Civil Procedure – Advocate Commissioner – Identification of Land – Appointment Set Aside – Trial court permitted appointment of Advocate Commissioner to identify suit land in Sy.No.125/E3 at the instance of the plaintiff relying on a sada bainama lacking boundary descriptions – High Court held that such appointment at preliminary stage amounted to collection of evidence – Also held that the trial court ignored findings in earlier CRP No.2136/2022 which declined injunction due to lack of prima facie title and possession – Held: Appointment of Advocate Commissioner was premature and perverse – Order set aside [Paras 3, 23-27]

Injunction Suit – Possession Dispute – Prima Facie Title and Possession Absent – Plaintiff failed to establish physical possession or valid title to the land – Sada bainama executed when plaintiff was allegedly a minor and lacking boundary details – Revenue records inconsistent regarding whether title was derived by inheritance or purchase – Plaintiff’s claim contradictory – Held: Injunction rightly denied earlier – Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to cure evidentiary defects [Paras 9-13, 22-24]

Land Identification vs. Demarcation – Legal Distinction – High Court clarified that identification (locating land generally) and demarcation (physically marking boundaries) are distinct – Appointment for mere identification without clear prima facie title or possession is impermissible – Advocate Commissioner cannot be used to fish for evidence or validate defective title [Paras 26.3-26.5]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – Trial court misdirected itself by misreading earlier High Court order and failing to appreciate the lack of credible evidence – High Court held that Article 227 powers warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice – Held: Order allowing appointment of Commissioner quashed [Paras 7, 27]

Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Age Determination – Essential Requirement – Acquittal Upheld – Prosecutrix claimed to be 13 years old but no documentary proof (school record, birth certificate) or medical evidence (bone ossification test) produced by prosecution – Investigating Officer admitted failure to collect age proof – Held: In absence of reliable age determination, accused could not be convicted under charges involving a minor – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution for non-compliance with mandatory protocols [Paras 17–27]

Criminal Trial – Sexual Assault – Refusal of Medical Examination – Investigating Agency’s Failure – Prosecutrix’s mother refused internal gynecological examination, despite serious nature of charges – No MLC report available – Held: Absence of medical corroboration substantially weakened prosecution’s case – Investigating Agency failed to discharge duty to collect essential evidence in sexual assault cases [Paras 29–31]

Criminal Law – Consent and Elopement – Public Travel and Cohabitation – Evidence of Voluntary Accompaniment – Prosecutrix travelled over 300 km in public transport with accused and stayed at his home for 2–3 days without raising any alarm – She admitted in cross-examination that she wanted to marry accused and had prior relationship with him – Child Welfare Committee also recorded voluntary elopement – Held: Circumstances indicated consensual relationship and belied theory of abduction or force – Consistency and credibility of deposition not established [Paras 32–38]

Appellate Review – Scope in Acquittal Appeals – Reversal of Acquittal – When Permissible – Acquittal not found perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Trial Court rightly found prosecution failed to prove essential elements of crime beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Appeal against acquittal must show perversity or manifest illegality – No compelling reason found to overturn acquittal [Paras 40–42]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court upheld – No interference warranted in absence of perversity or manifest illegality – Respondent stands acquitted of all charges

Service Law – Recruitment – Eligibility Criteria – AICTE Regulations, 2019 – Application to Ongoing Process – Recruitment Notice Issued on 25.02.2020 Without Mention of AICTE Norms – Government Adopted 2019 Regulations Before Last Date of Application – Clause 1.4(g) Mandates Corrigendum Where Interviews Not Held – Held: Regulations Framed Under Statutory Authority – Appointments Must Comply – Corrigendum Directed Valid – Appeal Dismissed [Paras 1–6, 20–27, 35–37].

Subordinate Legislation – Mandatory Compliance – AICTE Regulations Binding on State and Aided Institutions – Government Order Explicitly Adopted Qualifications Under 2019 AICTE Norms – Recruitment Advertisement Silent on Eligibility – Held: Statutory Rules Prevail Over Earlier Norms – Non-Compliance Inadmissible [Paras 19–25, 35].

