Prisoner Rights – Unconvicted and Civil Prisoners – Writ of Mandamus sought to ensure facilities for unconvicted criminal prisoners and civil prisoners regarding interviews and communication with legal advisers – Petitioner, a practising advocate, sought enforcement of facilities as per Rule 541 of Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 – Court acknowledged the need for reasonable facilities under the Prison Manual, emphasizing protection of undertrial prisoners' fundamental rights, as highlighted by the Supreme Court judgment in Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India – Held: Prison authorities must ensure effective implementation of facilities for legal communication without interference from prison officials, in compliance with Rule 541 [Paras 1-7].

Legal Communication – Right to Confidential Counsel – Undertrial prisoners are entitled to confidential written communication with their legal advisers as per Rule 541(4) – Petitioner raised concerns over existing communication arrangements being inconvenient for legal practitioners – Court directed prison authorities to make necessary modifications, ensuring legal practitioners could communicate effectively with prisoners without undue hardship – Held: Confidentiality of communication must be maintained, allowing instructions from undertrial prisoners to their legal advisers without supervision by prison authorities [Paras 8-12].

Mutual Respect – Legal Practitioners and Prison Officials – Court emphasized the importance of mutual respect between legal practitioners and prison authorities during prison visits – Both parties are working towards the welfare and legal rights of prisoners, and cooperation is essential for the proper functioning of the justice system – Held: Legal practitioners to be treated with dignity, and vice versa, while performing their respective duties [Paras 15-16].

Compliance and Modernization – Facilities under Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 – Court directed respondents to ensure compliance with the directions and report on the current and proposed facilities – Acknowledged that the rules, last updated in 1983, require modernization to meet present-day needs – Held: Time-bound compliance report to be submitted, and any lapses to be addressed seriously [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions for compliance and modernization of prison facilities for legal communication between undertrial prisoners and their legal advisers. Matter to be listed on 29.10.2024 for compliance reporting [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 of CrPC – The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 324, 294(b), and 506(i) of IPC, citing parity with a previous order in a similar case where charges were reduced to Section 323 IPC – The petitioner argued that since both cases arose out of the same incident, the same relief should be granted – Held: The court found that prima facie offences under Sections 324, 294(b), and 506(i) of IPC were made out – It was noted that the nature, size, and sharpness of the stone used in the assault could determine whether it constituted a dangerous weapon under Section 324 – No grounds to quash proceedings at this stage [Paras 3, 5, 8, 14-18].

Section 324 IPC – Dangerous Weapon – Interpretation – Section 324 IPC applies when hurt is caused using a weapon likely to cause death – The Court held that a stone may qualify as a dangerous weapon depending on factors such as size and manner of use – Whether a stone constitutes a dangerous weapon is a question of fact to be determined at trial – The Court rejected the argument that Section 324 IPC could not apply without further evidence of the nature of the stone [Paras 7, 14-17].

Principles of Parity in Criminal Trials – The petitioner sought quashing based on parity with a co-accused in a counter case where similar charges were quashed – Held: The Court rejected the argument of parity, stating that quashing of proceedings in a separate but related case does not automatically warrant quashing in the present case – Each case must be decided on its own facts [Paras 4, 13].

Decision – The petition to quash proceedings under Sections 324, 294(b), and 506(i) of IPC was dismissed – The interim stay was vacated, and the trial was directed to proceed [Paras 18, 19].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of BNSS – The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving an assault on the complainant due to political rivalry – The complainant suffered grievous injuries, including a dislocated shoulder – The petitioners argued that the delay in filing the FIR and the complainant's choice of a distant hospital raised doubts about the case – Held: The delay in filing the FIR was justified as the complainant first sought medical treatment – The serious nature of the injuries and specific overt acts alleged against the petitioners weighed against granting anticipatory bail [Paras 1-20].

Overt Acts – The court noted that the petitioners were accused of picking up sticks and beating the victim, causing significant injuries – These specific allegations, supported by medical evidence, disproved the petitioners' claim that there were no overt acts alleged against them [Paras 21-30].

