Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption – Requirement of Sanction for Prosecution – Cognizance Without Sanction Invalid – The applicant was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe through a co-accused, leading to his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – The competent authority denied sanction twice, yet the chargesheet was filed, and cognizance was taken – The High Court held that Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act explicitly bars courts from taking cognizance of corruption charges against public servants without prior sanction – Held: The entire proceedings were flawed due to the absence of sanction, rendering the trial void ab initio [Paras 16-19, 32].

Sanction Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – A Mandatory Precondition for Cognizance – The Court reiterated that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the allegations before granting prosecution sanction – In this case, the Government of Maharashtra twice refused sanction, indicating no prima facie case against the applicant – Held: Without sanction, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance, making the proceedings against the applicant legally unsustainable [Paras 17-21, 30-32].

Exoneration in Departmental Inquiry – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – The applicant was exonerated in the departmental inquiry conducted against him – The Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. DSP, CBI held that if an accused is exonerated on merits in departmental proceedings, a separate criminal trial may be unwarranted – Held: Since the departmental inquiry absolved the applicant of charges, continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process [Paras 25-27, 31].

Application for Discharge – Principles Governing Discharge Under Criminal Law – The Court applied the test for discharge under Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, which mandates that if the prosecution evidence does not disclose a prima facie case, the accused must be discharged – Held: The prosecution failed to establish a strong suspicion against the applicant, warranting his discharge from the case [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – The High Court quashed and set aside the order dated 31.01.2022, which had rejected the discharge application – The applicant is discharged of all charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Criminal proceedings against the applicant are terminated [Paras 33-36].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing – FIR - Freedom of Speech – Social Media Post – No Incitement to Violence – The petitioner, a journalist, was charged under Sections 153A and 505 IPC based on a tweet analyzing Karnataka’s budget allocations for different religious communities – The tweet merely presented factual information derived from a public document (state budget) and contained no incendiary language – Held: The tweet did not promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between religious groups nor did it amount to a public mischief – FIR quashed [Paras 5-10].

Mens Rea – Essential for Offence under Section 153A IPC – The Court reiterated that for an offence under Section 153A IPC, a clear and manifest intent to promote enmity between groups is a sine qua non – Mere criticism or factual comparison of government policies does not attract criminal liability – Held: The petitioner’s tweet was an exercise of free speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and prosecution under Section 153A IPC was unwarranted [Paras 10-14].

Section 505 IPC – No Public Mischief or Incitement – The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s tweet could incite public unrest – The Court held that to invoke Section 505 IPC, the statement must have a tendency to create public disorder, incite violence, or spread alarm among the public – Since the tweet was a factual analysis without inflammatory language, it did not meet the threshold for invoking Section 505 IPC – Held: FIR quashed as continuation of prosecution would be a gross abuse of process [Paras 15-18].

Abuse of Criminal Process – Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC – The Court observed that the complainant did not appear in court to support the allegations, indicating an ulterior motive – Citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court held that when allegations in the FIR do not prima facie constitute an offence, quashing under Section 482 CrPC is justified – Held: The complaint was frivolous and filed for extraneous reasons, warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Petition allowed. FIR in Crime No. 6 of 2024 quashed.
 

Criminal Law – Bail Under NDPS Act – Rigors of Section 37 Relaxed – Bail Granted – Petitioner was accused in Crime No. 235/2024 for allegedly transferring ₹2,60,000 to the second accused, who was arrested with 349 grams of MDMA – No contraband was recovered from the petitioner – Co-accused were released on default bail – Held: The allegations against the petitioner were primarily based on financial transactions without direct recovery of drugs – In such circumstances, strict conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 6-8].

Judicial Precedents – Twin Conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act – No Strict Application in Absence of Direct Recovery – Supreme Court’s ruling in Shince Babu v. State of Kerala, 2024 KHC OnLine 8084, relied upon – Held: When no contraband is recovered from an accused and the prosecution relies only on monetary transactions, the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act (prima facie case & non-likelihood of further offence) do not apply with the same force – Bail cannot be denied based on mere suspicion [Paras 7-8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception – Principle Reaffirmed – Following P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 (16) SCALE 870, and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, 2024 KHC 6431, the court reiterated that bail should not be withheld as punishment – Held: Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution – Petitioner in custody for 11 months without significant evidence of direct involvement – Bail granted [Paras 8-10].

Final Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions – Petitioner released on bail with conditions including personal bond of ₹50,000, cooperation with investigation, restriction on travel, and prohibition on committing similar offences – Violation of conditions to result in bail cancellation [Para 11].
 

