Criminal Law – Rape - Section 376(3), 342, 504 of the IPC - Section 3, 4(2) of the POCSO Act – Appeal Against Conviction – Acquittal - False Rape Allegation – Discrepant Testimony – Medico-Legal Contradictions – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act on charges of raping his minor cousin – The Court found major contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her parents regarding the time of incident, manner of alleged offence, and involvement of neighbours – Medical examination showed no recent sexual activity or injury, contradicting the prosecution’s narrative – Held: Serious inconsistencies and absence of corroborative evidence raise reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable, appellant acquitted [Paras 18-52].

Weight of Medical Evidence – Medico-Legal Reports Prevail Over Oral Testimony – Despite victim’s allegations, medical reports indicated absence of injury and recent intercourse – The Court held that when medical and pathological evidence contradict oral testimonies, courts must exercise caution – Allegations not corroborated by scientific evidence, acquittal warranted [Paras 21-22, 42].

Animosity as Motive for False Implication – Minor Property Dispute – The Court noted the background of animosity between the families due to a trivial dispute over burning of a saree – Such disputes, though minor, have increasingly led to false accusations of serious crimes like rape – Held: Prosecution failed to establish motive strong enough to justify conviction, particularly given inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence [Paras 9, 25, 48].

Judicial Duty Towards Unrepresented Accused – Protection of Fundamental Rights – The Court observed with concern that the appellant, a poor person with no legal representation, was incarcerated for over nine years without proper legal assistance – Emphasised the duty of courts to safeguard rights of such individuals and prevent miscarriage of justice – Held: In such circumstances, independent judicial scrutiny of evidence is imperative to prevent wrongful conviction [Paras 10-17, 54-56].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal Ordered – The Court set aside the trial court’s judgment convicting the appellant and ordered immediate release – Directed the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi to ensure the appellant’s safe return to his home and restoration of possession – Also ordered refund of any fine amount paid by the appellant [Paras 53-56].

Civil law  – Declaration of Title and Possession – Failure to Prove Title – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant-plaintiff sought declaration of title over the ‘B’ schedule property and consequential relief of possession and injunction – Plaintiff failed to establish title by not producing foundational documents, including the prior sale deeds, and failed to prove encroachment by defendants – The High Court held that plaintiff must prove his own title without relying on weaknesses in the defendant’s case – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16-24].

Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – No Interference Warranted – The Court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC, second appeals lie only on substantial questions of law – Appreciation of facts and evidence by lower courts, unless perverse or ignoring material evidence, does not justify interference – No such question arose in the present case – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13-27].

Encroachment Claim – Absence of Proof – Case of Plaintiff Disbelieved – Plaintiff’s allegation of encroachment in 2007 was disproved by evidence showing compound wall constructed in 2003 by defendants – Boundaries described in sale deeds were inconsistent with plaintiff’s claim – Held: No basis to declare title or grant possession to the plaintiff [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law Found – The High Court dismissed the second appeal at admission stage, upholding concurrent factual findings of both lower courts – Plaintiff failed to prove title and possession – No merit in the appeal – No costs awarded [Para 28].

Criminal Law - Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. - Discharge Petition – Prima Facie Material – Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B IPC – Dismissal of Discharge Petition Upheld – The petitioners, holding positions of legal officer and Managing Director in Malabar Cements Ltd (MCL), were accused of facilitating illegal invocation of a bank guarantee and causing loss to MCL by conspiring with a private company – Held: The trial court rightly dismissed discharge applications after finding sufficient prima facie materials against both accused to proceed to trial; allegations involve deliberate omission and misuse of position, which need adjudication in trial [Paras 5-20].

Corporate Contractual Obligations – Drafting of Biased Contract Clauses – Clause Found to Favour Private Company – Malafide Intent Alleged – The Court observed Clause 20 of the agreement drafted by the legal officer was entirely favourable to the private company (ARK Co.), without reciprocal rights to MCL, suggesting collusion; the clause enabled unilateral invocation of bank guarantee without termination of contract, causing pecuniary loss to MCL [Paras 14-15].

Delay in Legal Action – Omission to File Suit in Proper Jurisdiction – No Interim Relief – Willful Negligence Established – The Court held that the legal officer and Managing Director deliberately failed to file timely suits in the appropriate court (Tuticorin), resulting in loss of ₹50 lakhs to MCL; actions of both accused constituted prima facie criminal misconduct and conspiracy [Paras 13, 16-18].

Limited Scope of Discharge Proceedings – Sufficiency of Material – No Mini Trial Permissible – It was reiterated that at the stage of considering discharge, only a prima facie case is to be seen; detailed scrutiny of evidence is not permissible – Dismissal of discharge justified based on available materials [Paras 20].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Trial to Proceed Expeditiously – The Court dismissed both revision petitions, upheld the orders of the Special Judge, and directed completion of trial within three months, observing that findings in discharge stage would not bind final trial adjudication [Paras 21-22].

