Criminal Law - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – Proof Essential – Conviction Set Aside – Accused, then Secretary of Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat, was convicted for accepting ₹250 as bribe in trap proceedings – Complainant (PW2) turned hostile, denying demand and acceptance – Other witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW5) spoke only to trap formalities and recovery but not to demand – Held: Proof of demand is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) – Mere recovery insufficient – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 5-11, 15-17, 19].

Hostile Complainant – Evidentiary Impact – Circumstantial Evidence Insufficient – Though complainant turned hostile, Court reiterated that demand may be proved by circumstantial evidence or other testimony – In present case, circumstances did not establish demand – Prosecution failed to prove foundational fact – No presumption under Section 20 could be raised [Paras 16-18].

Case Law Applied – Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330 – Demand and acceptance must be proved directly or circumstantially – Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013 – Presumption under Section 20 limited to Section 7 offences – State v. C.B. Nagaraj, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1175 – Reinforced same ratio [Paras 14-18].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act set aside – Accused acquitted – Bail bond cancelled – Liberty restored [Para 19].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Right of Adult Children – Major Son Entitled till Majority Only – Major Daughter Not Covered – Petitioners sought enhancement of maintenance from their father – Family Court rejected claim citing their majority status – Held: As per Section 125 Cr.P.C., a child is entitled to maintenance only till majority unless physically or mentally disabled – Petitioner No.2 (son) was entitled to enhanced maintenance until attaining majority on 17.03.2020 – Petitioner No.1 (daughter) was major before filing the application and is not covered under Section 125 – Enhancement allowed only for son till majority [Paras 8-14, 18].

Section 20(3), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Maintenance to Unmarried Major Daughter – Remedy Available Under Personal Law – Although Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not allow maintenance to adult unmarried daughter, she may seek it under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Held: The dismissal under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not bar remedy under other statutory provisions [Paras 16-17, 21].

Moral Obligation of Father – No Recovery of Excess Maintenance – Welfare of Children Prioritized – Court noted that even if the father paid maintenance after children attained majority, he cannot recover or adjust the same – Held: Moral obligation of father and ongoing education of children outweigh technical legal restrictions – Refund of excess maintenance would adversely impact children's future [Paras 19-20].

Scope of Revision – Part Relief Granted – Maintenance Enhanced for Son till Attaining Majority – Family Court's decision partly modified – Petitioner No.2 (son) held entitled to maintenance at Rs. 8,000/month from 02.07.2018 till 17.03.2020 – Claim of petitioner No.1 (daughter) rejected under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but without prejudice to her rights under other laws [Paras 14, 18, 22].

Copyright Infringement – Film piracy – Dynamic+ injunction – Websites restrained from illegally streaming Plaintiff’s film “Jolly LLB 3” – Domain registrars, ISPs, DoT and MeitY directed to block infringing domains – Strong interim relief granted considering imminent release [Paras 34–43].

Commercial Courts Act – Pre-institution Mediation – Section 12A – Exemption granted – Suit involving urgent interim relief falls within exception as per SC judgment in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382 [Para 8].

Copyright – Ad-interim Injunction – Plaintiff, exclusive owner of “Jolly LLB 3” rights, established prima facie case – Unauthorized dissemination through rogue websites would cause irreparable harm and undermine investment – Balance of convenience in Plaintiff’s favour – Ex-parte injunction granted restraining 24 infringing websites [Paras 34–40].

Dynamic+ Injunction – Application of precedent – Following Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby, 2023:DHC:5842, Court extended relief not only to present infringements but also to future rogue websites discovered during proceedings – Ensures real-time blocking without repeated court intervention [Paras 37–42].

Defendants – Directions to DNRs and ISPs – Domain registrars (Namecheap, Cloudflare, Dynadot, Tucows, etc.) ordered to suspend and furnish details of registrants of infringing domains – ISPs directed to block access – DoT and MeitY to notify all ISPs to enforce blocking – Mechanism created for Plaintiff to notify fresh infringing domains for immediate blocking [Paras 40(b)–(f)].

Procedural Directions – Plaintiff to continue filing affidavits disclosing newly discovered infringing domains/URLs – Any wrongly blocked website permitted to approach Court with undertaking – Compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandated within two days [Paras 42–45].