Service Law – Recruitment Criteria – CGLE Notice vs. Recruitment Rules – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petitioners challenged CAT’s order granting relief to candidates who were rejected for failing to meet the CGLE 2019 eligibility criteria – Tribunal held that the Recruitment Rules (RRs) would override the CGLE Notice – Held: The CGLE Notice merely clarifies the RRs and does not contradict them – Requirement of studying Statistics for all three years of graduation is essential for SIG-II role, given its statistical analysis responsibilities – Tribunal’s order directing appointment of ineligible candidates set aside [Paras 10-18].

Administrative Law – Eligibility Conditions in Advertisement – Candidates Bound by Stipulated Criteria – Respondents participated in the recruitment process knowing the eligibility conditions but challenged them only after being declared ineligible – Held: A candidate who voluntarily takes part in a selection process cannot later dispute the prescribed qualifications upon failing – Doctrine of estoppel applies – Candidates cannot claim relaxation of criteria retrospectively [Paras 19-22].

Judicial Precedents – Recruitment Rules vs. Executive Instructions – Clarificatory Role of CGLE Notice Upheld – Tribunal erroneously held that the CGLE Notice imposed additional conditions beyond the RRs – Held: Where statutory rules are silent, executive instructions can supplement but not override them – CGLE Notice aligns with the job requirements of SIG-II and ensures competent selection – Precedents relied upon by respondents distinguishable [Paras 13-16].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Tribunal’s Order Quashed – High Court allowed the petition, holding that CGLE 2019 eligibility conditions were valid and binding – Respondents not entitled to appointment – No costs imposed [Para 24].
 

Criminal Procedure – Maintainability of Second Criminal Appeal under SC/ST Act – Not Permissible – The primary issue was whether an accused can file a second appeal before the High Court after dismissal of a previous bail appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act – The Court held that once an appeal is dismissed by the High Court, a second appeal against the same order rejecting bail is not maintainable – The only available remedy for the accused is to file a fresh bail application before the Special Court based on changed circumstances – Held: Second criminal appeal against the same order rejecting bail is not maintainable [Paras 12-16].

Doctrine of Functus Officio – High Court Cannot Reconsider Its Earlier Bail Decision – The Court applied the doctrine of functus officio, stating that once the High Court adjudicates an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, it becomes functus officio and cannot reconsider the same order in a second appeal – The principle was upheld in Shankar Kerba Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCC 793, where it was held that an appellate court functions as a "court of error" and cannot revisit an order already decided – Held: High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a repeat appeal on the same rejection order [Paras 15-18].

Right to Bail – Fresh Bail Application Before Special Court Required After Dismissal of Appeal – The accused must file a fresh bail application before the Special Court if new grounds or changed circumstances arise – The mere rejection of an earlier bail appeal does not bar a fresh bail application before the Special Court – Held: The accused retains the right to seek bail, but must approach the Special Court first [Paras 19-21].

Interpretation of Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act – Non-Obstante Clause Does Not Permit Repetitive Appeals – The non-obstante clause in Section 14A(2) overrides Section 378(3) of CrPC but does not override the settled principles of res judicata in bail matters – The High Court clarified that each bail application must be assessed on its own merits and procedural safeguards must be maintained – Held: The non-obstante clause does not permit repetitive bail appeals before the High Court [Paras 22-25].

Decision: Criminal Appeals Dismissed – The Court held that a second criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act is not maintainable after the dismissal of the first appeal – The accused must file a fresh bail application before the Special Court if there is a change in circumstances – Liberty granted to the appellants to seek fresh bail before the Special Court under Section 439 CrPC – No costs awarded [Paras 26-28].
 

Criminal Law - Murder Trial – Oral Dying Declaration – Acceptable and Corroborated – Conviction Upheld – Deceased Sanjay, before succumbing to gunshot wounds, made a statement to his father and uncle identifying Lachhman as the assailant – Court held that oral dying declarations, if reliable and supported by medical evidence, are admissible – Consistent medical and witness testimony validated prosecution's case [Paras 17–21].

Recovery of Weapon – Disclosure Statement and FSL Report – Strong Corroboration – Lachhman’s disclosure led to recovery of pistol and cartridges – FSL confirmed cartridge matched recovered weapon – Held: Recovery in pursuance of disclosure adds significant weight to the prosecution’s case [Para 22].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Use Against Co-Accused – Rejected – Lachhman’s alleged confession to deceased’s brother-in-law implicating co-accused Chand Singh held inadmissible against Chand – Court reiterated extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence, especially when made to interested witnesses, and cannot alone establish conspiracy [Paras 23–25].

Motive – Previous Murder Case – Not Sufficient for Co-Accused Conviction – Deceased was a witness in earlier case involving Chand Singh and Santro – Court held: While motive was strong, it cannot replace substantive evidence – No direct link established between Chand Singh and actual murder of Sanjay [Paras 26–28].

