Civil Law - Export Credit – Interpretation of Maximum Tenure – Paragraph 1.1.2(ii) of the Master Circular – Partial Relief Granted - The Borrowers challenged the reversal of subvention on export credit due to delays in submitting export documents despite fulfilling export obligations within the stipulated period of 450 days. Held: Submission of export documents is a procedural requirement aimed at proving exports. A minor delay in submission does not disqualify the advances as "export credit" when the export obligation is fulfilled within the prescribed period. [Paras 43-47, 56].

Subvention Reversal – Validity of Banking Ombudsman’s Decision – Set Aside for First Lot; Upheld for Second Lot - For the First Lot of export transactions, where exports were effected within 450 days, the reversal of subvention was held to be unjustified. For the Second Lot, where exports did not materialize within 450 days, the reversal of subvention and reclassification of advances as domestic credit were upheld. [Paras 50-56, 62-63].

Beneficial Instruments – Purposive Interpretation of Master Circular – Relief Granted for Procedural Lapses - The Court emphasized that the Master Circular is a regulatory instrument promoting export competitiveness and must be interpreted in letter and spirit to fulfill its objective. Procedural delays in document submission should not undermine the substantive compliance of export obligations. [Paras 23, 47, 55].

Rule of Compliance – Strict vs. Substantial – Beneficial Instruments - Distinguishing between strict compliance (exports within 450 days) and substantial compliance (delayed submission of documents proving exports), the Court held that substantial compliance suffices to uphold the advances as "export credit." [Paras 43, 66-67].

Decision of the Court – The reversal of subvention for the First Lot was set aside, and the Borrowers were entitled to the benefits under the Subvention Scheme. However, the reversal for the Second Lot was upheld due to failure to effect exports within the stipulated period. Directions issued for recalibration of accounts and compliance by the Bank. [Paras 72(a)-(l)].
 

Civil - Partition Law – Final Decree – Termination of Suit – Petitioners sought amendment of the preliminary decree in a partition suit post-final decree, invoking the retrospective effect of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma – Held: A partition suit terminates with the passing of the final decree engrossed on requisite stamp paper – Once the final decree is passed, no further orders, including modification of shares, can be entertained by the trial court [Paras 7-11, 21].

Hindu Succession Act – Rights of Coparceners – Limitation of Retrospective Application – Retrospective application of amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is restricted to cases where the final decree has not been passed – Court emphasized that the partition is completed only when the final decree is drawn up and properties are divided by metes and bounds – Held: Petitioners cannot claim enlargement of shares under amended Section 6 post-final decree [Paras 12-19].

Execution Proceedings – Delivery of Property – Impact on Partition Suit – Petitioners argued that the partition suit remains pending as delivery of possession of properties had not occurred – Court clarified that delivery of possession is a matter for execution proceedings and does not affect the finality of the suit – Held: Partition suit is concluded upon passing of the final decree and engrossing it on requisite stamp paper [Paras 22-28].

Role of Preliminary Decree – Amendment Pre-Final Decree – A preliminary decree in a partition suit is interim in character and can be modified before the final decree – Court reiterated that subsequent legislative changes or intervening events can affect shares only before the final decree is passed – Held: Petitioners failed to act before the final decree, and their rights cannot now be reopened [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Revision dismissed – Final decree upheld – Petitioners cannot seek enlargement of shares post-final decree – Suit considered terminated upon passing and engrossing of the final decree [Paras 29].
 

Criminal Law – Rape - Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – Scope of Interference by Appellate Court – The High Court reemphasized principles governing appeals against acquittal, including the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Held: The appellate court may interfere only if the trial court's judgment is perverse or based on misreading of evidence. If two views are possible, the appellate court must defer to the trial court's findings. [Paras 12-14].

Rape and Carnal Intercourse – Delay in Lodging FIR – Its Effect – The prosecutrix delayed filing the FIR by four days despite opportunities to report the incident. The delay remained unexplained, raising doubts about the veracity of her allegations. [Paras 16-17].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies in Allegations and Findings – Medical examination of the prosecutrix conducted four days after the alleged incident showed no signs of injury or evidence of carnal intercourse. Mere detection of semen on her clothes, without establishing its origin, could not prove the respondent's guilt. [Paras 17-18].