Recruitment Process – No Vested Right to Appointment – Select List Not Conclusive – Advertisement Can Be Amended if Statutory Norms Apply – Appellant’s Position in Merit List Irrelevant If Prepared Under Invalid Criteria – Held: Selection Must Follow Existing Law at Time of Cut-off Date – Mere Placement in List Does Not Confer Enforceable Right [Paras 8–10, 26–27, 34].

Tej Prakash Pathak & K. Manjusree – Interpretation – Applicability – Supreme Court Clarified Rules Can’t Be Changed Midway Unless Rules So Permit – Karnataka High Court Held AICTE 2019 Regulations Form Part of Binding Subordinate Legislation – Present Case Falls Within Exceptions Recognized by SC – Held: No Contravention of Article 14 or Administrative Arbitrariness [Paras 28–31].

Education Law – Appointment in Technical Institutions – Standards in Higher Education – Qualification for Associate Professors – AICTE Regulations Prevail Over Institutional Discretion – Government’s Direction for Corrigendum Within Jurisdiction – Held: Ensures Uniformity and Standards in National Technical Education System [Paras 23–24, 36–37].

Decision: Writ Appeal Dismissed – State Government’s direction to amend advertisement to incorporate AICTE Regulations, 2019 upheld – No right to appointment merely on inclusion in merit list prepared contrary to binding regulations – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Procedure – Pre-Arrest Bail – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Requirement to Approach Sessions Court First – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS directly before the High Court without approaching Sessions Court — Held: Though High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction, party must ordinarily approach Sessions Court first — Direct invocation of High Court’s jurisdiction permissible only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances — No such circumstances made out in the present case — Reliance placed on Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar [Paras 3–5].

Wildlife Offence – Arms Possession – Applicability of Section 35(3) BNSS – Petitioner alleged to have participated in illegal hunting of Schedule-I species “Chowsingha (Tetracerus Quadricornis)” and possession of prohibited arms under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act — Contention that offences were punishable below seven years and thus entitled to Section 35(3) BNSS protection rejected — Offence under Section 25(1A) Arms Act punishable up to fourteen years; hence statutory protection inapplicable [Paras 6–7].

Jurisdiction – Discretion under Section 482 BNSS – Limits – High Court reiterated that its inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly — Pre-arrest bail to be granted only on showing special or extraordinary circumstances — Since petitioner neither demonstrated such circumstances nor approached Sessions Court, discretionary relief declined [Paras 5, 8].

Relief – Liberty to Approach Lower Court – Criminal Petition disposed of with liberty to surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within two weeks and move for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge — Direction issued to dispose of the application on merits within two days of filing [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed — No interference under Section 482 BNSS — Liberty granted to petitioner to surrender and seek appropriate relief before Sessions Court — Interim orders vacated [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Telecom Stores Scam – Conspiracy – Diversion of Materials – Misappropriation – The prosecution proved that A1 to A5 and A7 to A12 conspired with contractor A6 (deceased) to raise false indents, obtain telecom materials from Chennai Stores and divert them to private scrap dealers – Evidence of PW-46, PW-47 and lorry booking registers established diversion – Held: Convictions of A1, A8, A9 and A12 confirmed; convictions of A5 and A7 upheld but sentences reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment – Acquittal of A10 and A11 affirmed [Paras 2, 3.1–3.3, 4.23–4.24, 30–31].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Competent Authority – A1 contended that sanction was invalid as it was issued by PW-2, Assistant Director General – Court held that PW-2 was duly authorised; sanction valid; no prejudice caused; Trial Court findings affirmed [Paras 4.1–4.3].

Evidence – False Indents – Violation of Departmental Procedure – Indents not countersigned by Divisional Engineers; not routed through Chief General Manager; A7 issued unauthorized issue orders; compliance with material issuance norms violated – Held: Procedural deviations established intentional misconduct under the PC Act [Paras 4.24–4.35].

Acquittal – A10 and A11 – Trial Court found that goods pertaining to indents raised by A10 and A11 were actually delivered to the concerned stores – Held: Acquittal justified and confirmed [Para 3.3].

Sentence – Modification – Proportionality – For A5 and A7, while conviction was upheld, sentence reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment for each charge – concurrent – fine unchanged – set-off allowed – 8 weeks time granted for surrender [Final Order: Sections III and IV].

