Service Law – Police Personnel – Corruption – Dismissal – ASI trapped for accepting bribe – Inquiry held valid – SP competent authority – Court affirms dismissal as justified under Rule 16.2 and Rule 16.40 PPR; length of service irrelevant when guilt of corruption established [Paras 6–8, 12–13].

Competent Authority – SP as Appointing & Disciplinary Authority – Challenge rejected – Court relies on Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2865 – SP competent to dismiss ASI – Contention misconceived [Para 6].

Departmental Proceedings – Approval of District Magistrate – Not Required in Corruption Cases – Rule 16.38 PPR inapplicable; Rule 16.40 governs corruption matters – Following Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 3242 – Contention rejected [Paras 7–8].

Natural Justice – No Requirement to Call for Comments on Inquiry Report – Rule 16.24 PPR contains complete procedure – Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority may be different – Supply of inquiry report + opportunity to reply + personal hearing = full compliance – No violation of natural justice [Paras 9–11].

Show-Cause Notice – Mention of Proposed Punishment – Not Illegal – Post 42nd Amendment to Article 311(2), no right to representation on proposed penalty – State instructions of 1975 merely advisory – Court relies on Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 [Paras 10–11].

Rule 16.2 PPR – Length of Service & Pension – Consideration Not Mandatory in Corruption Cases – Court cites State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1992) 4 SCC 54 – Single act of corruption is “gravest misconduct” warranting dismissal; long service cannot shield corrupt conduct [Paras 12–13].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence – Interference justified only for perversity or procedural violations – No such infirmity found – Court relies on Subrata Nath (2022), P. Gunasekaran, Syed Yakoob (1964), CCRAS v. Bikartan Das (2023) [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No perversity or procedural violation – Dismissal from service justified and upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16–17].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Allegations of cruelty by wife not established – Appellant-husband alleged wife refused to cook, misbehaved, and pressured him to live separately from parents – Trial Court found no credible evidence of cruelty – Held: No perversity in Family Court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1–9, 22, 54–56]

Family Law – Cruelty – Legal Standard – Reiterated: Cruelty includes physical and mental suffering causing reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful to live with the spouse – Mere marital discord or incompatibility does not amount to cruelty – Allegations must be grave and substantiated. [Paras 26–34]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Desertion implies intentional abandonment without reasonable cause and without consent – Requires factum of separation and animus deserendi – Respondent-wife was ousted from matrimonial home – No voluntary desertion – No ground made out. [Paras 35–46, 50–52]

Family Law – Appreciation of Evidence – No perversity – Evidence of both parties considered by Family Court – Allegations of cruelty and desertion found unproved – Court also considered wife’s willingness to resume matrimonial life – Held: No interference warranted in appeal – Appellate Court not to re-appreciate evidence without perversity or legal error. [Paras 18–23, 47–53]

Family Law – Pending Proceedings – Fact that respondent-wife had filed criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC – Does not per se constitute cruelty – Needs to be established that such proceedings were false and malicious. [Paras 16, 49]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Impugned judgment of Family Court upheld. No element of perversity found. Pending applications also disposed of. [Paras 55–57]

Criminal Law - NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Conviction Confirmed – Appellants found in possession of 550 kg of ganja concealed in oil tanker – Trial court convicted all accused under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act – High Court upheld conviction, finding that prosecution proved compliance with procedural requirements and guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Delay in certification not fatal – All procedures substantially followed [Paras 1–11, 44–45].

Search and Seizure – Section 42 vs Section 43 NDPS Act – Plea of non-compliance with Section 42 rejected – Court held oil tanker is a public utility vehicle and falls under ‘public conveyance’ – Hence, Section 43 applicable and no prior written intimation required – Ownership immaterial for applicability of Section 43 [Paras 31–33].

Evidentiary Value – Non-examination of Seizure Witnesses – Validity – Non-examination of two independent seizure witnesses held not fatal – Seizure list contained signatures of accused, witnesses and officials – Seizing officer (PW-4) proved the seizure and sampling process – No prejudice caused to defence [Paras 34–36].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Substantial Compliance – Validity of Sampling and Certification – Though certification of samples by Magistrate delayed, court held that sampling was done in presence of accused and duly sealed – Samples produced in court and sent to FSL with test memo – Inventory, photographs and resamples proved – Court held substantial compliance with Section 52A [Paras 38–39, 44].

Admissibility of Evidence – Procedural Irregularities – High Court followed Supreme Court ruling in Kashif, Bharat Aambale and Pooran Mal – Held that mere procedural lapses in sampling or certification under Section 52A do not render evidence inadmissible unless serious prejudice shown – Accused failed to establish any such prejudice [Paras 40–42].

Presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act – Court held statutory presumption of conscious possession applicable – Defence failed to rebut presumption or establish procedural bias – Accused found in vehicle carrying commercial quantity of ganja, admitted presence and signatures on documents [Paras 36, 44].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 NDPS Act upheld – Sentences of 20 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹2,00,000 each to continue – Procedural safeguards substantially complied with – No merit found in grounds of challenge [Paras 44–45].

Criminal Law – Remand Extension – Illegality – Petitioners were remanded in NDPS case and their remand was extended to 300 days by Special Judge – Accused not produced physically or virtually before court on date of extension – Held: Mandatory procedural safeguard violated – Such failure is not a mere irregularity but a gross illegality violating Article 21 of the Constitution – Order extending remand set aside – Petitioners entitled to default bail [Paras 5–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Failure to secure accused’s presence during remand extension hearing deprives them of fair procedure – Reference made to SC judgment in Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 973 – Held: Extension of time without informing or producing the accused nullifies their right to seek default bail and infringes fundamental rights under Article 21 [Paras 6–8].

Bail – Conditions for Release – Petitioners granted bail in view of illegal remand – Conditions imposed include regular police attendance, restriction on travel, non-tampering with evidence, cooperation with investigation, and surrender of passports – Held: Petitioners shall comply with all directions until cognizance is taken [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Cases allowed – Impugned remand extension order dated 13.11.2025 set aside – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4 granted bail on specified conditions – Trial court failed to follow due process by not producing or informing accused during remand extension hearing – No costs.

Criminal Law – Representation of Company – Section 305 CrPC – Trial court directed petitioner to represent company (Accused No. 23) despite his resignation from directorship prior to initiation of proceedings – Held: A company being a juristic person must appoint its own representative for trial under Section 305 CrPC – Neither the complainant nor the court can compel an unwilling individual, even a former director, to represent the company – Summons must be served at the company’s registered office – Petitioner cannot be forced to represent the company without valid authorization [Paras 1, 22, 26, 28–30].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Section 70 PMLA – Scope – Company and persons in charge at the time of offence may both be liable under Section 70 – However, representation under Section 305 CrPC is separate from liability under Section 70 – Subsequent resignation from company does not absolve individual from criminal liability under PMLA, but does relieve him of obligation to represent the company unless duly authorized [Paras 18–20, 28].

Special Law vs General Law – Harmonious Interpretation – Argument by ED that Section 70 of PMLA overrides Section 305 CrPC rejected – Held: PMLA does not conflict with CrPC provisions on representation of juristic persons – Prosecution under special statute does not allow bypassing procedural safeguards regarding company representation – Trial cannot proceed without proper representation of the company in accordance with Section 305 CrPC [Paras 14, 26–28].

Judicial Discretion – Improper Exercise – Trial court erred by postponing decision on company representation to later stage under Section 207 CrPC – Held: Representation issue must be settled prior to continuation of proceedings – Trial court failed to apply its mind to settled legal position – Order set aside and direction issued to summon company at its registered office and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if no representative is appointed [Paras 21, 26, 30].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order of trial court dated 03/11/2022 set aside – Magistrate directed to serve fresh summons on accused company (Accused No. 23) at its registered address and proceed under Section 305(4) CrPC if company fails to nominate representative – Entire process to be completed within 60 days from receipt of this order [Paras 29–30].

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Interference – Award upholding investor’s claim for indemnity from CDSL under Section 16 of Depositories Act – Tribunal held DP (BRH) acted negligently and fraudulently while transferring and pledging investor’s shares – Court held findings plausible, reasoned, and not perverse – Petition under Section 34 dismissed [Paras 1, 75–78].

Depository Liability – Negligence by DP – BRH, acting as DP of CDSL, fraudulently transferred investor’s shares using Power of Attorney and pledged them to HDFC Bank – Held: Since BRH acted at least partly as DP, CDSL liable to indemnify under Section 16 – CDSL cannot escape liability by attributing acts solely to role of broker [Paras 20–24, 36–47].

Power of Attorney Misuse – Composite Fraud – No underlying trades justified share transfers – Transfers effected solely to engineer fraudulent pledge – Tribunal found Petitioner liable for permitting DP to transfer and pledge shares of 9493 clients – Held: Entire transaction was composite fraud facilitated by CDSL’s DP, attracting vicarious liability [Paras 40–44, 48–50].

Investor Protection – SEBI Regulatory Framework – SEBI Circulars (pre- and post-incident) required adequate monitoring, early warning mechanisms, and supervisory oversight – CDSL failed to prevent DP’s misuse of POA – Court held that investor compensation is independent of specific regulatory violations; Section 16 creates strict liability on depository for DP’s negligent acts [Paras 53–62].

SEBI Circular of 25.07.2023 – No Bar to Depository’s Liability – Circular cannot override statutory liability under Section 16 – Tribunal correctly held that responsibility for DP’s misconduct lies with CDSL and not with NSE – Attempt to shift burden to NSE rejected [Paras 63–70].