Witness Credibility – Inconclusive Testimonies – The prosecutrix's husband admitted she did not disclose the incident to him immediately. Medical examination of the respondent revealed no injuries, undermining allegations of forced carnal intercourse. [Paras 19-21].

Decision of the Court – The trial court's findings were upheld as reasonable and based on a proper appreciation of evidence. No interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed. [Paras 23-24].

Bail - NDPS Act – Procedural Safeguards – Non-compliance Raises Doubts - The prosecution failed to adhere to the procedural requirements under Sections 42, 50, 52, and 52-A of the NDPS Act. Notably, there was a delay in recording the daily diary entry and preparing the inventory panchanama, as well as discrepancies in witness accounts, undermining the credibility of the prosecution's case. [Paras 17-20, 28].

Bail on Parity – Co-accused Released - Co-accused No.2 (rider of the motorcycle) and Co-accused No.3 (alleged supplier) had been granted bail. The Court applied the principle of parity, observing similar circumstances. [Para 7].

Commercial Quantity – Reasonable Doubt in Prosecution Case - The prosecution alleged that the applicant was carrying 1300 grams of charas in a polythene bag while riding as a pillion passenger. The implausibility of this claim and the absence of corroborative evidence created a prima facie doubt in the case. [Paras 15-17, 27].

Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration Violates Fundamental Rights - The applicant’s detention for 2 years, 11 months, and 5 days without trial commencement infringed upon the fundamental right to a speedy trial. The Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration, even under the NDPS Act, must be weighed against Article 21. [Paras 22, 29].

Twin Conditions Under Section 37 NDPS Act – Satisfied - The Court observed that:

The public prosecutor was heard.

There were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not guilty based on procedural lapses and lack of incriminating evidence. Further, there was no likelihood of the applicant committing any offense if released, given his clean antecedents. [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions - The applicant was granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including attendance at the trial court, restrictions on travel, and cooperation with the investigation. [Paras 32-33].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction Compounded – Petitioner convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi, for dishonour of a cheque amounting to ₹20,00,000/-. The Trial Court sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and ₹20,00,000/- compensation, in default, to undergo three months of simple imprisonment – Conviction and sentence affirmed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram – During the pendency of the revision before the High Court, the parties entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, agreeing to settle the matter for ₹19,00,000/-, which was paid by the petitioner to the respondent – High Court held that the offence could be compounded under Section 147 of the NI Act, even at the revisional stage – Held: Conviction and sentence annulled – Petitioner acquitted based on the compromise [Paras 5-20, 40-44].

Compounding of Offence – Judicial Discretion – Offence under Section 138 of the NI Act primarily compensatory in nature – High Court referred to Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663, and held that compounding of offences under the NI Act is permissible at any stage, including revisional proceedings – Held: High Court can exercise inherent powers to secure ends of justice when a compromise is voluntarily entered into by the parties [Paras 10-30].

Non-Obstante Clause in Section 147 of NI Act – Overriding Effect – Section 147 of the NI Act, being a special provision, overrides Section 320 CrPC – High Court emphasized that even after the dismissal of an appeal, compounding is permissible, ensuring the remedy remains primarily compensatory – Held: Section 147 of NI Act enables compounding at any stage of proceedings, including post-conviction [Paras 19-33].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case disposed of – Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court annulled – Offence compounded – Petitioner acquitted in terms of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 17.10.2022 [Paras 44-46].
 

Civil Law - Declaration - Proof of Will – Valid Execution under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act – Not Established – The attesting witness (PW-3) failed to affirm that the testatrix signed or affixed her thumb impression on the Will in his presence and that he attested the Will in her presence. Such omission rendered the execution invalid as per statutory requirements. Held: Will not proved under law [Paras 29, 33].

Suspicious Circumstances – Discrepancies in Recitals and Attestation – Will Declared Invalid – The Will contained inconsistencies, including incorrect recitals about the relationship between the testatrix and beneficiaries and a lack of evidence that the illiterate testatrix understood its contents. These unaddressed suspicious circumstances discredited its authenticity. Held: Will invalid due to suspicious circumstances [Paras 30, 33].