Disposition – Ad-interim injunction granted against 24 infringing websites – Domain registrars, ISPs and government authorities directed to ensure compliance – Matter listed for further hearing on 20.01.2026 [Paras 40–46].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Accused stabbed PW2 in abdomen with knife after altercation regarding illicit liquor sale – Evidence of injured PW2 corroborated by wife (PW1), medical officers (PWs 3 & 4), and recovery of bloodstained knife (MO1) with matching blood group – Held: Injury and circumstances established intent/knowledge required under Section 307; conviction and sentence proper [Paras 9-14, 16-19, 26].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Higher Evidentiary Value – Testimony of PW2, injured victim, supported by PW1, consistent and reliable – Minor contradictions immaterial – Injured witness unlikely to falsely implicate and allows safe reliance; corroborated by scientific and medical evidence [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Intention vs. Result – Law Clarified – Citing precedents (State of M.P. v. Kashiram; State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil; R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka; Jage Ram v. State of Haryana; State of M.P. v. Kanha; State of M.P. v. Saleem) – Held: Section 307 does not require fatal injury; sufficient if act done with requisite intention/knowledge and overt act present [Paras 19-24].

Sentence – Seven Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment & Fine – Upheld considering seriousness of offence; no interference warranted [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Appeal by A1 Dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed; appeal abated qua A2 due to death; bail bond cancelled, A1 directed to surrender [Paras 2, 26-27].

Service Law – Pension Recovery – Excess Payment – Recovery Barred – Petitioner, a widow, subjected to deduction of family pension for alleged excess payment between 2008 and 2019 – No fraud, misrepresentation, or connivance on her part; excess caused by systemic lapse – Held: Recovery from retired employees or widows impermissible as per Supreme Court ruling in Rafiq Masih; recovery quashed [Paras 3, 5, 7-8].

Precedent – Applicability of Rafiq Masih – Excess Payment Recovery – Court reiterated five categories where recovery cannot be effected, including retired employees, payments beyond 5 years, and cases of undue hardship – Petitioner’s case squarely covered; recovery unjust and inequitable [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Respondents restrained from effecting further recovery from petitioner’s pension – Writ petition disposed of in favour of petitioner [Paras 7-8].

Child Custody – Direction to Produce Child – Writ of Habeas Corpus – Contempt of Court Established – The respondent failed to comply with the High Court’s order dated 12.04.2019 in W.P. No. 47795 of 2018, which required her to produce the minor child before the Family Court at Tirupati – Held: Non-compliance constitutes willful disobedience – Subsequent developments and foreign court orders do not absolve the contemnor – Contempt established [Paras 21, 33-36, 41].

Foreign Court Orders vs Indian Court Directions – No Supersession of High Court Orders by U.S. Court Proceedings – Orders from Texas court obtained by the respondent were not barriers to compliance – Respondent willfully approached foreign courts to circumvent Indian judicial directions – Indian court’s directions remained valid and binding despite foreign judgments [Paras 14, 27-33, 36, 40].

Effect of Supreme Court Observations – No Bar to Enforcement of High Court Directions – Supreme Court’s observation in SLP (Crl.) No. 6436/2019 about non-requirement of child’s production was based on dismissal of FCOP – Once FCOP was restored and appeal allowed, the High Court’s order revived – Supreme Court’s later dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 6363/2022 confirmed High Court's direction [Paras 29-33].

Jurisdiction – Family Court at Tirupati Competent – Family Court at Tirupati had jurisdiction as the child was residing in India at the time of initial proceedings – Contention that only U.S. courts had jurisdiction rejected – Jurisdiction issue previously settled by Division Bench in FCA No. 172/2019 and affirmed by the Supreme Court [Paras 25, 30].

Welfare of the Child – Relevance in Enforcement Proceedings – Welfare of the child is a matter for the Family Court to decide upon production – Respondent cannot avoid compliance by invoking child’s welfare as defense against contempt – Production is procedural for custody determination, not final custody resolution [Paras 23-24].

Civil Contempt – Willful Disobedience – Consequences – Respondent’s actions amounted to deliberate defiance and breach of court order – Despite multiple opportunities and legal remedies, she chose to evade compliance – Held: Guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Paras 38-41].

Judgment – Opportunity to Purge Contempt Given – Court granted respondent three months’ time to produce the child before the Family Court, Tirupati – Non-compliance would result in simple imprisonment for two weeks and fine of Rs. 2,000 – Further three days’ imprisonment upon failure to pay fine [Para 43].

Criminal Law – Cheque Bounce - Power of Attorney – Locus Standi and Knowledge of Transaction – Section 138 of NIA – Complaint Filed by Power of Attorney Holder – Not Maintainable - The complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder neither witnessed the transaction nor had sufficient knowledge of the facts as required under law – The Supreme Court mandates specific assertions about the POA holder’s knowledge in the complaint and evidence – Held: The complaint and evidence did not meet the legal threshold; hence, POA holder's testimony was insufficient [Paras 13-16, 25].

