Criminal Law – Murder - Motive – Weak and Unsupported – Conviction Set Aside – Prosecution alleged that the appellant killed the deceased following a dispute involving the non-repayment of a loan and an alleged offensive utterance by the deceased – Held: The prosecution failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim of the alleged utterance or motive – Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof – Motive remains unproven, making the prosecution's case tenuous [Paras 9-10].

Last Seen Theory – Contradictions and Unreliability of Witnesses – The prosecution relied on the testimonies of two witnesses (PW5 and PW6) to establish the last seen theory – PW5 admitted during cross-examination that his house was not near the crime scene and that he had not seen the accused and deceased together – PW6’s testimony was riddled with contradictions, and his silence about the alleged confession by the accused was deemed unnatural – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 12-19].

Discovery of Fact – Recovery Evidence Doubtful – Credibility of Witnesses Questioned – Recovery of the alleged murder weapon (bill hook) and blood-stained materials from the accused was presented as a key link in the chain of evidence – However, the witnesses (PW7 and PW8) providing testimony for the recovery contradicted each other, with PW8 denying any knowledge of the accused’s confession – Held: Recovery of evidence becomes doubtful, breaking the chain of circumstances required for conviction in cases based on circumstantial evidence [Paras 25-27].

Scientific Evidence – Lack of Fingerprint Analysis – Investigation Flawed – Investigating Officer failed to lift fingerprints from material objects found at the scene of the crime, including the brandy bottles allegedly used by the accused and deceased – Held: The omission to secure fingerprint evidence in a case of this nature demonstrates investigative lapses and weakens the prosecution’s case [Para 28].

Legal Principles – Circumstantial Evidence – Complete Chain Required – Citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] and other precedents, the Court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence:

Every link in the chain of circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
All circumstances must point exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
Missing links in the chain cannot sustain a conviction [Paras 21-23].
Judgment Erroneous – Acquittal Granted – The Trial Court failed to analyze the evidence in accordance with the principles governing circumstantial evidence – The lack of motive, failure to prove the last seen theory, and the inconsistencies surrounding recovery of evidence rendered the prosecution's case unproven – Conviction and sentence set aside, and appellant acquitted [Paras 24-30].

Decision
The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the conviction and life imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, in SC No. 173 of 2016, dated 31/01/2019, were set aside.

The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and any fine paid was directed to be refunded. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant, was ordered to stand canceled [Para 31].

Amendment of Pleadings – Subsequent Events – Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – The trial court allowed an amendment application to include facts arising from subsequent events – Held: The court may permit such amendments even after trial commences if the facts were not within the party's knowledge due to subsequent events, and the amendment is necessary for deciding the real issue in controversy without prejudicing the opposing party [Paras 20–26].

Judicial Discretion – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Liberal Interpretation – The trial court’s discretion in allowing amendments is upheld when exercised to achieve justice, focusing on the relevance and necessity of proposed amendments for proper adjudication – Held: Amendments should be liberally granted unless they introduce entirely new and inconsistent causes of action or defenses that prejudice the opposing party [Paras 24–27].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Courts must exercise their supervisory jurisdiction sparingly, intervening only in cases of manifest injustice or jurisdictional error – Held: The trial court's order allowing amendment did not exhibit any jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, warranting no interference under Article 227 [Paras 15, 27].

Decision: Revision application dismissed; amendment order upheld.
 

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction to Take Cognizance – Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. – Complaint Not Filed in Competent Court – Quashing of Complaint Ordered – A complaint alleging forgery and conspiracy regarding a document used in Regular Civil Suit No. 427/1999 was filed before a Magistrate not having jurisdiction under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., which mandates that only the court where the document was produced can take cognizance – Held: Magistrate erred in taking cognizance as he lacked jurisdiction; complaint quashed [Paras 11-13, 17].

Delay in Filing Complaint – Absence of Explanation – Abuse of Process of Law – Complaint Quashed – The complaint was filed approximately six years after the dismissal of a related appeal in 2004 without any explanation for the delay – Held: The delay in filing the complaint coupled with the lack of credible allegations rendered the proceedings an abuse of process of law, warranting quashing of the complaint [Paras 6, 14, 16, 17].

Abuse of Legal Process – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Complaint Filed Maliciously to Harass Applicant – Complaint Quashed – Allegations of conspiracy and forgery were deemed to be mala fide and intended to harass the applicant, as they were filed after the dismissal of a related civil appeal – Held: Quashing of complaint was necessary to prevent abuse of legal process and ensure ends of justice [Paras 13, 14, 16, 17].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Quashing of Complaint – No Prima Facie Case Made Out – Complaint Quashed – High Court held that the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute the offences alleged, and continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to an empty formality – Complaint quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. [Paras 16, 17].

