Civil Law - Partition Suit – Claim by Heirs of Deceased Brother – Relinquishment of Share – Appeal Dismissed – Appellants (legal heirs of Narsing Gawli) filed partition suit claiming share in ancestral property – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held that Narsing had relinquished his share and led separate life – High Court held no substantial question of law arose – Held: Concurrent findings on fact of relinquishment and separate residence unassailable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–11].

Substantial Question of Law – No Evidence to Rebut Concurrent Findings – Second Appeal Not Maintainable – The Court reiterated that second appeal lies only when a substantial question of law arises – Here, the plea that Narsing did not relinquish his share was disproved by admissions and evidence – Held: No perversity or legal error in concurrent findings – No interference warranted [Paras 9–10].

Family Settlement – Oral Relinquishment Valid in Facts – Evidence Supported Separate Possession – The Courts below relied on consistent evidence showing Narsing was allotted only a room and shop for maintenance, without further claim – Court upheld such oral family settlement, especially when supported by long-standing conduct – Held: Oral relinquishment in family arrangement is legally acceptable [Paras 7–9].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellants’ claim for partition rejected [Paras 10–11].

Company Law  – SFIO probe – Whistleblower sought copies of complaint & annexures – Special Court directed “Issue CC on usual terms” without reasons – High Court quashed – Held: Stranger not entitled to complaint/annexures; only investigation report permissible under Section 212(13) Companies Act – Orders unsustainable – Applications remitted [Paras 8–12, 18–20].

Third-party right to copies – Criminal Rules of Practice (Kerala) – Rule 226 allows strangers to apply but no entitlement as of right – Court must assess bona fides, purpose and privacy concerns – Orders must show reasons – Here, Special Court’s cryptic orders unsustainable – Ismail P.M. v. Muhammad Ameer-ul-Islam, 2022 (2) KHC 660 (Ker HC DB) and Karthik Dasari v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1412 applied [Paras 8–10, 16–17].

Companies Act – Section 212(13) – Scope – “Any person concerned” may obtain copy of SFIO’s investigation report – Petitioner already supplied report (Annexure A10) – No right to complaint or annexures under Companies Act – Generalia specialibus non derogant argument rejected for non-report documents [Paras 11–12, 18–19].

Privacy & misuse – Concern that petitioner intended to use documents for political mileage despite civil court injunction (OS No.104/2025, Sub Judge Ernakulam) – Court emphasized privacy of accused/respondents – Referred Saurav Das v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 154 holding charge sheet/documents not “public documents” under Evidence Act [Paras 6, 12, 20].

Judicial duty – Courts must give reasoned orders when granting copies – Mere “Issue CC” not sufficient – Application must be verified and purpose scrutinized – Orders here quashed for non-application of mind [Paras 8–9, 17].

Rules Committee – Court requested amendment of Rule 226 to require notice to affected parties before granting third-party copies, in light of privacy implications [Para 20].

Disposition – Crl.M.C. Nos. 6537 & 6409/2025 (by CMRL) allowed; orders directing copies quashed – Crl.M.C. No. 5765/2025 (by Shone George) dismissed – Special Court to reconsider applications afresh with reasons and safeguards [Paras 18–20].

Criminal Law – Challenge Conviction under Sections 392/34 and 397 IPC – Acquittal on Account of Unreliable Testimony – Judgment Set Aside – The appellants Naushad and Salman were convicted for robbery under Section 392/34 IPC, with Naushad also convicted under Section 397 IPC based on the complainant’s testimony alleging robbery at gunpoint – The Trial Court relied primarily on the complainant's deposition, despite no recovery of stolen articles or weapon, no independent witness, and inconsistencies between the complainant’s version and the police account – The High Court found material contradictions and improvements in the complainant's statements, including the delayed mention of a firearm, lack of description of the accused, and failure to explain urgency for delay in reporting – Held: Prosecution evidence unreliable and not of sterling quality – Conviction set aside – Both appellants acquitted [Paras 1–15].

Criminal Trial – Inconsistent Testimony – Conviction Set Aside – The complainant made material improvements during court deposition which contradicted his initial statements to the police – The use of a pistol was introduced much later – Court held such discrepancies and omissions as significant, rendering the testimony untrustworthy [Paras 6, 9–10].

Evidence – Identification and Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Refusal Not Fatal When Explained – Although appellants declined to participate in the TIP, they stated that police had shown their photographs to unidentified individuals – Court accepted this explanation and noted the complainant had not described the accused initially, making in-court identification unreliable [Para 12].

Recovery – Absence of Weapon and Stolen Property – Prosecution Failed to Establish Link – No recovery of robbed articles or the weapon allegedly used in commission of offence – Pistol found in another FIR was not exhibited in this case – This weakened the evidentiary value of prosecution’s case [Paras 5, 12].

Non-Joining of Public Witnesses – Further Weakening of Prosecution Case – Despite the incident occurring in a public area during the day, no effort was made to include independent witnesses – Court noted that where the sole witness lacks credibility, such omission becomes significant [Paras 7, 13–14].