Legally Enforceable Debt – Presumption Not Rebutted – Insufficient Proof – Dishonour of Cheque – Complainant Failed to Prove Debt – No Documentary Evidence – The applicant failed to establish that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt – No agreement to sale or transaction document was produced – Held: In absence of such documents, presumption under Section 139 stands rebutted, and Section 138 is not attracted [Paras 17-23].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probability – Accused Not Required to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Held: Accused can rebut presumption under Section 139 of NIA through cross-examination and circumstantial evidence – Burden discharged adequately [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – Acquittal Upheld – The Appellate Court’s finding that there was no legal and enforceable liability was correct – No illegality or perversity found in judgment – Revision dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 25-26].

Habeas Corpus – Missing Woman – Systemic Safeguards – Detenue untraced since Dec 2023 – Court reviews statutory provisions, government circulars, and judicial precedents – Held: FIR mandatory; proactive investigation within first 24 hours crucial; every missing woman/child case to be presumed trafficking/abduction unless proved otherwise – Petition disposed with comprehensive directions for systemic monitoring [Paras 2-7, 27-29].

Police Duties – Registration of Complaints – Police cannot refuse or delay registration of missing complaint; jurisdictional objections impermissible – FIR to be registered forthwith and forwarded to AHTU; DNA samples, recent photographs, forensic evidence, and wide publicity mandatory – Delay or refusal may invite disciplinary action [Paras 33A-C].

Committee Supervision – Court directs constitution of Committee comprising IGP, SP, and DySP – Committee to review cases pending over 2 months, oversee investigation, recommend change of IO if unsatisfactory – Reports to Registrar (Judicial) bi-annually until recovery or 7 years – State to notify and operationalize within stipulated time [Paras 23, 35-35.3].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court in Bachpan Bachao Andolan (2015), Hori Lal (2002), Pinki (2025); Karnataka HC in C. Shiva (2007), High Court Legal Services Committee (2018); Delhi HC in Vinod (2024), Lamboder Jha (2023) – Consistently mandated prompt FIRs, SOP compliance, victim-centric approach, inter-agency coordination, and task-force monitoring [Paras 17-22, 28-29].

State and Central Circulars – Karnataka Standing Orders and DGP circulars (1977–2020) and MHA Advisories (2005, 2012, 2013) integrated – JJ Act, 2015 and Rule 92 of Model Rules, 2016 codify mandatory enquiry and AHTU transfer if child not traced within 4 months – Court directs State to issue consolidated circular incorporating all prior SOPs, with disciplinary consequences for violations [Paras 26, 34].

Decision – Habeas corpus petition disposed of – Missing daughter not yet traced – Court institutionalizes framework: mandatory FIRs, forensic measures, technological tracking, publication, inter-agency cooperation, committee supervision, and compliance affidavits – Next compliance date fixed for 15.10.2025 [Paras 36-38].

Declaration, Possession And Injunction - Benami – Fiduciary Capacity Exception – Sections 4(1) & 4(3)(b) of the 1988 Act – Exception Not Attracted – Appellant (niece) claimed that her paternal uncle held the allotted/leased/sold house benami for her benefit because she funded part of the price and reposed trust – Held: Mere relationship and past financial dealings do not establish a fiduciary capacity; the parties lived separately, the uncle was financially independent, in possession, and obtained lease/sale deed in his own name; exception under Section 4(3) not made out [Paras 35-39].

Benami – Tests & Burden – Six Indicia Reiterated – Appeal Evaluated on Source of Funds, Possession, Motive, Relationship, Custody of Title, Conduct – Appellant contributed ≈25% (₹8.45 lakhs) while respondent paid the balance (≈₹25 lakhs); respondent remained in possession; no credible motive for benami made out; custody of title with respondent; conduct consistent with respondent’s ownership – Held: Transaction not benami; plaintiff failed to discharge strict burden [Paras 29-30, 38-39].

Civil Procedure – First Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Scope – Reappreciation of evidence leads to same conclusion as trial court – Trial court’s partial decree for refund with interest upheld; no illegality in rejecting declaration/possession claims [Paras 39-40].

Relief – Money Claim – Interest – Refund of ₹8,46,865/- with interest @6% p.a. from dates of payment till realization – Trial court’s direction affirmed; parties to bear their own costs [Paras 39-43].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 06.04.2013 affirmed; interim order vacated; office to prepare decree [Paras 40-44].