction Order Upheld – Landlords filed eviction petition for personal requirement of shop premises to run a boutique – One co-owner purchased in 1996, other in 2007 – Tenant argued bar under Section 14(6) due to second sale deed being within 5 years – Held: in case of multiple co-owners, five-year bar under Section 14(6) to be counted from earliest acquisition – Eviction petition was maintainable and rightly allowed [Paras 1, 2, 16-18].

Tenant’s Defence – Section 14(6) DRC Act – Fresh Plea in Revision – Not Raised Before ARC – Not Permissible – Tenant never raised issue of Section 14(6) before Rent Controller, nor led evidence – Held: tenant estopped from raising new plea at revisional stage – Revision jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) cannot be used to cure defects not urged before the trial forum [Paras 13-14, 19].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Only in Exceptional Cases – No Error or Illegality Found – Court reiterated limited scope of revisional powers under Section 25B(8) DRC Act – No perversity, illegality or error apparent in the eviction order passed by ARC – Findings of fact regarding landlord-tenant relationship and bona fide requirement upheld [Paras 22-24].

Joint Ownership – Eviction Petition Maintainable – Single Co-owner’s Eligibility Satisfies Statutory Bar – Held: DRC Act does not bar joint owners from seeking eviction if one co-owner satisfies the five-year ownership requirement – Language of Section 14(6) refers to “a landlord” and does not restrict joint petitions by multiple owners [Paras 17-18].

Decision:

Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order dated 18.11.2019 affirmed – Tenant directed to hand over possession of shop to landlords forthwith – Court held tenant had already availed statutory six-month protection under Section 14(7) DRC Act – No costs [Paras 24-26].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Legally Enforceable Debt – Time-barred loan – Cheques issued in 2009 for loan and presented in 2013 – Dishonoured for “insufficient funds” – Appellate court held loan time-barred and acquitted accused – Held: Under Section 25(3) of Indian Contract Act, cheque itself constitutes written promise to pay a time-barred debt; therefore, liability is legally enforceable – Acquittal unsustainable [Paras 7–8, 18–19, 25–26].

Presumption – Sections 118 & 139 of N.I. Act – Once signature and execution of cheque admitted, presumption arises that cheque issued for discharge of liability – Burden lies on accused to rebut by cogent evidence – Accused failed to prove repayment or misuse of security cheque – Presumption unrebutted [Paras 17, 20, 24].

Security Cheque – Validity – Defence that cheques were given as security rejected – Even security cheques mature for presentation upon default in repayment – Dishonour attracts Section 138 – Reliance on Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 18 SCC 614 [Para 23].

Limitation – Cheque towards Time-barred Debt – Cheque operates as fresh promise in writing under Section 25(3) of Contract Act reviving enforceability – Complaint maintainable despite lapse of limitation period for underlying loan [Paras 18–19, 25].

Case Law Applied – A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna, (2002) 2 SCC 642; S. Natarajan v. Sama Dharman, (2021) 6 SCC 413; K. Hymavathi v. State of A.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1128 – All affirm the principle that cheque for time-barred debt constitutes valid enforceable liability [Paras 19–20].

Scope of Revision – Section 397/401 CrPC – Revisional court justified in interfering with perverse acquittal ignoring binding precedent and statutory presumptions [Paras 26–28].

Decision: Revisions by complainant allowed – Acquittal orders dated 06.04.2018 set aside – Trial court’s conviction and sentence dated 13.11.2017 restored – Revision by accused dismissed – One conviction by appellate court affirmed [Paras 28–29].

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum – Concealment of Income – Revision Dismissed – Revisionist-husband, a company director, challenged Family Court order directing payment of ₹20,000/- p.m. each to wife and daughter – He alleged that maintenance was excessive considering his income of ₹2.4 lakh p.a. – Wife alleged concealment of true income and production of manipulated ITRs – Documentary evidence showed deposits exceeding ₹67 lakh in company accounts and assets worth over ₹1 crore – Court found deliberate suppression of income – Held: Revisionist had sufficient means and moral/legal duty to maintain wife and daughter [Paras 15–27].

Wife Living Separately – Justifiable Cause – Evidence showed wife was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment – Husband failed to cross-examine her on key allegations – Trial court rightly held that she was living separately for sufficient reasons [Paras 10–11].

Wife’s Qualification – Capability to Earn – Effect – Wife, though qualified (B.Com and Interior Design Diploma), left employment at husband’s insistence – Presently unemployed and caring for minor child – Mere capability to work not ground to deny maintenance [Paras 12–14].

Standard of Living – Principle of Parity – Wife entitled to live in similar standard as husband – Husband’s attempt to evade liability by showing reduced income rejected – Maintenance to ensure dignity and prevent destitution – Court reiterated that sustenance implies living consistent with family status [Paras 18–22].

