Land Acquisition – Suppression of Material Facts – Writ Dismissed - Petitioners alleged non-service of requisition notice and sought release of land acquired under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 – Court found that the petitioners suppressed material facts, including prior writ petitions and orders passed in compliance – Held: Petitioners, having misled the court, are disentitled to relief under Article 226 [Paras 10-18].

Delay and Laches – Challenge After 30 Years – Claim Barred - Acquisition proceedings initiated between 1976-1992 and awards issued by 1997 – Petition filed in 2010, with no explanation for the delay – Court ruled that the challenge was barred due to inordinate delay and laches [Paras 19-24].

Joint Awards Without Apportionment – Not Grounds for Relief Without Challenge - Petitioners contended that joint awards without apportionment were invalid – Court held that petitioners failed to challenge awards made in 2007 or during earlier proceedings, rendering claims untenable [Paras 25-28].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed for suppression of material facts, inordinate delay, and lack of merit. No costs awarded [Paras 29-31].
 

Civil Law - Suit for Recovery – Alleged Promissory Note – Lack of Evidence – Dismissal Upheld - Plaintiff’s claim for recovery based on Ext.A4 promissory note was dismissed by the trial court due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence – Appellate Court upheld the decision, noting that plaintiff’s evidence failed to establish the genuineness of the transaction, and the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted [Paras 8-12].

Material Discrepancies in Plaintiff’s Evidence – Adverse Inference Drawn - Contradictory statements by the plaintiff regarding the nature of the transaction and inadequate documentation to support claims of cash handling undermined the case – Court found the explanation for issuing ₹55,00,000/- in cheques without sufficient funds untenable [Paras 13-16].

Defendant’s Non-appearance – Not Fatal – Wife’s Testimony Considered Adequate - Defendant’s inability to testify due to health reasons was corroborated by evidence from his wife, which the court deemed sufficient – Non-issuance of a reply to the legal notice did not strengthen the plaintiff’s case in light of material inconsistencies [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Trial court’s judgment affirmed, and claim for recovery rejected [Paras 20-22].
 

Criminal Law - Double Jeopardy – Second Prosecution for Same Offence Barred – FIR Quashed – Applicant challenged FIR registered under Sections 285, 287, 337, and 338 IPC, arguing he was already convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act for the same incident – Court held: Prosecution under the IPC constitutes double jeopardy, violating Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC – FIR quashed [Paras 14-22].

Factories Act Conviction – Special Statute Prevails Over General Law – Court observed that offences under the Factories Act specifically address workplace safety, including machinery maintenance, and are distinct from general criminal provisions – Held: Prosecution under the IPC based on identical facts would amount to overlapping jurisdiction and procedural abuse [Paras 12-15, 19-21].

Jurisdiction and Exceptions – No Distinct Offence Made Out – Court clarified that exceptions under Section 300 CrPC (e.g., separate consequences unknown during prior conviction) were inapplicable, as the incidents and injuries were fully known during the prior trial under the Factories Act [Paras 23-25].

Settled Jurisprudence – Parallel Proceedings for Identical Offences Barred – Relying on T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala and Mallikarjun K. v. State of Karnataka, Court reaffirmed that once convicted under a special statute, the individual cannot be tried again under the IPC for the same act [Paras 26-28].

Decision: The application was allowed. FIR No. 100 of 2018 dated 03/11/2018 registered with Talbid Police Station, Satara, under Sections 285, 287, 337, and 338 IPC was quashed and set aside. Rule was made absolute.

Matrimonial Law – Cruelty and Desertion – Absence of Evidence – Divorce Denied - Appellant-husband’s suit for divorce was dismissed due to lack of cogent evidence on cruelty – Allegations of cruelty, including attempted suicide, office complaints, and abusive behavior, were unsupported by medical or third-party evidence – Evidence from P.W.2 (plaintiff’s mother) found hearsay, lacking credibility [Paras 7-16].

Principles of Natural Justice – Inadequate Opportunity to Argue – Remand Ordered - Trial Court dismissed the suit on the same day evidence was adduced, without sufficient consideration of arguments advanced by the appellant – Held: This violated principles of natural justice, warranting remand for fresh consideration [Paras 18-21].

Irretrievable Breakdown – Consistent Absence of Wife – Grounds for Divorce Revisited - Respondent-wife’s persistent absence from proceedings indicated animus revertendi and irretrievable breakdown – While not a formal ground under Indian law, Court emphasized the pragmatic need to consider irretrievable breakdown under desertion and cruelty [Paras 22-26].

Opportunity for Amendment – Claim of Desertion Expanded – Further Evidence Allowed - Court allowed the appellant to amend the plaint to incorporate new facts of consistent absence and furnish further evidence to support grounds of desertion and cruelty [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Judgment of the Trial Court set aside. Case remanded for reconsideration with directions to allow amendment of the plaint and submission of further evidence. No costs awarded [Paras 31-33].
 

