Devaswom Board – Temple Administration – Welfare of Temple Animals – Complaint regarding deplorable condition of Gosala at Vaikom Mahadeva Temple – Allegation of starvation, inadequate shelter, poor drainage, lack of veterinary care and non-appointment of full-time cowherd – Ombudsman’s Report No.48/2025 placed before Court – Photographs and Advocate Commissioner’s report revealed pathetic condition of bulls and cows donated by devotees through ritual ‘nadayiruthal’ – Held: Travancore Devaswom Board has shown little priority to welfare of animals and systemic lapses require immediate corrective measures [Paras 2–9].

Animal Welfare – Religious Significance of Nandi – Court referred to Nandi Upapurana describing Nandi as vahana and foremost devotee of Lord Shiva – Observed that bulls and cows in temple premises are objects of reverence and their neglect is shocking and disturbing – Temple authorities bound to ensure dignity, hygiene and proper care of animals donated by devotees [Paras 10–11].

Administrative Accountability – Directions to Devaswom Board – Court directed designation of specific Administrative Officer responsible for Gosala maintenance – Mandated repairs to cowshed, separate feeding spaces for bulls and cows, proper drainage and ventilation, appointment of full-time cowherd (Gopalakan), enhancement of fodder arrangements and opening of separate bank account exclusively for Gosala maintenance – Officer made directly answerable to Court and liable for lapses – Ombudsman directed to conduct regular and surprise inspections [Paras 12–14].

Policy Direction – Long-term Measures – Board permitted to retain one bull symbolically at Vaikom and shift others to Kalikavu Bull Protection Centre – Directed to complete repairs at Kalikavu within three months – Board advised to prepare comprehensive master plan for establishment and maintenance of Gosalas in Siva temples using dedicated funds and sponsorships [Paras 13–14].

Decision: DBP disposed of with detailed mandatory directions – Compliance affidavit to be filed within three months – Matter posted for compliance report on 25/05/2026.

Essential Commodities Act – Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) – Unauthorised storage of HSD Oil, Kerosene and Fertilizers – Seizure during inspection – Failure to produce licence, documents or stock registers – Prosecution proved seizure and non-compliance with Control Orders – Held: Conviction justified on evidence and statutory presumptions under Sections 10C and 14 EC Act – No interference with findings of guilt [Paras 6-9, 11-12].

Search and Seizure – Challenge to authority under Kerosene Control Order – Appellant contended inspection not by duly authorised officer under Para 15 of 1968 Order – Court found seizure proved and non-production of documents unexplained – Trial not vitiated on alleged procedural irregularities in absence of prejudice [Paras 4(iii), 6-8, 11].

Storage versus Sale – Defence plea that mere storage does not establish dealing – Court held appellant failed to show lawful possession or agricultural use – No books of accounts, licence or returns produced as required under Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 – Presumption of culpable mental state under Section 10C EC Act attracted – Burden on accused under Section 14 not discharged [Paras 4(i), 4(v), 6-9].

Amendment to Para 11(2) of West Bengal Kerosene Control Order – Appellant argued amendment effective from 07.01.1986 not applicable to incident of 30.08.1984 – Court noted absence of any document showing bona fide possession even otherwise – Contravention established independently of amendment plea [Paras 4(iv), 8-9].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability despite Minimum Sentence under EC Act – Offence committed in 1984 – Long lapse of nearly 42 years – Appellant remained on bail and no subsequent offence reported – Following Tarak Nath Keshari and principle that Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being later legislation with non obstante clause can override minimum sentence – Held: Appellant entitled to benefit of probation under Section 4 PO Act [Paras 12-14].

Sentencing – Reformative Approach – After prolonged pendency, sending appellant to custody not expedient in interest of justice – Appellant directed to execute bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties and to maintain peace and good behaviour – Fine enhanced to Rs.20,000/- payable within 60 days – In default to serve sentence [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act upheld – Instead of custodial sentence, appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on execution of bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties – Fine of Rs.20,000/- to be paid within 60 days, failing which sentence to be served – Appeal disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner (Accused No.14) absconded during trial – Co-accused (Accused Nos.1-13, 15-21) tried and acquitted on 30.08.2025 – Trial Court held prosecution failed to prove conspiracy, motive, presence and recovery – Independent witnesses turned hostile – No cogent, coherent or convincing evidence to establish chain of circumstances – Held: When entire prosecution case collapsed and co-accused acquitted on merits, continuation of split-up proceedings against similarly placed accused would be futile – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-9].

Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Establish Complete Chain – Trial Court relied on principles in Hanumant v. State of M.P., Govindareddy v. State of Mysore and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Panch witnesses did not support recovery – No proof of conspiracy under Section 10 of Evidence Act – Independent witnesses hostile – Held: Prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis of innocence – Benefit extended to petitioner on parity [Para 7].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Prevention of Abuse of Process – Though absconding accused ordinarily required to face trial, Court may exercise inherent powers to save precious judicial time where inevitable result of trial would be acquittal in view of earlier judgment on identical evidence – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Para 9].

Murder and Unlawful Assembly – Sections 302, 143-149 IPC – Entire case rested on circumstantial evidence – With acquittal of all other accused and total failure of prosecution evidence, split-up case cannot survive independently on same material [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Proceedings in S.C. No.1529/2021 pending before I/c LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru quashed qua petitioner (Accused No.14) – Petitioner entitled to be set at liberty – Registry directed to communicate order to jail authorities for release in accordance with law [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Allegations under Sections 500/504/506/509 IPC – Complaint arising out of long-standing family land dispute – No specific date, time or particular words attributed in complaint – Ingredients of alleged offences not disclosed – Held: Where complaint taken at face value does not constitute essential ingredients of offences alleged and appears to cloak civil dispute with criminal colour, proceedings liable to be quashed – Revisional application allowed [Paras 7-9, 12, 16-18].

Defamation – Section 499 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Requirement of specific imputation made with intention or knowledge of harming reputation – Complaint contained general allegations of abuse, harassment and mental distress without specifying nature of defamatory imputation – Investigation also failed to disclose specific words or acts lowering moral or intellectual character – Held: Absence of specific imputation and mens rea fatal to prosecution under Section 500 IPC [Paras 9, 11, 16].

Intentional Insult and Criminal Intimidation – Sections 504 and 506 IPC – Mere use of general allegations of abuse or threat insufficient – Background facts relevant but materials must prima facie disclose intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace or specific threat causing alarm – Case diary and statements devoid of particulars as to date, time or nature of threat – Held: Ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 IPC not made out [Paras 9-11, 16].

Insult to Modesty of Woman – Section 509 IPC – Ingredients require specific words, gestures or acts intended to insult modesty – Complaint lacked description of particular words, gestures or intrusion into privacy – No material collected during investigation to substantiate essential elements – Held: Section 509 IPC not attracted on vague and omnibus allegations [Paras 10, 16].

Civil Dispute and Criminal Proceedings – Pendency of Civil Suit – Not by itself ground to quash criminal case – However Court must examine whether criminal intent is disclosed or civil dispute is given criminal colour – In present case multiple civil proceedings including partition suit and money suit pending between parties – Allegations found to be omnibus and unsupported by material particulars – Held: Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court [Paras 3, 7, 12-13, 16-18].

Scope of Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Principles reiterated – Power to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice – Where allegations even if taken at face value do not constitute offence, High Court justified in quashing – Reliance placed on Bhajan Lal guidelines – Proceedings quashed [Paras 13-15, 17-18].

Decision: Revisional application allowed – Charge sheet No. 267 of 2022 dated 23.09.2022 and proceeding pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly arising out of Balagarh P.S. Case No. 264 of 2022 under Sections 500/504/506/509 IPC quashed – No order as to costs.

Employees’ State Insurance – Damages under Section 85-B – Limitation – No express limitation prescribed for passing order under Section 85-B – Contribution for period 1972–1989 paid on 07.09.2000 – Damages imposed on 16.04.2014 – Delay of 14 years – Held: Even in absence of express statutory limitation, power must be exercised within reasonable period – Five years considered reasonable based on scheme of Act – Order passed beyond reasonable period unsustainable [Paras 21–26, 33].

Reasonable Period – Determination – Penal civil liability – Where statute confers power without prescribing limitation, such power must be exercised within reasonable time – Second proviso to Section 45-A (five-year limit), Regulation 32 (five-year record retention) and proviso to Explanation (b) to Section 77(1A) provide legislative guidance – Five years treated as reasonable benchmark for Section 85-B proceedings [Paras 23–25].

Interest Proceedings – Distinction from Damages – Pendency of interest proceedings and litigation regarding rate of interest does not justify delay in initiating damages – Damages levied for delayed contribution, not for interest – Hence, independent cause – Fourteen-year delay unexplained and unreasonable [Paras 27–28].