Political Motive – Both parties belonged to rival political factions, and the court recognized the political motive behind the attack – However, this motive did not diminish the severity of the offense or the gravity of the injuries sustained by the complainant [Paras 31-40].

Decision: Both criminal petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed.

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonor of Cheque – Legally Enforceable Debt – The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the respondent, alleging that the respondent issued a cheque of ₹1,00,000 as part of a settlement, which was dishonored – The trial Court acquitted the respondent, holding that the cheque amount was intended as a bribe to secure employment in the Punjab Police, and therefore did not represent a legally enforceable debt – Held: Payments made as bribes or for unlawful purposes do not constitute legally enforceable debts under Section 138 of the NI Act – The cheque, being issued for an illegal consideration, cannot give rise to criminal liability under the NI Act [Paras 6-8].

Admittance of Bribe – Consequences – The appellant admitted during cross-examination that the money was paid as a bribe – Since the cheque represented an illegal transaction, no offence under Section 138 of the NI Act was made out – The trial Court correctly acquitted the respondent based on this admission and the lack of a legally enforceable debt [Paras 4, 6-8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The findings of the trial Court are upheld, and the respondent’s acquittal is confirmed, as the cheque amount did not represent a lawful liability [Paras 8-9].

Fraud Classification – RBI Master Circular – Natural Justice – The petitioner company sought to quash PNB's action of declaring its account as 'fraud' without prior notice or hearing – The court held that the declaration of the petitioner's account as fraud, without following the principles of natural justice, violated RBI guidelines – Held: The petitioner was neither given a chance to respond nor was the fraud declaration substantiated through proper procedure, making the declaration invalid [Paras 18-21].

Suspension of Credit Facilities – Illegal Action – The court quashed SBI's letter suspending the petitioner's credit facilities based on PNB's fraud classification – It was held that since the fraud declaration itself was invalid, the consequent suspension of credit facilities by SBI could not stand – Held: The suspension of credit facilities was unlawful and must be reversed [Paras 19, 22].

Compensation for Damages – Costs Imposed – The court acknowledged the financial loss and reputational damage suffered by the petitioner due to PNB's wrongful action – As compensation, PNB was ordered to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to the petitioner, failing which an 18% per annum interest would apply from the date of filing the petition [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Petition allowed – The court directed PNB to remove the petitioner's account from the fraud list and notify RBI and SBI accordingly – SBI was instructed to restore the petitioner's credit facilities [Paras 22-24].

Specific Performance – Agreement of Sale – Dispute over sale agreement dated 05.01.1990 – The appellants/defendants claimed that the agreement was fabricated, while the respondent/plaintiff sought specific performance, asserting full payment of sale consideration – Held: The Trial Court’s decree for specific performance was upheld – The plaintiff proved the execution of the sale agreement and payment of the full consideration, while the defendants failed to disprove the validity of the agreement – The appeal was dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Burden of Proof – The plaintiff discharged his burden by proving the sale agreement through oral and documentary evidence, including witnesses and the scribe – The defendants did not produce sufficient evidence to counter the plaintiff’s claim, relying solely on the testimony of one defendant – Held: The plaintiff is entitled to specific performance, and the defendants must execute a registered sale deed [Paras 21-30].

Section 45, Indian Evidence Act – Handwriting Expert – The appellants sought to send the sale agreement to a handwriting expert – The petition was dismissed by the Trial Court and the dismissal was upheld by the High Court in a Civil Revision Petition – Held: The appellants’ renewed request for a handwriting expert during the appeal was dismissed as it was not maintainable [Paras 31-40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s decree and judgment upheld – Appellants directed to execute a registered sale deed within two months, failing which the plaintiff may take legal steps.