Decision – Considering the material contradictions, delayed reporting, unreliable testimony, and lack of corroborative evidence, the High Court set aside the conviction under Sections 392/34 IPC (both appellants) and Section 397 IPC (Naushad) – Appeals allowed – Appellants acquitted [Paras 14–15].

NDPS Act – Bail in Commercial Quantity Case – Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail Rejected – Petitioners arrested with 203.306 kg of ganja filed for bail under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC and Sections 480 and 483 BNSS – Petitioners argued prolonged incarceration of 641 days infringed Article 21 rights – Court held that twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act were not satisfied – Held: Prolonged incarceration insufficient for bail in commercial quantity cases unless accused undergoes a substantial part of sentence or trial is unduly delayed beyond threshold – Petitioners' detention of 641 days not enough to override Section 37 limitations – Bail Denied [Paras 1-3, 6, 21-23].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial vs. Statutory Bar on Bail under NDPS Act – Petitioners cited Apex Court judgments supporting bail due to violation of right to speedy trial – Court distinguished those cases based on longer durations of custody (2.5+ years) – Held: While right to speedy trial is sacrosanct, the NDPS Act’s restrictions cannot be lightly ignored unless prolonged and unjustified delay is clearly shown – Mere delay insufficient without crossing statutory thresholds – Petitioners not entitled to conditional liberty overriding Section 37 [Paras 7-10, 21-22].

Judicial Discretion – Limitations under NDPS Act – Section 37 Must Be Strictly Complied With – Respondent relied on binding precedents mandating that courts must not grant bail in commercial quantity drug cases unless both conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) are satisfied – Held: Section 37’s bar is mandatory and non-derogable unless twin conditions are cumulatively satisfied – Court not satisfied that petitioners are not guilty or unlikely to reoffend – Bail refused [Paras 11-20].

Final Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Trial Court Directed to Expedite Trial – Court dismissed the bail petition due to non-fulfillment of statutory requirements – Directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months in accordance with law [Para 23].

Criminal Law - Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Fresh Evidence Not Mandatory – Application Allowed Based on PW1’s Testimony – The petitioners were previously declared innocent by SIT and placed in Column 2 of the challan – Held: Trial court rightly exercised discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on examination-in-chief of complainant (PW1) implicating the petitioners – No need for cross-examination at this stage – Summoning valid [Paras 2, 4, 7-9].

Investigative Finding – Not Binding on Court – SIT's Declaration of Innocence Does Not Preclude Summoning – The SIT had declared six accused including the petitioners as innocent relying on alibi supported by CCTV and CDRs – Held: Investigative findings are not final and cannot override the power of the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon persons named in evidence [Paras 3, 7-9].

Alibi – To Be Decided at Trial – Petitioners' Plea of Alibi Based on CCTV and CDRs – Held: Such plea is a matter of trial – Cannot bar summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. where eye-witnesses have implicated the petitioners in direct testimony – Trial court rightly summoned petitioners to face trial along with co-accused [Paras 4, 8-9].

Dismissal of Prior Application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – No Bar to Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Earlier application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. had been rejected and confirmed in revision – Held: Rejection under Section 193 Cr.P.C. does not preclude fresh summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on evidence adduced during trial [Paras 3-4, 8].

Summoning Based on Examination-in-Chief – Permissible – No Requirement of Cross-examination – Citing Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab – Held: Examination-in-chief is valid basis for summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; Evidence need not be tested by cross-examination at this stage [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – No Infirmity in Order of Trial Court – Petitioners failed to show legal perversity or arbitrariness in trial court’s exercise of discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning order upheld – Revision petition dismissed [Para 9].

Civil Law - Parentage and Paternity – Right of Child to Know Identity – DNA Test Ordered - Plaintiff, now a major, filed a suit asserting he is the biological son of the petitioner and sought a declaration to that effect – The trial court allowed his application for DNA test under Section 75(e) and Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC – Held: When the mother admits the relationship and the child claims paternity, there exists an “eminent need” to determine truth – Right to privacy of the petitioner cannot override the child’s right to identity .

Section 112 Evidence Act – Presumption of Legitimacy Inapplicable – Suit by Child Post Majority – Section 112 Not a Bar - The Court held that the presumption under Section 112 does not apply where a child, post attaining majority, approaches the Court to assert paternity – Especially when the mother supports the child’s claim and there is implied access between the parties outside of valid wedlock.

DNA Testing – Balancing of Interests – Use of Police Force Disallowed - While upholding the trial court’s order allowing the DNA test, the High Court disapproved the direction for use of police force to compel sample collection – Held: Defendant No.1 cannot be forcibly subjected to DNA testing, but adverse inference may be drawn by the trial court in case of non-compliance Decision – Revision Dismissed with Modification – DNA Test Permitted Without Police Force - The Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order directing DNA test of the petitioner, but modified it to disallow use of police force – Trial Court to consider implications of refusal to undergo testing at the appropriate stage .