Concurrent Findings – Lack of Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The trial court and first appellate court correctly applied the principles of law governing the proof of Wills, recording findings based on evidence. No substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal. Held: Appeal dismissed [Paras 35-37].

Onus of Proof – Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act – Failure to Discharge – The burden of proving the Will's execution and removing all doubts fell on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to meet this burden. Held: No title established under the alleged Will [Paras 34, 36].

Decision: The second appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court are upheld. The appellants failed to prove the Will’s execution and remove suspicious circumstances. No substantial question of law arose for consideration.
 

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act – Applicant accused under multiple provisions, including Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 363, 366A, 376(2)(N) IPC, Sections 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations include harassment of wife for dowry and engaging in illicit relations with minor sister-in-law (aged 17 years) – Application for bail rejected citing gravity of offense and societal implications [Paras 2-9].

Minor Victim – Consent Irrelevant – Court emphasized that the victim’s age (17 years) renders her consent immaterial – Applicant allegedly enticed the minor twice, showing persistent behavior – Prosecution's reliance on Section 29 of POCSO Act highlighted presumption against accused unless proven otherwise [Paras 6-7].

Societal and Familial Disruption – Court condemned applicant’s actions as a severe breach of marital trust and familial integrity – Acts caused emotional harm to the wife, strained relationships within the family, and disrupted societal harmony – Behavior unequivocally condemned by law and societal norms [Para 7].

Criminal History – Applicant previously involved in a similar case (Case Crime No. 37/2023 under Sections 363, 366A IPC) – Repeated actions weighed against granting bail – Conduct deemed as undermining legal and moral responsibilities [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Bail application rejected – Court found no grounds to release applicant considering severity of allegations, criminal history, and societal impact – Observations limited to bail and not to influence trial proceedings [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Admissibility of Confessional Statements – Applicant’s name appeared solely in the voluntary confessions of co-accused recorded during recovery proceedings – Held: Confessional statements of co-accused are inadmissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act in the absence of corroborative evidence – Prosecution failed to provide independent evidence linking the applicant to the crime – Rejection of discharge application quashed [Paras 11–14, 22–23].

Evidence Law – Confessions Before Police – Applicability of Sections 26 and 30 of the Evidence Act – Confessions made to police, even if voluntary, are inadmissible under Section 26 unless corroborated – Statements of co-accused cannot solely justify framing charges – Prosecution’s reliance on uncorroborated confessions was misplaced [Paras 13–14, 21–22].

Doctrine of Caution – Testimony of Co-Accused – Confessional statements of co-accused carry limited evidentiary value and must be corroborated by substantive evidence – Courts must be cautious in using such evidence to implicate others – Absence of corroboration warranted interference [Paras 11, 22].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order of Sessions Court rejecting the discharge application set aside – Applicant discharged from Crime No. 26 of 1993 – Revision disposed of [Paras 23–24].
 

Criminal Law – Bribery – Demand and Acceptance – Importance of Corroboration – Appeal against acquittal of the accused for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe – Held: Evidence of demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in the prosecution's case, such as failure to corroborate the complainant’s version and procedural lapses in conducting the trap, render the case weak – Acquittal upheld [Paras 29, 31, 33].

Evidence Law – Deficiencies in Pre-Trap and Post-Trap Panchanamas – Evidence revealed discrepancies in the pre-trap and post-trap panchanamas, particularly regarding the amount recovered – Such inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence – Held: Benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused [Paras 32, 34].

Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Defense challenged the validity of the sanction order on grounds of non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority – Held: While the sanctioning authority's application of mind must be evident, the lapses in evidence on demand and acceptance were more critical to the case's failure [Paras 19, 25].

Defense Evidence – Rebutting Prosecution’s Case – Defense presented evidence of the accused being on sanctioned leave during the alleged incidents and produced logbook entries disproving the presence of the accused at the scene – Such evidence undermined the prosecution’s allegations – Held: Defense successfully rebutted charges [Paras 30, 33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of the respondent upheld – Prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 35–37].