Dowry Death – Essential Ingredients – Section 304-B IPC – Conviction Upheld – The court identified the four essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC: unnatural death within seven years of marriage, cruelty or harassment soon before death, and cruelty connected to dowry demand. It found sufficient evidence that the deceased was subjected to prolonged cruelty linked to dowry demands, which culminated in her death – Held: Conviction under Section 304-B IPC justified [Paras 9-11.4.2].

Burden of Proof – Section 106 Evidence Act – Homicide in Matrimonial Home – Burden on Accused – The court emphasized that when a death occurs within the matrimonial home, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances. Failure to provide a cogent explanation and the hurried cremation of the deceased raised strong adverse inferences – Held: Accused failed to discharge their burden; conviction warranted [Paras 12-12.7].

Standard of Proof in Acquittal Appeals – Reversal on Grounds of Misreading Evidence – The court reiterated that appellate courts can reverse acquittals where evidence has been misread or ignored, particularly in social welfare cases like dowry deaths. The Trial Court’s hyper-technical approach and failure to appreciate evidence were corrected – Held: Acquittal overturned; conviction recorded under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 201 IPC [Paras 13-15].

Sentence – Stringent Measures for Dowry Deaths – Deterrence Emphasized – Given the societal prevalence of dowry-related crimes, the court imposed seven years’ imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC, alongside concurrent sentences for Sections 498-A and 201 IPC. Monetary fines were also levied – Held: Sentencing to act as deterrence [Paras 16-16.3].
 

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].
 

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 – Bail under PMLA – Allegations of Money Laundering – Petitioners accused of raising funds for unlawful activities under the guise of donations for Popular Front of India (PFI) – Alleged proceeds of crime were used to incite violence, disturb communal harmony, and fund terrorism – Petitioners in custody for over 2 years – Held: No prima facie case under Section 3 of PMLA made out – Long incarceration and delay in trial violated Article 21 of the Constitution – Petitioners granted bail [Paras 1, 39-46, 53-54].

Money Laundering – "Proceeds of Crime" under PMLA – Definition and Scope – ED alleged that funds collected by petitioners for PFI were proceeds of crime used for criminal activities – Court observed that "proceeds of crime" must directly result from a scheduled offence – Collection of funds for future crimes does not constitute proceeds of crime under Section 3 of PMLA – Held: Allegations against petitioners do not fulfill the requirements of Section 3 of PMLA [Paras 35-41].

Delay in Trial – Long Incarceration – Violation of Article 21 – Petitioners in custody for over 2 years and charges yet to be framed – Trial involves 185 witnesses and extensive documentary evidence, making early conclusion unlikely – Court emphasized the principle that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" – Held: Continued detention would violate constitutional rights under Article 21 [Paras 46-53].

Judicial Precedent – Balancing Statutory Rigors and Constitutional Rights – Cited Supreme Court judgments including K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713], Manish Sisodia (II) [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920], and V. Senthil Balaji [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626] – Rigors of Section 45 of PMLA must yield to the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 when prolonged detention is evident [Paras 48-52].

Bail Conditions – Petitioners granted bail subject to conditions including furnishing personal bonds, surrendering passports, providing contact details, avoiding unlawful acts, and cooperating with the investigation – Observations made for bail purposes will not affect the merits of the pending trial [Paras 54-55].

Decision: Bail applications allowed – Petitioners to be released on bail with conditions – Observations limited to the bail proceedings [Paras 54-56].

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 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.

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 – 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].
 

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.