Welfare Legislation – Penal Provisions – Deterrence – Though ESI Act is beneficial social legislation, penalty provisions cannot be invoked after inordinate delay – Certainty in litigation required – Deterrent effect diluted if invoked after long lapse of time [Para 30].

Scope of Judgment – Court proceeded on assumption that no express limitation exists for Section 85-B – Question whether express limitation is otherwise provided kept open for adjudication in appropriate case [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Substantial question of law answered against the appellant-Corporation and in favour of respondent-Gymkhana – Order of ESI Court quashing damages upheld – Statutory authorities expected to act within reasonable time henceforth.

Criminal Law – Dacoity with Murder – Section 396 IPC – Appellants convicted for committing dacoity at house of Pohap Singh during intervening night – One Summera died due to firearm injuries and nine persons sustained injuries – FIR promptly lodged naming five appellants and one Kunji along with six unknown persons – Trial Court convicted appellants – High Court on reappraisal found prosecution story improbable and identification doubtful – Conviction set aside [Paras 22, 30-32, 44-45].

Identification – Visibility in Electric Light – Prosecution case that accused committed dacoity in electric light without covering faces – Accused known to witnesses and one appellant resident of same village – Court held it unnatural and against human conduct that known dacoits would commit crime openly without concealing identity – No evidence produced from electricity department to prove availability of power supply at 2:00 a.m. – Identification unsafe to rely upon [Paras 31-33, 35, 43].

Enmity – Double-Edged Weapon – Motive alleged that appellant Hardayal bore grudge as Pohap Singh had helped Deepa after Hardayal eloped with his wife – Will executed and cancelled by Hardayal in favour of informant’s son – Held: Enmity can be motive for crime as well as false implication – In present case, prior animosity raised serious doubt regarding false implication [Paras 38-40].

Recovery – Non-Recovery of Looted Property – Despite prompt FIR and raids conducted, no looted ornaments, cash or valuables recovered from appellants – No incriminating material seized – Failure to connect accused with stolen property weakens prosecution case in dacoity [Paras 22, 30, 33].

Withholding of Material Witness – Non-Examination of Pohap Singh – Dacoity allegedly committed at his house – Prosecution failed to examine him without explanation – Adverse inference drawn – Prosecution version rendered doubtful [Para 41].

Appreciation of Evidence – Inherent Improbabilities – Courts must assess probabilities and intrinsic circumstances – Story that accused committed dacoity in electric light without covering faces and without recovery of stolen property held improbable – Prosecution version found artificial and fabricated – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 32, 36-38, 42, 44].

Abatement – Appeal against one appellant Hardayal already abated due to death – Remaining appellants entitled to acquittal – Directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 BNSS) [Paras 46-47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 396 IPC set aside – Appellants Amar Singh, Prakash @ Om Prakash, Bahori and Biri Singh acquitted – Hardayal’s appeal abated – Bail bonds cancelled subject to compliance under Section 481 BNSS.

Civil Procedure – Restoration of Appeal – Dismissal for Default – Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance of plaintiff and counsel – Application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC filed by advocate along with affidavit – Delay of 90 days sought to be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Lower appellate Court dismissed applications holding advocate cannot file sworn affidavit on behalf of party – Held: Advocate holding vakalatnama is competent to file affidavit in matters within his knowledge and to present restoration petition – Impugned orders set aside – Appeal directed to be restored and disposed of on merits [Paras 9-12].

Advocate’s Authority – Scope of Vakalatnama – Order III Rule 1 CPC – Advocate duly authorized by vakalatnama can make appearance, application or act on behalf of client – No absolute prohibition on advocate filing affidavit in support of application when facts are within his knowledge – Advocate assumes role of witness and may be subjected to cross-examination if necessary – Practice of rejecting petitions solely on ground that affidavit filed by counsel is unsustainable [Paras 10-12].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Section 5 Limitation Act – Petition for restoration filed with delay of 90 days – Dismissal of delay petition solely on ground of affidavit filed by counsel held erroneous – Courts should adopt liberal approach where dismissal occurred due to counsel’s default and party should not suffer for fault of agent – Delay condonation and restoration petitions held maintainable [Paras 6, 10-12].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reliance on earlier decisions of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Courts – Ratio in T. Krishnaswamy v. Maniyamma and other decisions clarifies competence of advocate to file affidavit – Contrary reliance on Premier Chemical Industries case distinguished – Lower Court failed to properly appreciate settled legal position [Paras 10-11].