Income Tax – Bogus Purchases – Disallowance of 10% – The appellant challenged the disallowance of 10% of purchases deemed bogus by the ITAT, despite the acceptance of sales as genuine by the Revenue – Held: The ITAT found no cogent or convincing evidence to support the Revenue's allegation that all purchases were bogus – The ITAT, however, upheld the CIT-A's disallowance of 10% of purchases as a convenient measure, without sufficient justification – The High Court held that disallowing 10% of the expenses without concrete evidence or proper analysis is arbitrary and unsustainable – The ITAT's decision is set aside, and the disallowance is fully reversed [Paras 13-24].

Burden of Proof – Purchases and Sales – Once the ITAT found no cogent evidence from the Revenue to prove the purchases were bogus, the burden shifted to the Revenue to justify any disallowance – Held: The ITAT’s failure to examine why the disallowance was justified, despite its finding that sales were genuine, reflects a flawed approach – The court reiterated that the law does not expect the assessee to prove a negative where no evidence is presented against them [Paras 20-22].

Reliance on Precedent – Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Case – The ITAT relied on CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises but failed to apply its principles correctly – Held: In cases where the Revenue has not conclusively proven that purchases are bogus, the disallowance should not be upheld merely as a compromise measure – The High Court emphasized the need for clear findings before any disallowance is sustained [Paras 16-18].

Decision: All three income tax appeals are allowed in favor of the appellant – The ITAT's decision to disallow 10% of purchases is set aside – No costs [Paras 24-25].

SARFAESI Act – Bar under Section 34 – Fraud Allegations and Collusion – Suit Maintainable – The petitioner, a shareholder and director, alleged fraud and collusion between respondent-bank and other directors regarding the sanctioning of a loan without board authorization – The trial court and appellate court rejected the suit under Order VII Rule 11, citing the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Held: Section 34 does not bar the civil court's jurisdiction in cases where fraud or collusion is alleged – The allegations of fraud were sufficiently pleaded, and the suit is maintainable under Section 9 of CPC [Paras 30, 31, 44, 45].

Company Affairs – Director’s Rights – Loan Sanction without Board Resolution – Fraud Claims Established – The petitioner claimed that the loan was sanctioned by the bank without a valid board resolution – The court accepted that this amounts to collusion and fraud between the bank and other directors – The plaint contained specific averments supporting this allegation [Paras 42, 44, 45, 47].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Scope of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Section 34 does not preclude civil courts from deciding matters involving fraud – The court emphasized that Section 34’s bar is not absolute, especially when the claim involves fraud, as held in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India – The civil court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes [Paras 51, 70, 71, 83].

Decision: Both the orders of the trial court and appellate court rejecting the plaint were quashed, and the plaint was restored for trial. The court held that the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act does not apply in cases of fraud and collusion.

Criminal Law – Relevance of Evidence from Another Crime – Section 311 CrPC – The prosecution sought to introduce evidence from a subsequent crime (Cr.No.1031 of 2021) in the ongoing trial (SC.No.113 of 2018) – Held: The evidence relating to the subsequent crime was irrelevant to the current trial, as the accused had not been charged in the latter case, and the proposed witness (Sub Inspector) was not an eyewitness – Introducing such evidence would violate fair trial principles and the accused’s right to defend against the charges solely in the ongoing trial – The impugned order permitting the evidence was set aside [Paras 1-20].

Bad Character Evidence – Sections 53 and 54 of the Indian Evidence Act – The court noted that introducing evidence of another crime could unfairly suggest the bad character of the accused – Held: Under Sections 53 and 54 of the Evidence Act, evidence of bad character is inadmissible unless the accused himself introduces evidence of good character – The prosecution’s attempt to introduce such evidence was impermissible [Paras 21-30].

Fair Trial – Prejudice Against the Accused – Allowing evidence from a separate ongoing case could force the accused to disclose his defense prematurely, prejudicing the trial process – Held: The trial court’s decision was improper and violated norms of a fair trial – The revision petition was allowed, and the trial court's order was set aside [Paras 31-40].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – The order dated 29.08.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.359 of 2024 was set aside – The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial in SC.No.113 of 2018 without considering evidence from the subsequent case.