Proclaimed Offender – Quashing of Proclamation Order – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person in Negotiable Instruments Act case – Petitioner’s absence at trial led to proclamation – Impugned order set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions of Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. and lack of recorded satisfaction by trial court – Petition allowed. [Para 1, 3-4, 12-13]

Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonor – Complaint against petitioner for purchasing buffaloes and issuing cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds – Legal notice sent to accused returned unserved, leading to proclamation and subsequent trial proceedings. [Para 2]

Criminal Procedure – Service of Process – Issue regarding service of bailable and non-bailable warrants to petitioner – Contention of non-service of warrants and improper following of Section 82 Cr.P.C. procedures by trial court – Importance of proper service and recording of satisfaction before issuing proclamation highlighted. [Para 3-4, 12]

Compromise and Withdrawal of Complaint – Settlement between parties – Complainant’s withdrawal of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act recorded by trial court – Impact on ongoing criminal proceedings and proclamation order. [Para 8-9]

Criminal Justice and Personal Liberty – Balance between individual’s personal liberty and societal interests – Necessity of adhering to procedures established by law in line with Article 21 of the Constitution – Reference to relevant case laws for proper procedure in issuing proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Quashing of proclamation order – Petition allowed due to procedural lapses in issuing proclamation – Trial court’s order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person set aside, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures in criminal justice system. [Para 13]

Detention under Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 – Challenging the detention of Md. Nizamoddin under Section 3(2) of the Act – Alleged as a ‘Sexual Offender’ for committing sexual assault on a minor girl multiple times, resulting in pregnancy. [Para 2-4, 9]

Contention of Petitioner – Detention order issued without proper subjective satisfaction and consideration of material – Act committed against an individual, affecting ‘law and order’ but not ‘public order’. [Para 5, 11]

Argument of Respondent – Detenu’s acts created widespread fear and insecurity among the public, especially school girls, thus affecting public order. [Para 6]

Court’s Analysis – Detaining authority failed to differentiate between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ – Single incident within the confines of a home, not in public space – No previous history of similar offenses by detenu to suggest habitual disturbance of public order. [Paras 7, 11, 14]

Legal Principles and Precedents – Reference to Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and distinction between public order and law and order disturbances – Preventive detention to be used in rare cases, requiring subjective satisfaction of affecting public order. [Para 12, 15]

Decision – Detention order and subsequent confirmation order set aside as illegal – Liberty granted to prosecution and detenu to prove and disprove allegations, respectively, in a trial court – Trial court to decide based on evidence without being influenced by High Court’s observations. [Paras 16-18]

Criminal Appeal – Dismissal of Complaint for Non-Prosecution – Appellant's challenge against dismissal of complaint case No. 1963c/2018 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup, for non-prosecution. Complainant absent for several hearings without justification, leading to dismissal and acquittal of accused. Appeal against dismissal based on contention of absence due to counsel's inadvertence. [Paras 2, 4, 10, 14]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138/142 – Original complaint for dishonor of cheques issued by respondent no. 2 in favor of appellant. Case transferred for disposal, but complainant absent repeatedly without steps, leading to dismissal. [Paras 3, 10]

Judicial Discretion and Process – Application of Judicial Mind – Argument that trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint without proper judicial consideration. Discussion of the powers under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding acquittal for complainant's non-appearance. Reference to Supreme Court and High Court precedents on the exercise of judicial discretion in such cases. [Paras 5, 11, 12, 13]

Decision – Upholding Trial Court’s Dismissal of Complaint – High Court finds no merit in the appeal, noting complainant's repeated absence and lack of diligence in pursuing the case. Dismissal of complaint for non-prosecution and acquittal of accused affirmed, with no intervention warranted in the impugned order. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 17]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal in Murder Charge – Appeal against conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code – Appellant acquitted of charge for the murder of his wife – Inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies, especially of key witness (PW-6) – Delay in FIR lodging raises doubt on veracity of allegations – Dying declaration of the victim (Exhibit D1) indicating accidental cause of death not properly considered by the Trial Court – Testimony of neighbor (PW-5) stating victim claimed self-immolation, and lack of implication by the victim against the appellant in her statements to others – Insufficient evidence to form a complete chain pointing to guilt of the appellant. [Para 34-42]

Evidence and Witnesses – Child Witness Testimony – Reliability of child witness (PW-6) under scrutiny – Material contradictions in her statements at different stages – Possibility of being tutored during the period between the incident and her court testimony – Her initial statement during investigation differed significantly from the trial testimony. [Para 35-37]

Delay in FIR Lodging – FIR lodged seven days after the incident – Delay unexplained and casts doubt on the allegations against the appellant – No immediate action despite awareness of the incident by the complainant. [Para 34]

Dying Declaration – Victim's Statement – Victim’s statement to Resident Medical Officer (DW-3) indicating accidental fire during cooking – Victim did not implicate the appellant in her statements to her sister (PW-11) and to the medical officer – The Trial Court's dismissal of this testimony as non-voluntary not substantiated by evidence. [Para 40-41]

Decision – Conviction and sentence by the Trial Court set aside due to inconsistencies and insufficient evidence – Appellant acquitted of the murder charge under Section 302 IPC. [Para 42]

Bail Application - NDPS Act Violation - Accused's Bail Plea Dismissed: In the case of Vinod Bijarnia vs. Union of India, the Gauhati High Court denied bail to the accused involved in a narcotics case. The accused had been in jail since 17.11.2021 for allegedly transporting a commercial quantity of Phensedyle, a Codeine-based cough syrup. The application for bail, under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., was considered in light of the charges under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act. [Para 2, 4, 15]