Acquittal of Co-Accused Santro – Conversation Insufficient to Prove Conspiracy – Witness claimed to overhear vague conversation between Santro and Lachhman – Court held it lacked specificity and credibility, and Santro’s acquittal was justified [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal of Lachhman dismissed – Conviction and life sentence for murder and Arms Act upheld – Appeal of Chand Singh allowed – Acquitted due to lack of independent and corroborated evidence – State’s appeal against Santro’s acquittal dismissed [Para 30].

Waqf Law – Jurisdiction Over Waqf Property – Commission of Inquiry Lacks Authority – Writ Petitions Allowed – Petitioners challenged the Kerala Government’s order appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to investigate ownership claims over a property declared as waqf – Held: Waqf Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a property is waqf – Section 40(2) of the Waqf Act makes the Waqf Board’s decision final, subject only to Tribunal review – Government’s appointment of the Commission contravenes Section 85 of the Waqf Act, which bars jurisdiction of any other authority over waqf matters – Commission’s appointment quashed [Paras 30-35].

Administrative Law – Competence of State Government – Commission of Inquiry Not Justified – The Kerala Government claimed authority under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to resolve a matter of “public importance” – Held: The dispute relates to property rights, which fall under the exclusive purview of the Waqf Tribunal – The Government failed to consider relevant legal provisions and the ongoing appeal before the Tribunal – Mere public protests or agitations cannot justify the appointment of an inquiry commission – Government’s action held arbitrary and legally unsustainable [Paras 24-26, 39-42].

Judicial Review – Government’s Decision to Appoint Inquiry Commission Lacks Legal Basis – Petitioners argued that the Government acted without jurisdiction and in violation of existing legal orders – Held: Government ignored previous High Court orders and the statutory framework of the Waqf Act – Section 85 of the Act prohibits interference in waqf matters by civil or revenue courts, reinforcing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Board and Tribunal – The decision to appoint the Commission was made without application of mind and is liable to be struck down [Paras 40-43].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Government Order Quashed – Kerala High Court quashed the Government’s order appointing the Commission of Inquiry – Held: The Waqf Board’s authority stands, and any challenge to its decision must be adjudicated before the Waqf Tribunal – Government directed not to interfere in waqf-related disputes contrary to the Waqf Act [Paras 43-44].
 

Land Acquisition – Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the acquisition of land in Village Akurdi, Pune, which was acquired under the MID Act in 1971, with possession taken in 1972 – Petition filed in 2010, nearly 38 years after the acquisition – Held: Delay of over three decades is unexplained and renders the petition non-maintainable – Principles of delay and laches bar the challenge, as acquisition proceedings had attained finality [Paras 1-4, 10-12].

Property Law – Land Acquisition and Possession – Once Vested, Cannot Be Reversed – The petitioner’s father had agreed to the acquisition in consent terms recorded before the High Court in 1968 – Held: Once land vests in the government upon acquisition, it cannot be challenged after decades on the ground that the petitioner was unaware of the process – Petitioner’s plea that possession was not taken is contradicted by official records – Land deemed lawfully acquired [Paras 8-10, 15-17].

Judicial Review – High Court Cannot Interfere After Conclusion of Acquisition Process – Petitioner argued that no compensation was paid, and therefore, the acquisition lapsed – Held: The remedy for non-payment of compensation lies in seeking proper legal recourse, not in challenging acquisition decades later – Supreme Court rulings reaffirm that land acquisition cannot be nullified solely on non-payment of compensation [Paras 20-25].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Relief Granted – High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the acquisition – Held: No case for interference as the petitioner’s challenge was barred by delay, acquiescence, and past judicial orders – Costs imposed on the petitioner for abuse of legal process [Paras 30-32].
 

Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving – Absence of Direct Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – The petitioner, a bus driver, was convicted for rash and negligent driving, causing an accident that resulted in multiple injuries and one fatality – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, as no witness directly observed the petitioner driving negligently – Held: In criminal trials, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Since none of the witnesses, including the passengers and the complainant, saw the petitioner driving rashly, the conviction could not be sustained [Paras 7-10].

Eye-Witness Testimony – Lack of Direct Observation – Benefit of Doubt – The trial court relied on witness statements that were based on hearing the accident rather than seeing the petitioner’s driving behavior – The complainant (P.W.1) himself admitted that he did not see the petitioner’s driving before the accident – Held: Conviction under Section 304(A) IPC requires clear evidence of culpable negligence, which was absent in this case – The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the doubt [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Review – Failure of Lower Courts to Properly Appreciate Evidence – Both the trial court and the appellate court convicted the petitioner without properly assessing the lack of direct evidence – The High Court found that the findings of both courts were perverse and resulted in a miscarriage of justice – Held: The revision petition was allowed, and the petitioner was acquitted [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Conviction and sentence set aside. The petitioner acquitted, and any fine amount paid to be refunded.