NDPS Act – Recovery of Contraband – Procedural Lapses and Compliance Issues – Acquittal Ordered – Appellant convicted for transporting poppy husk without adherence to NDPS Act's procedural safeguards – Evidence showed recovery of 50 bags of poppy husk weighing 40 kg each, concealed under other goods – Court found non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, absence of homogeneous mixing of seized contraband, and lapses in handling and sealing procedures – Conviction quashed and appeal allowed [Paras 27-34].

Prosecution Evidence – Discrepancies and Lack of Corroboration – Benefit of Doubt Given – Contradictions in testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the number and weight of seized bags, and mishandling of seals and sample parcels – Court noted absence of proper link evidence to establish the integrity of the contraband samples sent for chemical examination – Benefit of doubt extended to the appellant [Paras 29-34].

Section 313 CrPC – Examination of Accused – Procedural Fairness Considered – Appellant pleaded innocence and alleged false implication due to enmity – Court highlighted deficiencies in evidence production, including non-examination of an independent witness and discrepancies in witness testimonies – Held, procedural lapses rendered prosecution's case unreliable [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Appeal allowed, and appellant acquitted – Court directed release of the appellant if not required in any other case – Ordered refund of any fine amount deposited, subject to law [Para 36].

Service Law – Recruitment for Lecturer Posts – Advertisement Challenged – Advertisement by State Selection Board prescribing qualification of Master’s degree with 55% marks without NET/Ph.D. for Lecturer posts in Non-Government Aided Colleges – Held: Prescribed qualifications not in consonance with UGC Regulations (2018) or State Government Resolution (1999) which mandate NET/Ph.D. as eligibility criteria – Advertisement for Physics discipline upheld on equitable grounds, but with directive for future compliance with UGC norms – Advertisements in other disciplines quashed with liberty for reissuance adhering to proper qualifications [Paras 12.1–12.6].

UGC Regulations – Applicability to State Institutions – Post of Lecturer Re-designated as Assistant Professor – UGC Regulations prescribing NET/Ph.D. qualifications deemed mandatory – Board’s reliance on outdated 1989 Resolution held unjustified – State Government’s Resolution of 1999 and subsequent notifications adopting UGC qualifications applicable to all teaching staff, including in aided colleges – Non-compliance by Board invalidates selection process [Paras 12.1–12.4].

Equity in Appointments – Completed Selections in Other Disciplines – High Court allows completion of selection in Physics discipline under impugned advertisement due to equity considerations – Future advertisements must adhere to UGC norms and State’s revised qualification standards – Other ongoing selection processes under similar advertisements quashed [Paras 12.5–12.6].

Precedents – UGC Regulations as Binding – Reliance on Supreme Court rulings in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi, Anindya Sundar Das, and Kalyani Mathivanan – UGC Regulations have statutory force and prevail over conflicting State laws under Article 254 of the Constitution – Any State deviation must align with UGC standards or risk invalidity [Paras 6.8, 8, 12].

Decision: The writ petition W.P.(C) No. 36125 of 2023 was partially allowed, permitting the completion of the selection process for the post of Lecturer in Physics based on equitable considerations. However, the advertisements challenged in W.P.(C) Nos. 8115 and 8155 of 2024 were quashed, with directions to issue fresh advertisements adhering to UGC guidelines and the state government’s resolutions. Future recruitment processes must comply with UGC norms.

Criminal Law – Gang Rape – Acquittal – Appellants (Accused Nos. 1 to 4) convicted under Sections 120B, 366 r/w Section 34, 366A, 376(2)(n), and 376D IPC, Sections 5(l) and 5(g) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fines – Trial court relied primarily on the survivor’s testimony (PW1), supported by medical evidence and presumptions under Section 29 of POCSO Act – Defense argued the testimony lacked credibility, was inconsistent, and contradicted by forensic and circumstantial evidence – Appeal allowed due to substantial doubt in the prosecution’s case [Paras 2, 5, 38, 40].

Evidence – Survivor's Credibility – Legal Threshold – Testimony Rejected – Conviction in sexual offence cases can rest solely on the prosecutrix's testimony if it is of "sterling quality" – Held: The testimony of the survivor lacked corroboration, was inconsistent, and did not meet the threshold of a sterling witness – Not reliable for sustaining a conviction [Paras 25-29, 33-34].

Investigation – Lapses in Prosecution – Non-Presentation of Critical Evidence – Adverse Inference – Non-production of call data records, tower dump details, and absence of corroborative forensic evidence weaken the prosecution's case – Such lapses deemed fatal, as they cast doubt on the prosecution’s narrative and the accused’s alleged involvement [Paras 23, 38].