Bail – Non-appearance of Accused – Scope of Judicial Discretion – Bail Restored – The appellants, accused under Section 353 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, were earlier released on regular bail but remanded to custody due to non-appearance on a hearing date – High Court held absence was not deliberate, matter was pending for charge framing, and appellants were already on bail – Keeping them in custody for single absence unjustified – Bail restored subject to conditions [Paras 1-7].

Non-Bailable Warrant – Non-Appearance on Charge Hearing Date – Bail Revocation Improper – The trial court issued NBWs for the appellants’ absence without recording reasons or considering whether their presence was essential for charge hearing – High Court set aside order, held framing of charges does not mandatorily require accused’s personal appearance if duly represented – Orders quashed and bail granted [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Custody – Exercise of Discretion – Rejection of Bail Set Aside – High Court reiterated that judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously considering case stage, nature of allegations, and absence history – Found that continued custody of appellants was unwarranted given prior bail and stage of proceedings – Orders under challenge set aside [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Bail Granted – Appeals Allowed – The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the rejection order, and granted bail to the appellants on execution of personal bonds with sureties – Ordered closure of all pending miscellaneous petitions [Para 7].

Taxation Law - Entertainment Duty – Prohibition on Convenience Fees – Government Orders Quashed – Petitioners challenged the prohibition on collection of convenience fees/service charges for online booking of cinema tickets imposed by clause 3(d) of G.O. dated 4 April 2013 and clause (a) of G.O. dated 18 March 2014 – Held: State Government lacks statutory power under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act, 1923 to impose such prohibition – No authority in Sections 2(b), 3, 4, 7, or 10 of the Act empowers the State to regulate or prohibit commercial consideration agreed between private parties [Paras 20-45].

Constitutional Law – Article 19(1)(g) Violation – Right to Trade Protected – The prohibition directly restricts Petitioners’ right to conduct legitimate business by controlling commercial terms without legislative sanction – Such executive orders violate the fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business – Held: Prohibition amounts to unreasonable restriction not saved under Article 19(6) of the Constitution – Impugned G.O.s quashed [Paras 46-55].

Constitutional Law – Article 162 – Scope of Executive Power – No Basis to Restrict Commercial Activity – State’s reliance on Article 162 to justify prohibition of convenience fees rejected – Executive power extends only to areas where legislature is competent to legislate and must have statutory backing – Held: Executive order without statutory authority cannot encroach upon contractual freedom of private parties [Paras 56-60].

Lack of Legislative Competence – No Statutory Basis for Prohibition – Examination of Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act revealed no provision regulating or prohibiting collection of convenience fees – Convenience fees merely considered for duty calculation but collection cannot be prohibited – Held: Executive orders without legislative support ultra vires [Paras 27-45].

Distinction Between Duty Collection and Commercial Consideration – Clarification Made – Issue examined was prohibition on collection of convenience fee, not whether entertainment duty is applicable on such fee – Held: State’s power limited to tax collection, not regulation of private business terms [Para 65].

Guiding Precedents – Reliance on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court Judgments – Court relied upon judgments including Indian School Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan and Shri Durga Chand Kaushik v. Union of India to hold that executive orders without legislative mandate infringing commercial rights are unconstitutional [Paras 41, 61].

Decision – G.O.s Declared Unconstitutional – Clause 3(d) of G.O. dated 4 April 2013 and clause (a) of G.O. dated 18 March 2014 quashed and set aside as unconstitutional for prohibiting convenience fee collection – Interim orders made absolute – Petitioners permitted to collect convenience fees subject to applicable duty under the Act [Paras 66-69].

RTI Disclosure – Applicability of Exemptions – SEBI's Fiduciary Duty – CIC Order Modified – Court held SEBI justified in denying information relating to internal file notings and correspondence on framing policies for appointment of Public Interest Directors (PIDs) under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act since such information is held in fiduciary capacity – Disclosure of such policy deliberations is exempt from RTI when obtained in confidence without larger public interest warranting disclosure [Paras 52-54].

Third Party Information – Section 11 of RTI – Disclosure Subject to Hearing of Affected Parties – CIC Order Partially Set Aside – For information on selected and rejected candidates for PID appointments and annual inspection reports, the Court remanded the matter to the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO), SEBI, to comply with Section 11 RTI procedure, granting opportunity to third parties to contest disclosure before decision is taken – CIC erred in ordering disclosure without compliance with mandatory Section 11 procedure [Paras 55-60].

Differentiation between Bank and Stock Exchange Regulation – Jayantilal N Mistry Distinction – Court clarified that the decision in Jayantilal N Mistry concerning disclosure of RBI inspection reports does not mechanically apply to SEBI inspections of stock exchanges – Due to nature of sensitive market information and regulatory dynamics, inspection reports concerning stock exchanges require distinct consideration and invocation of Section 11 safeguards [Paras 63-65].

Vague RTI Queries – Duty of Specificity – Queries for General Information Rejected – The Court refused to interfere with CIC's dismissal of vague queries seeking general inspection of files, noting that RTI Act requires requests to be made with reasonable precision to avoid disproportionate diversion of public resources – CPIO cannot be burdened with fishing or roving inquiries lacking specificity [Paras 66-67].