Labour Law - Workmen’s Compensation – Workmen’s Compensation Act  - Employer's Liability to Pay Interest – Condition in Insurance Policy Fabricated – Appeal Allowed – The appellants challenged the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation directing them to pay interest on compensation amount, claiming the insurance company was liable – Held: The insurer relied on a condition printed in a post-2006 version of the policy that did not exist in the original 2005 policy – The Commissioner erred in exonerating the insurer based on a subsequently added clause – Insurer directed to pay interest along with compensation – Appeal allowed, impugned order modified [Paras 1-3, 6-10].

Insurance Law – Contractual Exemption from Interest – Not Retrospectively Applicable – Inadmissible Policy Document Disregarded – The Court held that although insurance companies can contractually exclude interest liability, the clause must exist in the policy in force at the time of the incident – Held: Clause 10 relied upon by the insurer was from a version of the policy printed in 2006, whereas the incident occurred in April 2005 – Such retrospective application not permissible – Policy terms introduced later cannot govern earlier contracts [Paras 5-7, 10].

Fraud on Court – Unauthorised Late Filing of Modified Policy Terms – Improper Procedure Followed – The insurer introduced a new policy document after evidence was closed, without notice to the appellants – Held: This act amounted to procedural impropriety – The Commissioner improperly relied on an unverified document which did not reflect the terms of the original policy issued in 2005 – Such reliance vitiated the order [Paras 3, 6-7, 10].

Employees’ Compensation – Insurer’s Obligation to Pay Interest – No Exclusion in Original Policy – Liability Affirmed – The appellants produced the original policy showing only nine clauses, none excluding interest liability – Held: In the absence of a valid exclusion clause in the original policy, the insurer is bound to pay interest along with compensation under the Act – Commissioner’s finding to the contrary set aside [Paras 7, 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Insurer Directed to Pay Interest – Order Modified – The direction requiring the principal employer to pay interest is set aside – The insurance company is directed to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till deposit – Compliance, insofar as the first appellant is concerned, shall be through its Insolvency Resolution Professional [Paras 10, Conclusion].

Criminal Law - Bail  – Allegation of Foreign Nationality – illegal entry into India - Prima Facie Case of Identity Fraud – Bail Rejected – The applicant was found in possession of digital documents indicating Bangladeshi origin and is accused of forging Indian identity documents to claim citizenship – Held: In absence of verified proof of Indian citizenship and pending verification from UIDAI and other authorities, the application for bail is rejected [Paras 1-5, 22-26, 30-31].

Citizenship Determination – Documentary Evidence – Mere Possession of Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID Not Conclusive – The applicant relied on Indian identity documents to assert citizenship – Held: These documents do not override statutory requirements of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955 – Verification of issuance and authenticity is necessary before relying on them for legal status [Paras 18-20, 29].

Illegal Migration – Burden of Proof – Section 9 of the Foreigners Act – When prima facie evidence of foreign origin is presented by the State, the burden shifts to the accused – Held: The applicant has failed to discharge this burden by not producing any verified document of Indian citizenship [Paras 21, 29].

Forensic Evidence – Digital Birth Certificates Found – Bangladeshi Origin Suspected – Digital documents retrieved from the applicant’s phone include birth certificates showing Bangladeshi place of birth – Held: The explanation offered by the applicant at this stage is insufficient – Investigation needed to verify source and authenticity [Paras 3, 7, 23-25].

National Security Concerns – Real Risk of Absconding or Tampering with Evidence – Seriousness of Charges Considered – Allegations involve misuse of national identification systems and potential links to wider illegal immigration networks – Held: Given seriousness of offences and applicant’s capability to recreate false identity, bail at this stage would pose serious risk to investigation and national interest [Paras 27-28, 30].

Investigation Pending – UIDAI and Government Authorities Yet to Verify Documents – Ongoing Investigation under Section 193(8) BNSS – The Court noted that identity verification and forensic analysis are still in progress – Held: Bail cannot be granted until crucial investigative steps are completed [Paras 4, 26, 30].

Decision – Bail Denied – Liberty to Apply Again – Regular bail application rejected – However, liberty granted to revive the request if the trial does not conclude within one year [Paras 31-32].

Civil Revision - Court Fee – Maintainability of Revision by Defendant – Petition Dismissed as Withdrawn – The petitioners challenged the trial court’s order rejecting their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on grounds of improper court fee – Held: As per settled law, revision against decisions on court fee at the instance of the defendant is not maintainable – Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise the plea at trial stage [Paras 1-2, 5].

Jurisdiction – Objection on Valuation and Court Fee – To Be Considered During Trial – Petitioners permitted to withdraw revision and pursue objections during trial – Held: Plea of improper valuation and non-payment of ad valorem court fee raised in written statement shall be considered independently by trial court, uninfluenced by impugned order [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed as Withdrawn – Liberty Granted – Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise pleas in accordance with law at the stage of final adjudication – Trial court directed to consider the same de hors observations in impugned order [Para 5].