Medical Evidence – Inadequacy to Support Gang Rape Allegation – Vaginal injuries consistent with penetration were present, but absence of bodily fluids and minimal external injuries inconsistent with allegations of gang rape – Medical evidence found insufficient to corroborate prosecution's version [Paras 20, 38C].

Scene of Crime – Plausibility and Proof – Unsubstantiated Allegations – Alleged assault near a public area and in a building corridor in a high-traffic commercial area lacked evidentiary substantiation – No eyewitness accounts, CCTV evidence, or trace evidence linking the accused to the scene – Raises significant doubts [Paras 38A-B].

Presumption under POCSO Act – Limits and Application – While Section 29 of the POCSO Act allows presumptions against the accused, the prosecution must establish foundational facts of the crime – Here, foundational facts found lacking due to investigative and evidentiary gaps [Paras 36-37].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Doubts on Prosecution Case – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Defendants acquitted due to inconsistencies in the survivor’s testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and significant lapses in the investigation [Paras 39-40].
 

Contract Law – Pledge of Shares – Dispute Over Invocation Notice – Status Quo Ordered – Appeal Disposed Of – The appellant challenged the Trial Court’s interim order directing maintenance of status quo on the pledged shares, claiming contractual rights for invocation – Held: The Trial Court’s order was not on the merits of the applications but to preserve rights until the applications are decided – Direction issued for prompt disposal of applications [Paras 3-5, 12-15].

Jurisdictional Issues – Commercial Court Jurisdiction Contested – Pending Resolution – The appellant argued lack of jurisdiction under the Civil Court due to the commercial nature of the dispute – Held: Jurisdictional challenge under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC pending before the Trial Court, to be addressed without premature adjudication [Paras 16-17].

Application of Contract Principles – Pledgee's Rights – Highlighted – Referring to Sections 176 of the Contract Act and precedents on pledgee's rights, the appellant emphasized the right to sell pledged shares in case of default – Court deferred substantial adjudication to Trial Court [Paras 8-9, 14-15].

Decision:

The appeal was disposed of with the following directions:

Status quo on the pledged shares to be maintained for 15 days from the date of the order.

Execution of Will – Proof and Attestation – Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act – Will Upheld – The appellant challenged the Will (Ext.B2), alleging irregularities and suspicious circumstances – Held: The Will’s execution and attestation were duly proved by the attestor, satisfying legal requirements – The registration of the Will lends credence, though not conclusive proof – No material discrediting the attestor’s testimony was presented [Paras 9-14].

Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Genuineness Established – The appellant argued that the Will excluded certain heirs without justifiable reasons and was fabricated – Held: Evidence confirmed the testator’s sound mind and deliberate exclusion of certain branches due to proximity and care received from other heirs – Appellant failed to substantiate claims of fabrication or undue influence [Paras 12-15].

Handwriting Expert and Fingerprint Analysis – Limited Weight – The appellant relied on expert opinions to dispute the testator’s signature – Held: Variations in signature over decades are natural and not conclusive; contemporaneous evidence was lacking – Fingerprint analysis affirmed the authenticity of the Will, bolstering its validity [Paras 16-17].

Exclusion of Heirs – Testamentary Intent – Not Suspicious – The exclusion of the appellant and her branch was contested as unjustifiable – Held: A Will’s purpose is to alter natural succession; exclusion of certain heirs, when supported by credible reasons, does not make the Will suspicious [Paras 18-19].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The trial court’s decision upholding the validity of the Will (Ext.B2) and dismissing the partition suit was affirmed.

Rowdy History Sheet – Personal Liberty – Deletion Ordered – The petitioner sought removal of his name from the rowdy history sheet, arguing harassment and absence of convictions in 20 out of 21 cases – Held: Retaining the petitioner’s name without any conviction amounts to infringement of liberty; inclusion prejudices reputation and liberty, contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution – Directed deletion of petitioner’s name from the rowdy history sheet [Paras 20-24, 28-31].

KAAPA and Kerala Police Manual – Maintenance of Rowdy Sheets – Procedural Compliance – The Court emphasized procedural safeguards under Clause 259(8) of the Kerala Police Manual, allowing closure of rowdy sheets upon proper recommendations – Directed respondents to comply with procedural mechanisms in similar cases [Paras 22, 30-33].

Judicial Review – Police Actions – Vengeance Alleged – Observations noted systemic issues of arbitrary inclusion in rowdy sheets, indicating possible vendetta by the police – Directed authorities to ensure lawful application of provisions, avoiding misuse against citizens [Paras 25-27].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to delete the petitioner’s name from the rowdy history sheet within four weeks. Claims for compensation and departmental action against police officers were rejected.
 