Determination of Quantum – Guiding Principles – Reaffirmed Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, neither oppressive nor meagre – Financial capacity, lifestyle, inflation, and dependent obligations to be considered [Para 23].

Presumption – Able-Bodied Husband – Following Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani (AIR 1968 Del 174) – Able-bodied man presumed capable of earning sufficient to maintain wife and child; concealment of income invites adverse inference [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Family Court order upheld – ₹20,000/- per month each to wife and minor daughter affirmed – No interference warranted [Para 30].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Written Statement – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Replication – Scope and Pleadings – Petitioners sought amendment of written statement to rebut new facts introduced in replication filed by plaintiffs – Trial court dismissed the application holding replication not part of pleadings – Held: Replication, when permitted by court, forms part of pleadings; defendants have right to counter new averments – Amendment necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and enable full adjudication [Paras 6–12].

Replication – Legal Status – Order VIII Rule 9 CPC – Supreme Court Clarification – Following K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini (2009 (1) RAJ 78) and Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajjit Singh (2024 INSC 391) – Replication permissible with leave of court and may be treated as part of pleadings if allowed – Pleas introduced therein must be specifically controverted, failing which deemed admitted [Paras 8–11].

Amendment at Initial Stage – No Prejudice to Opposite Party – Suit still at preliminary stage and issues not framed – Amendment neither alters nature of defence nor prejudices plaintiffs – Liberal approach warranted to ensure complete justice [Paras 9, 12].

Precedents – Reliance – Salig Ram v. Shiv Shankar, 1971 AIR P&H 437 – Replication forms part of pleadings; uncontroverted averments deemed admitted – Hakam Singh v. Jagir Singh, 1991 (2) RRR 170 – Amendment permissible to clarify existing stand without changing nature of defence [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Civil Revision Allowed – Impugned order dated 24.03.2025 set aside – Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement allowed – Trial Court directed to accept amended written statement and proceed with trial [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Appeal Against Acquittal – Respondent accused of driving a tanker rashly and hitting a cyclist who died on the spot – Eyewitness accounts (PW5 and PW6) found inconsistent, contradictory, and uncorroborated by physical evidence – No mechanical inspection of the cycle conducted – Tanker inspection showed no fresh damage – No photographs or reliable scene reconstruction adduced – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal justified [Paras 2–6, 13–15, 20–21].

Evidence – Eyewitness Credibility – Contradictions – PW6 claimed to witness the accident from both inside and outside a bus – PW5 admitted he did not see the driver – Statements made under Section 161 CrPC by PW6 contradicted his court deposition – No proof of witness presence at scene through memos or photographs – Held: Testimonies unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 5, 13–14].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – Acquittal by Trial Court reinforces presumption of innocence – Appellate court must be cautious in overturning acquittals unless the trial court’s view is wholly unreasonable or perverse – Held: Trial Court’s view was a plausible one based on evidence – No grounds for interference [Paras 17–19].

IPC Section 304A – Requirement of Proof – Essential ingredients include rash or negligent act directly causing death – High speed alone not sufficient to infer rashness – Mere occurrence of accident not proof of negligence – Held: In absence of evidence on speed, traffic conditions, or manner of driving, conviction under Section 304A cannot be sustained [Paras 10–12, 16].

Presumption of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Inapplicability – Held: Principle applies only when circumstances unmistakably point to negligence – Not attracted merely because an accident occurred – Criminal negligence must be established through specific evidence, not inference [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279 and 304A IPC upheld – Court finds prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent act beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court’s judgment found reasonable, based on lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in prosecution case – Double presumption of innocence reinforced [Paras 20–21].

Criminal Law – House Trespass – Assault with Firearm – Conviction – Appellant convicted under Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii) IPC for unlawfully entering complainant’s residence at night and threatening with a country-made pistol – Prosecution established recovery of firearm, live and fired cartridges – Eyewitness accounts by daughter (PW-2) and complainant (PW-10) corroborated by police witnesses – FSL report confirmed the firearm and ammunition fell under Arms Act – Held: Trial Court rightly convicted appellant based on reliable and consistent evidence [Paras 2–11]

Witness Testimony – Identification of Accused – PW-2 positively identified the appellant and detailed sequence of events – PW-10 (complainant) unable to identify appellant in court due to passage of time, but had identified him at the time of incident – Police witnesses confirmed arrest and recovery – Held: Prosecution not discredited merely because one witness could not identify the accused after long delay – Conviction sustainable on basis of other credible witnesses [Para 9]