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of Trial Court based on extensive documentary and oral evidence – No perversity or illegality demonstrated – Held: No ground for interference in convictions of A1, A8, A9 and A12; partial relief only in sentencing of A5 and A7 [Paras 10–14].

Decision: Appeals of A1, A8, A9 and A12 dismissed – conviction and sentence confirmed. Appeals of A5 (Crl.A.No.43/2014) and A7 (Crl.A.No.61/2014) allowed in part – sentence reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment – fine maintained – sentences to run concurrently.

Labour Law – Definition of Workman – Daily wage employee working for more than 240 days per year over 8 years as Clerk/Computer Operator in police training academy – Held: Respondent qualifies as “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act – Appointment was not under police service nor managerial or supervisory in nature [Paras 9–9.1].

Industrial Disputes Act – Definition of Industry – Maharashtra Police Academy was held to fall under the purview of “industry” as per Section 2(j) – Academy imparted paid training to private agencies, operated revenue-generating facilities like hostels, canteen, library, swimming pool – Activities involved systematic employer-employee cooperation and profit motive – Sovereign functions limited to statutory training did not cover all services [Paras 10–16].

Retrenchment – Violation of Section 25F – Termination of respondent without notice, retrenchment compensation or valid justification – No opportunity of hearing provided – Held: Retrenchment illegal and contrary to ID Act – Reinstatement with back wages and permanency justified [Paras 17–20].

Public Employment – Ad-hocism and Regularization – Resolution by Academy to fill permanent posts with existing daily wage staff ignored – Respondent possessed requisite qualifications and was eligible for regular appointment – Court condemns continued exploitation under temporary label – Directs reinstatement as High Grade Stenographer with full benefits [Paras 13–15, 22].

Industrial Court – Scope of Judicial Review – High Court finds no infirmity in Industrial Court’s judgment – Held: Impugned order dated 09.05.2025 is well-reasoned, supported by evidence and law – No interference warranted [Paras 21–23].

Stay – Court grants six-week stay of judgment to enable Petitioner to approach Supreme Court – Respondent granted liberty to apply for withdrawal of deposited back wages [Para 24–25].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Industrial Court’s order upheld – Petitioner directed to reinstate Respondent with continuity, permanency, and back wages within two weeks.

Money Laundering – Predicate Offence – Requirement of Scheduled Offence – Validity of Arrest under Section 19 PMLA – Petitioner challenged the arrest of her husband (MLA, Chitradurga Constituency) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) pursuant to ECIR/BGZO/19/2025, contending absence of a valid predicate scheduled offence – ED relied on multiple FIRs (2011–2024) alleging illegal online betting and gambling networks linked to the accused – Petitioner argued all FIRs except FIR No.218/2022 (Harohalli P.S.) were quashed or closed, and even in that case, a ‘B’ report was filed – Held: existence of a predicate offence is foundational for ECIR registration under PMLA, but respondent’s investigation revealed large-scale betting and laundering operations connected to accused through entities like FonePaisa, Simtech IT Solutions, and foreign casinos – Sufficient material existed for “reason to believe” under Section 19 PMLA – Custodial interrogation justified – Arrest upheld [Paras 10–26].

PMLA – Reason to Believe – Nature of Satisfaction Required – Court reiterated that “reason to believe” under Section 19 PMLA must be based on material indicating involvement in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime – Preliminary investigation and statements of witnesses revealed direct control and benefit by accused from online betting apps (King567, Raja567) and foreign casino operations – Such material constituted adequate foundation for arrest – Mere filing of ‘B’ report in predicate FIR does not nullify ECIR unless accepted by court [Paras 14–18, 25].

Online Betting Racket – Linking of Predicate FIR with Larger Laundering Operation – Though FIR No.218/2022 involved only ₹30,000 alleged fraud, ED established nexus between the accused’s network and larger fraudulent gaming operations involving hundreds of crores laundered through multiple entities – Court held that “proceeds of crime” include property derived from any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence and not confined to amount mentioned in predicate FIR [Paras 21–23].