Bail Application – Cross-Versions of Events – Political Sensitivity – Bail Granted – Applicants sought bail in a case alleging their involvement in a mob violence incident that resulted in deaths on both sides – Held: Evidence showed cross-versions with multiple deaths and injuries; the applicants were not named in the original FIR and their roles emerged later – Supreme Court precedent and progress of trial weighed in favor of bail [Paras 45-50].

Speedy Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Bail Justified – The trial involved over 114 witnesses, with only 7 examined – Held: Prolonged trial duration violates the applicants’ fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail cannot be withheld merely due to the case's gravity [Paras 56-60].

Criminal History – Principle of Parity – Applicants Not Named in FIR – The primary accused had been granted bail by the Supreme Court – Held: The applicants' cases stood on better footing due to their absence from the original FIR – Observed: Bail cannot be denied solely on the existence of criminal antecedents when adequately explained [Paras 61-64].

Conditions for Bail – Non-Misuse of Liberty – Observations Regarding Trial – Bail Granted – Held: Conditions imposed to prevent misuse of bail – Applicants must ensure attendance at critical trial stages – Observations made during the bail order shall not prejudice the trial court's findings [Paras 65-70].

Decision: The court allowed bail applications for the applicants subject to strict conditions, including personal bond, sureties, and mandatory trial appearances. Observations made in the bail order are non-binding on the trial court.
 

Medical Education – Eligibility for MBBS – Disability and Reasonable Accommodation - The appellant, with a disability of congenital amputation of multiple fingers, contested the denial of admission to the MBBS course despite his eligibility under general merit – The National Medical Commission (NMC) and two Medical Boards assessed the appellant, concluding ineligibility due to bilateral upper limb disability affecting essential skills – The appellant argued that the assessment did not fully consider reasonable accommodations or assistive devices as mandated under RPwD Act and challenged CBME guidelines as restrictive and discriminatory – Held: Disability does not justify compromising patient safety in critical medical education skills; regulatory compliance must balance patient welfare with disability rights [Paras 1-6, 26-32].

Judicial Review – Expert Opinion in Medical Eligibility – Limited Scope for Substitution - The appellant sought a court-ordered admission or re-assessment by a specialized board inclusive of disabled health professionals – The Court held that substituting its opinion over a medically expert board's findings is beyond judicial scope unless evident procedural errors are found – Held: Appeal dismissed; judicial intervention restricted to review of expert opinions, not replacement of expertise [Paras 33-35].

Future Scope for Disabled Candidates in Medical Education - The appellant’s plea to permit entry solely for medical teaching was denied due to regulatory restrictions requiring full MBBS competencies – The Court directed the NMC to explore feasible paths within medical education for individuals with disabilities to pursue certain specializations – Directive: NMC to report on curriculum adjustments within six months to support reasonable inclusion [Paras 39-41].

Decision:

The appeal is dismissed, with directions for the National Medical Commission to consider avenues for accessible medical specializations within the MBBS curriculum for persons with disabilities.

Criminal Law - 498-A IPC – Cruelty Against Wife – Conviction Affirmed – The accused (husband and in-laws) were convicted under Section 498-A IPC for continuous harassment of the informant, including dowry demands and physical assaults – The court rejected the plea of double jeopardy, holding that prior compromise and acquittal under similar allegations in an earlier case did not bar prosecution for subsequent acts of cruelty – Evidence from the informant and witnesses corroborated the allegations despite minor inconsistencies – Conviction upheld [Paras 28-38].

Double Jeopardy – Section 300 CrPC – Inapplicability – The accused argued that the present case was barred under Section 300 CrPC due to acquittal in a prior case on similar allegations – Held: The earlier case ended in compromise without adjudication on merits, and subsequent acts of cruelty constituted a fresh offence, making Section 300 inapplicable [Paras 29-37].

Sentencing Policy – Modification of Sentence – In-laws and Husband – Considering the age of the in-laws and the suffering of the informant with her children, the sentence was reduced with enhanced fines to provide victim compensation – The father-in-law and mother-in-law were sentenced to one year RI and fined ₹50,000 each, while the husband’s sentence was reduced to 1.5 years RI with a fine of ₹2,00,000, payable to the informant [Paras 40-48].

Decision:

The revision petitions were partly allowed with modification in sentences:

The father-in-law (Abdul Hanan) and mother-in-law (Razia Khatoon) were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹50,000 each, failing which the original sentence would apply.

The husband (Md. Nasiruddin) was sentenced to 1.5 years rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹2,00,000, failing which the original sentence would apply.

The fines are to be remitted to the informant (victim) for her and her children’s welfare.