Sentencing – Probation – Reformative Justice – Long Pendency – Appellant was 18–19 years old at the time of incident and has no prior record – Trial concluded after 22 years and appeal pending for 20+ years – Appellant married with six children and sole breadwinner – Supreme Court jurisprudence (Mohammad Giasuddin, Pramod Kumar Mishra, K. Pounammal) emphasizes reformative approach in long-pending matters – Held: While conviction upheld, sentence modified – Appellant released on probation of good conduct for one year under bond of ₹10,000 with one surety [Paras 12–15]

Decision:  Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii) IPC upheld – Sentence modified – Appellant released on probation of good conduct for one year – All pending applications disposed of

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Direct Evidence – FIR Delay – Identification of Decomposed Body – DNA Report – Role of MLA Accused – Appeals Dismissed – Jai Prakash Singh, father of the informant (PW-8), was abducted and murdered on 20.08.2015 by a mob of over 20 persons allegedly associated with a caste-based political meeting – PW-8 provided a detailed and consistent eye-witness account identifying all key accused, including Manoj Manzil (a sitting MLA) as the main assailant – Corroboration from PWs 1-4 confirmed the assault and motive – Delay in FIR held immaterial as police reached the spot within 20–25 minutes and search continued overnight – FIR was lodged next morning and delay duly explained [Paras 2–5, 30–34].

Eyewitness Testimony – Sole Testimony – Natural Conduct – PW-8’s Testimony Accepted as Wholly Reliable – Court found PW-8’s narration natural and consistent with other evidence – His presence at the scene with his father was undisputed – Supported by PWs 1–4, his evidence formed the backbone of the prosecution case – Testimony found credible despite absence of independent witnesses – Held: Sole testimony of a trustworthy witness can sustain conviction [Paras 35–44].

Medical Jurisprudence – Identification of Decomposed Body – DNA Test Not Produced – No Adverse Inference Drawn – Appellants challenged the identification of the body recovered after 7 days, claiming mismatch in age and postmortem findings – Court held identification by scar and dyed hair acceptable – Cause of death (strangulation) corroborated with ocular evidence – Held: Failure to produce DNA report does not vitiate trial in light of other cogent evidence – Relying on Pattu Rajan, S. Kaleeswaran and Vadivelu Thevar, Court held DNA is opinion evidence and absence does not negate otherwise proved facts [Paras 46–56].

Delay in FIR – Explained and Justified – No Concoction or Fabrication Found – Police investigation began immediately post-incident – FIR delay caused by overnight search and immediate police arrival – FIR handed to Chaukidar next morning – No questions raised in cross-examination to challenge genuineness – Delay not fatal per Chotkau and Hariprasad rulings [Paras 31–34]

Mob Violence – Identification – Role of Each Accused Clearly Established – Specific roles attributed to Manoj Manzil and others in eyewitness testimonies – Defence plea of vague allegations rejected – Presence and participation of accused clearly narrated – Motive (revenge for earlier caste killing) held proved [Paras 38–41, 45].

Independent Witnesses – Absence Not Fatal – Explanation Accepted – Court noted fear and political influence (accused was an MLA) as factors deterring neutral witnesses – Relatives’ testimony not discarded for being ‘interested’ – Held: Credibility, not relationship, determines evidentiary weight [Paras 42–43].

Postmortem and Artefacts – Decomposition Effects Not Inconsistent With Assault – Court relied on Modi’s Textbook to explain how decomposition distorts signs of external trauma – Foul smell, bloating, liquefaction common in delayed recovery – Observed that absence of external injuries does not negate assault in decomposed state – Postmortem corroborated strangulation, consistent with cause of death [Paras 53–55].

Appeal – Dismissed – Convictions and Sentences Upheld – Bail Cancelled – Accused Directed to Surrender – Appeals dismissed – Court upheld conviction under Sections 302/149, 364/149, and 201/149 IPC – Life sentence and fines confirmed – Accused on bail directed to surrender within one week; failure to attract coercive action [Paras 57–59].

Criminal Law – Cheating – Criminal Breach of Trust – Prevention of Corruption – Recruitment fraud in TRC-ICMR – A1 (Administrative Officer) manipulated recruitment process to secure appointment of his son (A2) – Suppressed A2’s ineligibility, leaked question paper, and altered recruitment procedure – Trial Court convicted A1 and A2 under IPC and PC Act; State sought conviction under conspiracy – Held: A1 misused official position for personal gain; A2 knowingly participated in deception – Offence of cheating (S.420 IPC) proved against both; Criminal breach of trust (S.409 IPC) and offences under S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act established against A1 – Criminal conspiracy (S.120-B) proved only to the extent of S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC – Sentences modified to simple imprisonment; institutional corrective directions issued to ICMR [Paras 5, 5.2–5.16, 7].