Constitutional Challenge – Fundamental Rights – Articles 19 and 21 – Arrest not found arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights – ED acted within statutory powers under Section 19 PMLA – Compliance with D.K. Basu guidelines for arrest and communication to family was noted [Paras 3, 4, 25].

Decision: Petition dismissed – ECIR and arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 upheld – Observations confined to writ proceedings – Liberty reserved to accused to seek bail or other reliefs if the ‘B’ report in predicate FIR is accepted by the jurisdictional court [Paras 27–28].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Conviction under Section 149 IPC Unsustainable in Absence of Shared Intent – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted along with others for murder under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149 and 323/149 IPC – Trial court applied vicarious liability under Section 149 based on presence at scene – Appellate court held that fatal injuries were inflicted solely by two co-accused (now deceased) – No overt act, shared intent, or deadly weapon attributed to present appellants – Held: Mere presence without active participation or common object insufficient to attract liability under Section 149 IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 3.1–3.7, 5–8].

Constructive Liability – Section 149 IPC – Applicability Requires Proof of Unlawful Assembly, Common Object, and Knowledge of Likely Offence – Reiterated that liability under Section 149 cannot be stretched to convict passive bystanders or those with no criminal intent – Citing Zainul v. State of Bihar, Mizaji v. State of U.P., and Subal Ghorai cases – Held: Prosecution failed to prove appellants were members of unlawful assembly with intent to kill – Acquittal warranted [Paras 3.5–3.8, 4–6].

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Evidence – Fatal Blows Attributed to Co-accused Only – No Role Ascribed to Surviving Appellants – Post-mortem report revealed only two blows leading to death – Both ascribed to two now-deceased accused – No evidence linking appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand to the assault – No weapons recovered from them – Held: Trial court erred in applying collective liability mechanically [Paras 3.1, 5–6].

Principle – Rule of Prudence in Section 149 IPC Cases – Courts Must Guard Against Convicting Innocent Bystanders Based on Proximity Alone – Presence at the scene without participation or shared object does not establish guilt – Doctrine of caution to be applied in cases involving large number of accused – Held: Prosecution failed to produce credible material to show appellants shared the common object – Acquittal justified [Paras 3.8, 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149, and 323/149 IPC set aside – Appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC to secure presence in case of further appeal [Paras 9–10].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Validity – Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act against petitioner for causing public disorder and terror – Petitioner challenged order on grounds that prior offences were stale and relied upon improperly – Held: Detention based solely on two recent FIRs and two in-camera statements demonstrating habitual conduct prejudicial to public order – Past offences only referred, not relied – Subjective satisfaction properly arrived at – Detention Order valid [Paras 17–19, 24].

Public Order vs. Law and Order – Distinction – Petitioner contended incidents at most involved law and order issues between individuals – Court held that the petitioner’s repeated public assaults with deadly weapons, extortion, and terrorizing of shopkeepers and vendors created widespread fear – Such conduct disturbs public order and affects even tempo of society – Justifies preventive detention [Paras 16, 22–23].

Eyewitness and In-Camera Statements – Reliance and Admissibility – In-camera statements of two witnesses narrated specific extortion incidents involving threats with weapons and violence in public places – Witnesses feared reprisal and public disorder was evident – Held: Statements credible and material validly relied upon for subjective satisfaction [Paras 13–15, 22–23].

Past Offences – Reference vs. Reliance – Detaining Authority merely referred to past offences to illustrate criminal background – Clearly stated in detention grounds that subjective satisfaction was based solely on recent FIRs and witness accounts – Held: Reference without reliance does not vitiate order – No legal infirmity [Paras 17–21].

Binding Precedents – Coordinate Bench Decision Held Per Incuriam – Judgment relied upon by petitioner in Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak (WP No. 311/2025) not considered binding – Held: Decision failed to apply binding precedents including Khaja Bilal Ahmed (2020) 13 SCC 632 – Hence not applicable [Para 21].

Severability – Section 5A MPDA – Even if one ground fails, others sufficient to sustain detention – Court noted each ground independently valid – Detention justified even under severability clause [Para 24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Detention Order upheld – Rule discharged – No interference warranted [Para 25].