Costs Imposed on Original Complainant – Filing of Frivolous Complaint – Rs. 50,000 Directed to be Paid – The original complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 50,000 as costs for wasting the court’s time by filing a frivolous and malicious complaint – Amount to be deposited with the District Library of Jamnagar District Court [Paras 18, 19].

Decision: The application was allowed, and the impugned Criminal Inquiry No. 59 of 2010 and consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside. The original complainant was ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs for filing a frivolous complaint. Rule was made absolute [Paras 17-19].
 

Delay and Laches – Petition Filed After 17 Years – Dismissal Justified - The Court observed that the petitioner failed to explain the delay of 17 years in filing the writ petition. No satisfactory explanation was provided for the long lapse between the impugned order and the filing of the PIL, making the petition liable for dismissal due to laches [Paras 21, 23].

Material Suppression – Intentional Non-disclosure – Costs Imposed - The petitioner suppressed the fact of de-notification of reserved forest land in 1962 under G.O.Ms.No.3676. The Court held that such suppression was deliberate, given the extensive nature of the affidavit filed, and imposed exemplary costs for misleading the Court [Paras 23-25, 29-30].

Bonafide of PIL – Lack of Credibility – Restricted Filing - The Court noted discrepancies in the petitioner’s age, income, and occupation, along with his inability to justify filing the petition. It concluded that the petition was mala fide, filed with oblique motives, and restricted the petitioner from filing PILs for one year without prior permission [Paras 29-30].

Decision: W.P.No.18846 of 2024 was dismissed. The petitioner was restrained from filing PILs in this Court for a year without prior permission. Costs of ₹10,00,000/- each were imposed on the petitioner, payable to the 12th respondent and the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within four weeks, with compliance to be filed.

Criminal Law – Challenge Arrest Procedure and Remand – Adherence to BNSS and Constitutional Norms – Judicial Review Upheld – The petitioner challenged the remand order alleging procedural lapses and constitutional violations in the arrest and custody proceedings – Court examined compliance with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024, and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution – Held: Procedural safeguards were followed, and the remand was justified based on prima facie evidence against the petitioner [Paras 12-15, 37-46].

Prima Facie Evidence – Role of Magistrate in Remand Orders – Judicial Custody Justified – The Magistrate's duty to assess the material evidence for granting judicial custody was fulfilled – The remand was based on evidence that pointed to the petitioner’s role as a key conspirator in obstructing public officials – Held: The Magistrate’s decision was aligned with precedents such as Manubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [Paras 37, 45-46].

Public Order and Right to Liberty – Balancing Constitutional Rights with Public Safety – Procedural Compliance Affirmed – While asserting the right to liberty, the petitioner alleged procedural irregularities in arrest and detention – Court emphasized adherence to BNSS and constitutional safeguards, rejecting claims of unlawful arrest – Proper communication of arrest reasons and intimation to the petitioner’s associate were established [Paras 40-43, 46].

Decision of the Court – The petition challenging the remand order was dismissed – Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision, concluding that prima facie evidence justified judicial custody and procedural safeguards were adhered to [Paras 45-46].
 

Criminal Law – Separation of Trials – Common Verdict for Separated Sessions Cases – Impermissibility – Appellants convicted under Sections 148, 302, 324, 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Section 201 IPC, and Section 27 Arms Act – Separate Sessions trials titled State v. Davender and State v. Kartar Singh and Others impermissibly joined – Evidence recorded in one trial was relied upon in the other without appropriate procedural compliance – Common verdict quashed due to procedural violation [Paras 24–33].

Fair Trial – Right to Separate Appraisal of Evidence – Mandate Violated – Evidence adduced in separate trials must remain confined to the accused in those trials – Common verdict rendered by the trial court was in gross violation of procedural and substantive law – Violated principles laid down by Supreme Court in A.T. Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department (Criminal Appeal No. 1306 of 2021) [Paras 26–32].

Section 311 CrPC – Misapplication – Improper Joinder of Separated Trials – Affirmative order allowing evidence from one trial to be used in another trial held void – Consent of defense counsel does not validate procedural illegality [Paras 29–32].

Decision: Criminal Appeals (CRA-290-DB-2006, CRA-392-DB-2006, CRA-421-DB-2006): Allowed – Common verdict and sentences quashed – Cases remanded with directions to the trial court to:
Ensure prosecution witnesses testify only in their respective trials.
Assign separate numbers to both Sessions cases (State v. Davender and State v. Kartar Singh and Others).
Hear arguments and pronounce separate judgments for both trials within six months [Paras 34].
Criminal Revision Petition (CRR-1591-2006): Dismissed as infructuous due to remand of main cases [Paras 35].
 

Criminal Procedure – Second Application for Pardon – Section 306 Cr.P.C. – Maintainable with Changed Circumstances – The Court held that a second application for pardon under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable only when there are changed circumstances – Here, A1 alleged threats to his life as a fresh circumstance for seeking pardon – Held: Second application is maintainable in the present case [Paras 18, 21].