Equity Jurisdiction – Tribunal Not Acting as Amiable Compositeur – Though Tribunal used terms like ‘ends of justice’, award was based on findings of statutory negligence – Tribunal did not invoke equity jurisdiction under Section 28(2) of Arbitration Act – No illegality found [Paras 73–74].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award upheld – CDSL held liable to indemnify Respondent No.1 for value of lost shares (Rs. 86,02,768/-) – No costs awarded – Interim Application also disposed of [Paras 75–79].

Criminal Law – Robbery – Conviction under Section 397 IPC – Reversed – Appellant convicted for robbery and stabbing under Sections 394/34 and 397 IPC – Trial court sentenced him to concurrent imprisonment of 3 years and 7 years – Complainant identified appellant at police station, but no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted – Held: Dock identification in absence of prior TIP, where accused is a stranger, is weak and unreliable – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–18].

Evidence – Identification – TIP Not Conducted – Fatal Flaw – Accused was a stranger to the complainant – Identification first made at police station – No judicial TIP held – Supreme Court precedents reaffirmed that TIP is crucial investigative tool in such cases – Dock identification alone cannot form basis of conviction without prior TIP – Held: TIP omission vitiates prosecution case [Paras 15–16].

Witness Testimony – Improvement and Contradictions – Complainant made material improvements in Court testimony including number of knives, request for matchbox, and additional items allegedly robbed (power bank, headphone) – MLC did not mention all injuries as per final testimony – CCTV footage failed to capture incident – Held: Inconsistent narrative weakens prosecution case [Paras 9, 17].

Recovery of Stolen Items – Inconsistent Prosecution Case – Power bank recovered from appellant marked as robbed item despite no mention in original complaint or initial witness accounts – Mobile phone recovered from co-accused – Questionable chain of custody and post-arrest introduction of evidence – Held: Serious doubt cast on credibility of recovery [Paras 11, 14].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Serious gaps in prosecution case including absence of independent eye-witnesses, contradictory testimonies, and flawed identification – Court held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Petroleum Dealership – Eligibility Criteria – Joint Land Ownership – Lease Deed Requirement – IOCL Brochure Clause 4(vi)(a) mandates that on the date of application, lease deed must be executed by all co-owners; failure renders application invalid – Petitioner submitted lease from only one co-sharer and relied on preliminary decree of partition – Held: Preliminary decree is insufficient; only final decree separating shares by metes and bounds establishes exclusive title – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 8–14, 20]

Partition of Land – Preliminary vs. Final Decree – Under Sections 116–117 of U.P. Revenue Code and Rules 108–109, preliminary decree merely declares shares; final decree alone identifies exact land allotted to each co-sharer – At stage of preliminary decree location of allotted land may change – Applicant must furnish final decree if relying on partition in joint property – Petitioner lacked final decree on date of application [Paras 12–14]

Administrative Law – Commercial Decision of IOCL – Judicial Review – Selection for retail outlet dealership is contractual and commercial – Writ Court will not interfere unless action is arbitrary or irrational – IOCL acted as per Brochure; decision neither arbitrary nor unreasonable – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 17, 20–21]

Precedents – Identical Issues – Earlier judgments in Rahul Singh (Writ C 7354/2024, decided 06.03.2024) and Amarjeet (Writ C 11586/2024, decided 06.05.2024) applied – Both held that in joint ownership cases absence of lease from all co-owners on date of application is fatal – Applied squarely to present case [Paras 15–19]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No infirmity in IOCL’s rejection order; no relief granted – No order as to costs [Paras 20–21].

Criminal Law – Rape – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegation of sexual exploitation over three years disbelieved – De facto complainant alleged repeated sexual abuse and coercion by petitioner between 2011 and 2014 – Petitioner produced documents showing ongoing cordial relationship till 2017 and pending civil litigation regarding monetary disputes – Court found inconsistencies in complainant's version and noted that FIR followed closely after petitioner initiated civil and criminal proceedings against her – Held: Allegations inherently improbable and motivated – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1, 5–7]

Criminal Procedure – Quashment of Charges – Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC – Legal test – Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law – Evident from record that FIR was lodged as a retaliatory move after petitioner initiated legal actions – No prima facie case made out warranting trial – Held: Proceedings against accused under Sections 376(f)(n) IPC and 66E IT Act liable to be quashed [Paras 6–7]

Evidence – Delay and Prior Relationship – Long delay in lodging complaint coupled with friendly relationship undermines credibility – Complainant gave sworn statement in 2017 describing petitioner as a close family friend despite alleging prior prolonged abuse – Court noted improbability of continued relationship and non-disclosure of alleged abuse for years by educated complainant – Held: Circumstances indicate false implication [Paras 6–7]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioner in S.C. No.108/2019 (arising from Crime No.1142/2018 of Erattupetta Police Station) quashed.