Recruitment Fraud – Misrepresentation and Suppression – A2 possessed M.A. (Public Administration) obtained through open university system, without basic degree or prescribed subjects – Falsely declared “M.A.” and claimed proficiency in Telugu – A1, being Administrative Officer, deliberately suppressed A2’s specialization during scrutiny and presentation before the Selection Committee – Held: Concealment and false representation were deliberate and material – Offence of cheating made out beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5.3, 5.4, 5.9].

Evidence – Question Paper Leakage – Circumstantial and Technical Proof – Question papers and answer keys stored in floppy entrusted to A1 with strict confidentiality; metadata revealed unauthorized modifications on 17 & 19 July 2005; corroborated by approver (PW-15); only A2 and approver’s son scored full marks (25/25) – Defence plea of “easy paper” rejected – Held: Leakage established; breach of trust and cheating proved against A1; active participation of A2 inferred from exclusive benefit gained [Paras 5.6–5.8].

Service Law – Manipulated Circular – A1 issued internal circular for Technician post in deviation from amended recruitment rules – Omitted public advertisement and reversed “essential” and “desirable” qualifications to fit A2’s eligibility – Held: Fraud on recruitment process; vitiated selection of A2; acts amounted to misuse of official authority for personal benefit [Paras 5.10–5.15].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Court reiterates that every irregular appointment does not amount to criminal misconduct unless dishonest intention and unlawful gain are proved – In present case, cumulative circumstances and technical evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Mere suspicion insufficient, but prosecution evidence met legal standard [Para 5].

Conspiracy – Scope and Limitation – Evidence showed A1 and A2 acted in concert to cheat organisation by dishonest concealment and manipulation – However, no wider conspiracy involving other officials proved – Held: Guilt under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC sustained; conspiracy for other substantive offences not established [Para 5.18].

Sentence – Modification – A1: Convictions under S.420 IPC, S.409 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act confirmed; sentence modified to one year’s Simple Imprisonment on each count, with fine maintained; three months’ SI under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC added – A2: Conviction under S.420 IPC confirmed; sentence reduced to three months’ SI; additional three months’ SI under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC – All sentences to run concurrently; eight weeks to surrender; medical direction issued for A1 – “Being mentioned” order dated 15-10-2025 corrected A1’s age to 76 and imposed additional fine of Rs 1,000 [Para 7; Corrigendum 15-10-2025].

Institutional Accountability – Systemic Failures – Court expressed concern over ethical decline in recruitment integrity – Directed ICMR to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against A1 (including post-retirement, if permissible) and to conduct discreet audit of employee-kin appointments – Directed forwarding of judgment to DG, ICMR and Secretary, MoHFW for systemic corrective action [Para 6].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Convictions of A1 under S.420 & S.409 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act confirmed with modified sentence of Simple Imprisonment – Conviction of A2 under S.420 IPC maintained with reduced term – State appeal partly allowed by including S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC against both – Sentences to run concurrently – Medical and procedural directions affirmed [Paras 7; Corrigendum 15-10-2025].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Denial – Petitioner, former TUDA Chairman and Accused No.39 in ₹3200 crore liquor scam, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS – Allegations include misuse of government vehicle for transporting unaccounted cash during 2024 General Elections – Held: Prima facie material including toll data and witness statements support prosecution's case – Offences involve public funds and serious conspiracy – Anticipatory bail rightly refused [Paras 2, 8–13].

Economic Offences – Prima Facie Case – Bail Denied – Statement of L.W.162 (gunman) confirmed Petitioner provided TUDA vehicle for cash transport – Toll records contradict TUDA’s logbooks, indicating vehicle misuse – Cash seizure of ₹8.36 crores from vehicle linked to Petitioner – Court held this constitutes prima facie involvement – Petition dismissed [Paras 9–10].

Anticipatory Bail – Suppression of Antecedents – Failure to Disclose FIRs – Petitioner failed to disclose four prior FIRs in bail petition – Held: Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents relevant ground to deny anticipatory bail – Reliance placed on SC’s judgment in Muneesh v. State of U.P. [Paras 8–9].

BNSS – Section 179 – Non-appearance after Summons – Petitioner failed to appear despite multiple summons under Section 179 BNSS – Court rejected argument that non-cooperation alone should not bar bail – Held: Continued evasion reinforces need for custodial interrogation [Paras 5, 12].

Judicial Discretion – Scope of Anticipatory Bail – Economic Fraud – Court cited multiple SC precedents emphasizing cautious use of anticipatory bail in serious financial crimes – Discretion to be exercised sparingly, especially in cases involving public interest and systemic fraud – Petition not fit for relief [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No grounds for pre-arrest bail – Custodial interrogation found necessary – Gravity and economic implications outweigh claims of political vendetta.