Arguments for Bail - Delay in Trial and Lack of Direct Evidence: The defense argued for bail citing the long incarceration without trial completion, reliance on inadmissible confessions under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and no direct recovery of contraband from the accused. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's decision in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ravi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha regarding the admissibility of statements and right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 5, 9, 12]

Prosecution's Counter and Court's Observation: The prosecution countered that the trial delay wasn't significant, with the first witness already examined. The court noted that despite the lack of direct recovery from the accused, he owned the vehicle used for transporting the contraband. The court also referenced decisions from the Supreme Court, highlighting the gravity of offences involving commercial quantities of narcotics and the necessity to satisfy stringent conditions for bail under the NDPS Act. [Para 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14]

Decision and Directions for Expedited Trial: The court concluded that due to the nature and gravity of the offence, bail was not granted. However, the court directed the lower court to expedite the trial, preferably completing it within three months, without being influenced by the High Court's observations. [Para 15, 16]

Challenge to Re-Advertisement of Job Position – Petitioner, a dental sciences diploma holder, questioned the legitimacy of a fresh advertisement for a Dental Technician post by respondent No. 3, alleging attempts to favor certain candidates over others. Original advertisement issued on 13.10.2013 and the subsequent re-advertisement on 20.12.2013 led to the petitioner’s exclusion. [Paras 1-4, 7-9]

Respondents’ Justification and Legal Stand – Respondents argued the re-advertisement was in line with updated guidelines from the J&K State Health Society and NRHM, asserting no legal infirmities in the process. They contended that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the fresh advertisement, as he could participate in the new selection process. [Paras 10-14]

Legal Analysis and Precedent Citations – The court examined the legal rights of candidates in such scenarios, referencing several Supreme Court decisions like Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, Asha Kaul v. State of J&K, and others, to determine the rights of candidates in response to advertisement withdrawals and re-advertisements. [Paras 15-21]

Court’s Findings – The court found no vested right of selection/appointment for the petitioner due to his participation in the initial selection process. It held that the re-advertisement notice did not infringe any fundamental, legal, or statutory rights of the petitioner, and thus, was not legally infirm. [Paras 22-25]

Decision – The writ petition challenging the re-advertisement notice was found to be ill-founded and devoid of merit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed along with all connected applications. [Para 26]

Writ Petition – Appointment of Chairperson for Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights – Petitioner challenging the appointment of the 5th respondent and seeking annulment and fresh selection process – Court considering the validity of the appointment under statutory requirements. [Para 1, 7, 9]

Qualifications and Eligibility – Requirements under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 and Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2010 – Examination of the 5th respondent's eligibility as Chairperson based on political affiliation and experience in child rights. [Para 8, 10, 11]

Selection Committee's Decision – Role of the Selection Committee in assessing candidates' qualifications and experiences – Court's limited scope of review over the Committee's decision – Upholding the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. [Para 12, 13, 14]

Judicial Review – Limits of Court's intervention in the selection process for public employment – Reference to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir emphasizing non-interference unless there is proven arbitrariness or statutory violation. [Para 14]

Decision – Dismissal of the writ petition for lack of merit – Upholding the appointment of the 5th respondent as Chairperson of the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. [Para 15]Referred Cases with Citations:

Criminal Petition – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Petition seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.14766/2021 for offence under Section 420 IPC – Allegation of furnishing false information in application for District Judge post – Petition dismissed. [Para 1, 14, 19]

Judicial Selection Process – Misrepresentation in Application – Applicant's failure to disclose involvement in past criminal/civil proceedings – Impact on candidature for District Judge post – Misrepresentation leading to criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC. [Para 3, 11, 15]

Criminal Law – Interpretation of Section 420 IPC – Deceptive acts for personal gain – Importance of honest declaration in judicial recruitment – Fraud and misrepresentation as grounds for criminal prosecution. [Para 12, 15, 17]

Legal Ethics – Responsibility of Legal Professionals – Obligation of truthful disclosure by practicing advocates in judicial applications – High standards expected from legal practitioners. [Para 16]

Judicial Proceedings – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Limitation on High Court’s power to interfere in criminal proceedings at the stage of charge sheet – Observations made in judgment not binding on pending proceedings against petitioner. [Para 18, 19]

Decision – Petition rejected, with observations made solely for consideration under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – No bearing on other proceedings against petitioner. [Para 19]

Challenge against FIR – Petitioner, an MLA, challenging FIR registered by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on Enforcement Directorate's information – FIR questioned for lack of preliminary inquiry and authorization – Dismissal of petition due to statutory backing of FIR and necessity of investigation. [Paras 1-16]

Preliminary Inquiry – Necessity in Corruption Cases – Contention that no preliminary inquiry conducted before registering FIR – Refuted by court, highlighting the three-month gap between Enforcement Directorate's communication and FIR registration as period of preliminary inquiry. [Paras 6, 10, 14]

Enforcement Directorate's Role – Validity of Information Sharing – Enforcement Directorate's report under Section 66(2) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 used as basis for FIR – Court upholds validity, stating that the report and subsequent ACB's source report justify FIR against the petitioner. [Paras 10-11, 15]

Assets Disproportionate to Income – Allegations of Disproportionate Assets – ACB's source report indicating petitioner's assets disproportionate by 2031% to known income – Court finds prima facie case warranting investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act. [Para 12]

Investigation Proceedings – Interim Stay by Apex Court – Pending petition before Apex Court challenging refusal of interim stay on investigation – High Court suspends operation of its order dismissing the criminal petition for 30 days. [Para 16]

Decision – FIR against MLA for disproportionate assets to continue – Criminal petition challenging FIR dismissed – High Court's order suspended for 30 days considering the pending appeal before Apex Court. [Para 17]