Criminal Procedure – Recording of Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Legality – Recording Statement After Trial Commences Illegal – The trial court directed the Magistrate to record A1's confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C., despite the trial already having commenced – Held: Section 164 Cr.P.C. applies only before the commencement of inquiry or trial – The trial court’s direction to record such a statement was held illegal and contrary to law [Paras 19, 22].

Criminal Procedure – Procedure for Grant of Pardon – Evidence Recording Only After Pardon Granted – Section 306 Cr.P.C. – Illegal to Use Section 164 Cr.P.C. Confession – The Court held that evidence, including examination and cross-examination of an approver, can only take place after pardon is granted under Section 306 Cr.P.C. – Reliance on a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before granting pardon is contrary to the statute – Procedure adopted by the trial court was vitiated [Paras 21-23].

Criminal Procedure – Right of Co-accused to Challenge Pardon – Limited to Procedural Aberration – The Court held that co-accused have the right to challenge procedural illegality in the grant of pardon to an accused under Section 306 Cr.P.C., but not the merit of the order granting pardon – The petitioners' challenge based on procedural lapses was maintainable [Para 24].

Trial Delay – Responsibility of Prosecution – Directions for Expeditious Trial – The prosecution was found to have contributed significantly to delays in trial despite High Court orders to expedite proceedings – Trial court’s record indicated repeated failure by the prosecution to produce necessary witnesses and evidence on time – The High Court directed expeditious conclusion of trial within two months [Paras 25-26].

Decision: The impugned order dated 30/10/2024 of the trial court granting pardon to A1 was quashed. Directions were issued to the trial court to conclude the trial within two months.

Excise Law – Policy Differentiation – Validity of Restricted Timings – Petitioners challenged Clause 9.8.8 of the Haryana Excise Policy 2024–25, which limited the operational hours of bars and pubs in Panchkula to 12:00 midnight, while allowing extended hours in Gurugram and Faridabad on payment of additional fees – Held: Excise policy can distinguish between districts based on reasonable classification – Classification found not arbitrary or discriminatory as districts have varying economic and social considerations [Paras 17–23].

Liquor Trade – No Fundamental Right to Trade in Liquor – Trade in liquor is not a fundamental right but a privilege controlled by the State – Petitioners, having accepted the terms of the policy, cannot challenge specific clauses – Doctrine of 'take it or leave it' applies in contractual matters related to excise policies [Paras 19–25].

Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – Policy differentiation upheld – Licensing and fee structures across districts differ due to local factors – Panchkula and Gurugram/Faridabad are not similarly situated for excise policy purposes – Classification serves valid policy objectives [Paras 18–22].

Policy Framing – Judicial Restraint – Courts reluctant to interfere in State’s policy decisions, especially in areas concerning excise and liquor trade – Observed that unrestricted sale of liquor through the night could have adverse social implications – Recommended policy makers strike a balance between revenue generation and cultural considerations [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Clause 9.8.8 of the Haryana Excise Policy 2024–25 upheld as valid and non-discriminatory.
Observations made regarding societal impact of unrestricted liquor sale at night, recommending review in future policies.
 

Charitable Trusts – Cancellation of Registration – Section 12AA(3) – Cancellation Retrospective Effect – Unjustified - The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) cancelled the registration of the assessee-society retrospectively for the assessment year 2004-2005 under Section 12AA(3), introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2010 – Held: Retrospective application of cancellation not permissible – The CIT lacked jurisdiction to cancel registration for periods predating the statutory amendment – Cancellation set aside for being illegal [Paras 23–27].

Charitable Purpose – Definition under Section 2(15) – Advancement of General Public Utility – Use of Funds for Construction Activities - Funds utilized for establishing a medical college and hospital cannot be deemed non-charitable – Construction of infrastructure forms an incidental but essential component of achieving charitable objectives – Registration and exemptions restored [Paras 24, 34, 35].

Income Tax Exemptions – Section 11 – Incidental Commercial Activities – Compliance with Statutory Provisions – Revenue argued commercial activities violated exemption clauses – Held: Activities incidental to the primary purpose of providing medical and educational relief permissible under law, provided they are incidental and within prescribed statutory limits – Exemptions under Section 11 granted [Paras 27, 35].

Penalty – Section 271(C) – Non-applicability – Dismissal of Penalty Appeals – Since the primary exemption and registration issues have been decided in favor of the assessee, penalty provisions under Section 271(C) do not apply – Appeals dismissed [Para 32].

Decision

ITA Nos. 271, 274 of 2014; 33 of 2022 filed by the Assessee: Allowed.

ITA Nos. 52, 164 of 2017; 48, 61 of 2020; 196, 197, 199, and 200 of 2023 filed by the Revenue: Dismissed.