Decision – Partial Remand to CPIO – Court upheld CIC's decision on queries 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 – Set aside CIC's order on queries 3, 4, and 5 – Directed CPIO to consider those afresh after following due procedure under Section 11 of RTI Act, ensuring affected third parties' participation – Writ petitions of SEBI partly allowed and partly rejected; Mr. Agarwal’s petitions partly allowed, partly dismissed – No costs awarded [Para 68].

Taxation Law - Municipal Property Tax – Mandatory Compliance with Procedural Safeguards – Sections 233 and 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 read with the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 – Demand Notices Quashed – The Court held that the demand notices issued by the Municipality for property tax arrears were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 233 of the Act and Rules 4 and 10 of the 2011 Rules – The notifications mandatorily required under Rule 4(4) (regarding publication of basic property tax notifications) and Rule 10 (calling for self-assessment returns) were not issued in the manner prescribed – Held: Absence of such notifications renders any subsequent levy illegal and without authority of law [Paras 3, 9-13, 27].

Article 265 of the Constitution of India – Taxation Without Authority of Law – Demand Notices Held Unconstitutional – The Court reaffirmed the principle that taxes cannot be collected without authority of law – Non-compliance with the statutory mandate under the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules led to the conclusion that the property tax arrears were levied without lawful authority – Held: Demand notices are invalid being violative of Article 265 of the Constitution [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Alternative Remedy – Inapplicability When Levy Itself Is Non-Est – The Court rejected the Municipality's argument that the respondents ought to have availed the statutory appellate remedy under Rule 16(4) of the 2011 Rules – Held: Where the levy itself is non-existent in law, the existence of an appellate remedy is irrelevant – Tax demand set aside as a jurisdictional error [Paras 13].

Culture of Justification – Doctrine of Reasonableness and Fairness in State Action – The Court emphasized the need for tax authorities to adhere to a 'culture of justification' where any demand on citizens must be supported by legal authority and due process – Arbitrary demands without adherence to mandatory procedures offend constitutional guarantees [Paras 8-9].

Decision of the Court – Appeals Dismissed – Demand Notices Invalidated – The Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, dismissed the appeals filed by the Perinthalmanna Municipality, and directed that any future assessment or demand for property tax must comply strictly with the statutory framework laid down in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the 2011 Rules [Paras 12-13, 27].

Civil Law – Partition and Possession – Second Appeal - No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged the concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting partition and separate possession of ½ share to the respondent/plaintiff – The Courts below based findings on admitted facts and evidence, including judicial admissions in pleadings and documents – Held: No substantial question of law arises where findings are based on proper appreciation of facts; second appeal liable to be dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13-15, 29-30].

Adverse Possession – No Proof of Ouster – Claim Denied – Appellant's plea of exclusive possession and adverse possession since father’s death was rejected – Mere long possession by one co-sharer does not constitute ouster in absence of clear hostile claim – Courts correctly held that possession by one co-owner is deemed on behalf of all co-owners – Adverse possession and ouster claims not proved by evidence [Paras 21-22, 25-27].

Judicial Admissions – Admissions in Pleadings and Legal Notices Binding – Defendant admitted in written statement and legal notice that suit properties were joint family properties – Admission being best evidence, the burden shifted to defendant to prove relinquishment by plaintiff, which was not discharged – Courts below rightly relied on judicial admissions to grant partition [Paras 17-19].

No Scope for Reappreciation of Facts in Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Law clarified that High Court does not re-examine findings of facts in second appeal unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or misapplication of law – No such perversity or legal error found in concurrent judgments of lower Courts – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13, 28-30].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees granting the plaintiff ½ share in the property and dismissed the second appeal without costs [Para 30].

Criminal Law - Successive Bail Petition – Maintainability Before High Court After Earlier Rejections – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, accused of grave offences including sexual assault, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite prior dismissal by Sessions Court, High Court, and Supreme Court – Held: Though Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction, judicial discipline mandates initial approach to Sessions Court unless exceptional circumstances exist – Petitioner failed to plead or prove compelling circumstances for bypassing trial court – Following established precedents, High Court refused to entertain petition without prior trial court recourse [Paras 3-23].

Judicial Discipline – Bypassing Sessions Court – Exceptional Circumstances Requirement – Affirmed – Citing authoritative judgments, the Court reiterated the principle that High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked directly when the trial court has previously declined relief unless there are fresh developments or special reasons justifying deviation – As no such factors were demonstrated, petition was relegated to trial court [Paras 10-22].

Roster Allocation and Judicial Consistency – Clarification Applied – In light of Supreme Court's direction on listing of bail applications under the same FIR before the same judge where possible, the Court clarified that due to roster changes and absence of prior judge, present bench could entertain the matter, but on merits, relief was declined [Paras 6-8].

Relief and Directions – Petitioner Relegated to Trial Court – Expeditious Consideration Ordered – Considering judicial custody since May 2024 and to avoid prolonged incarceration, High Court directed the trial court to decide the bail application within ten days if moved by petitioner – Liberty granted to approach High Court thereafter if necessary [Paras 23-24].