Decision: C.M.A. No.466 of 2019 and C.R.P. No.1932 of 2019 allowed – Orders dated 02.04.2019 in I.A. Nos.736 and 737 of 2017 in A.S. No.35 of 2017 set aside – Lower appellate Court directed to restore appeal and dispose of same on merits expeditiously – Petitioner directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Service Law – Suspension on Arrest – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Claim for Full Pay and Allowances – Petitioner ANM placed under suspension from 1/9/1999 after arrest in criminal case under Sections 307, 294, 341 & 34 IPC – Convicted by Trial Court and later acquitted by High Court in appeal – Suspension period treated as on duty for all purposes except pay and allowances – Held: Suspension was under deeming provision of Rule 9(2)(a) of Rules, 1966 on account of custody beyond 48 hours – Such suspension cannot be termed wholly unjustified merely because of subsequent acquittal – Full pay and allowances admissible only when competent authority records finding that suspension was wholly unjustified under FR 54-B(3) – No such finding recorded – Petition dismissed [Paras 8-11, 19].

Fundamental Rule 54-B – Scope and Interpretation – Payment of Back Wages – FR 54-B(3) mandates payment of full pay and allowances only if suspension is found wholly unjustified – Discretion lies with competent authority – Where suspension is statutory consequence of arrest and prosecution not initiated at instance of department, denial of full back wages justified – Employer cannot be burdened for period services were not rendered due to employee’s involvement in criminal case [Paras 9-11, 15-16].

Back Wages after Acquittal – Criminal Prosecution not at Department’s Instance – Supreme Court Precedents – Relied on Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Gujarat Electricity Board and Union of India v. Jaipal Singh – Held: If employee involved in criminal case in personal capacity and department not responsible for prosecution, reinstatement on acquittal does not automatically entitle employee to back wages – Each case to be considered on its own facts – Suspension during pendency of trial and appeal not wholly unjustified [Paras 12-16].

Long Suspension – Stages of Proceedings – Gurpal Singh Case Distinguished – Apex Court held that suspension during trial and pendency of appeal cannot be termed wholly unjustified – Only suspension beyond reasonable stage without justification may attract full pay – In present case, suspension continued till retirement due to criminal proceedings – No stage shown where suspension became wholly unjustified [Para 17].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 25/1/2019 treating suspension period as on duty except for full pay and allowances upheld – Petitioner not entitled to full pay and allowances for suspension period.

Civil Law - Eviction – Reasonable Requirement – Anticipated Retirement – Landlord sought eviction for own use for business upon husband’s impending retirement – Contention that future requirement is no requirement – Held: Requirement certain to arise in reasonably foreseeable future satisfies test of reasonable requirement – Claim neither fanciful nor exaggerated – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras relating to Q. XIV, discussion on Mono Ranjan Dasgupta].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found reasonable requirement and valid service of notice – No perversity or error of law demonstrated – Held: Concurrent findings demand no interference in second appeal [Final paragraphs before dismissal].

Notice to Quit – Service by Registered Post – Postal endorsement “Not Claimed” – No plea of absence or shifting from premises – Held: Endorsement “not claimed” amounts to valid service when notice properly addressed and tendered – Presumption of service sustainable – Tenancy validly determined [Discussion referring to Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand; Subhas C. Mitra].

Death of One of Legal Heirs of Tenant – Joint Tenancy – Decree against Dead Person – All legal heirs of original tenant were impleaded – On death of widow, other joint tenants remained on record – Held: Tenancy devolves as joint tenancy – Decree against one joint tenant binds all – Suit does not abate – Decree not a nullity [Discussion under Additional Substantial Questions XVII & XVIII; reliance on Suresh Kumar Kohli].

Order XXII CPC – Abatement – Where other legal heirs of deceased tenant already on record, non-substitution of one heir does not vitiate decree – Joint decree permissible – No error by First Appellate Court in rejecting plea [Relevant discussion on applicability of Order XXII Rule 7 CPC].

Relief – Delivery of Possession – Appellants directed to vacate within 60 days from drawing up of appellate decree – In default execution permissible – Liberty granted to Respondent to claim mesne profits in separate suit.

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court as affirmed by First Appellate Court upheld – Appellants directed to deliver possession within sixty days – Liberty to Respondent to initiate execution and to institute separate suit for mesne profits – All connected applications disposed of.