Civil Law - Recovery of Dues – Burden of Proof – Absence of Proof of Service – Invoice Terms Prevail – Payment Liability Affirmed - The appellant argued non-delivery of courier consignments and failure to provide proof of delivery absolved payment obligations – Respondent claimed proof was to be provided only upon request per invoice terms, which was never sought – Courts held the respondent discharged the initial burden by producing invoices and other evidence, while appellant failed to prove service deficiency or request for proof – Liability affirmed for unpaid invoices with interest [Paras 1-8, 17-19, 28-30].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Scope of Section 100 CPC - Appellant sought interference with concurrent factual findings citing procedural and evidentiary flaws – Held: High Court interference under Section 100 CPC limited to substantial questions of law; no perversity or material irregularity in findings demonstrated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-25, 36-37].

Electronic Evidence – Section 65B of Evidence Act – Compliance Essential – Documents Excluded - Appellant produced an email alleging undelivered packages but failed to comply with Section 65B certification requirements – Trial Court rightfully excluded the email, and appellant could not rely on it to prove claims [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Trial Court and First Appellate Court decrees affirmed. Appellant directed to pay the outstanding amount of ₹1,76,128/- with interest at 12% per annum from the invoice date until realization, along with suit costs [Para 38].

Parole – Premature Release Pending Governor’s Decision – Granted – Petitioner, serving life imprisonment, sought release on parole pending the Governor’s decision on premature release – Court relied on Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, where premature release policies were deemed applicable without arbitrary delays – Held: Parole granted for 90 days to prevent undue incarceration during pendency of the Governor’s decision [Paras 10-15].

Premature Release Policies – Timely Processing by Committees Mandated – Advisory Committee recommended premature release, yet the final decision was delayed – Court directed the Life Convicts Release Committee to meet bi-monthly to expedite pending applications, following Rashidul Jafar principles – Held: Delay in convening meetings cannot deny eligible convicts their rights under remission policies [Paras 12-13].

Parole Conditions – Accountability and Conduct – Court imposed conditions for parole: no involvement in criminal activities and liberty to seek extension if required – Directed jail authorities to communicate compliance via electronic means [Para 18].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The petitioner was granted parole for 90 days, with liberty to seek an extension. The court directed the respondents to ensure the parole conditions were complied with and ordered the Registry to communicate the decision electronically to the jail authorities.

Service Law – Deployment Order – Validity Upheld – Petition challenged a deployment order transferring the petitioner to the Belagavi Bench, contending lack of jurisdiction by the Chairman of the Tribunal – Court held that Section 13(1A) of the Administrative Tribunals Act grants wide superintendence powers to the Chairman, including issuing deployment orders – Deployment upheld [Paras 10-13].
Employee Conduct – Insubordination and Disobedience – Charges Proven – Petitioner failed to report for duty at the assigned Bench, signed attendance at the Bengaluru Bench after being relieved, and used inappropriate language with the Chairman – Court observed such behavior constitutes serious misconduct – Held: Punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect was lenient and proportionate [Paras 14-16].
Suspension During Disciplinary Enquiry – Justified – Suspension was challenged as arbitrary – Court noted suspension is a permissible administrative measure during disciplinary proceedings, especially given the gravity of charges – Held: No illegality in suspension or subsequent enquiry [Para 18].
Judicial Review – Limited Scope in Punishment Decisions – Court reiterated that disciplinary authority holds exclusive jurisdiction to decide on penalties unless manifestly disproportionate or contrary to law – Punishment of withholding increments upheld as reasonable [Para 20].
Costs Imposed – Frivolous Petition – Petitioner’s claims were deemed devoid of merit and indicative of misuse of judicial process – Cost of ₹10,000 imposed, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within six weeks, with a penalty of ₹100 per day for delay [Para 22].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the disciplinary action, including the withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, was upheld. Costs of ₹10,000 were imposed on the petitioner for filing a frivolous petition, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within six weeks. Any delay in payment would attract an additional levy of ₹100 per day.
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Evidence Contradictions – Acquittals Ordered for Certain Accused – Appellants A4 to A7 argued their presence at the scene of the crime was not proven – Court found discrepancies in witness accounts (PWs.1-4) about their involvement – Held: Benefit of doubt extended; A5, A6, and A7 acquitted on parity with A4, already acquitted by the trial court [Paras 25-28].

Juvenile Accused – Conviction Modified to Comply with JJ Act – A3, found to be a minor at the time of the incident, had his conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC modified – Held: Maximum punishment cannot exceed three years as per Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act – Appeal for A3 disposed of in accordance with Karan v. State of MP [Paras 29-31].

Common Object and Unlawful Assembly – Failure to Prove Intent – Prosecution failed to demonstrate that A4 to A7 shared the common object of murder – Evidence did not show their direct participation or possession of deadly weapons at the time of the attack – Held: Convictions under Section 148 IPC unsustainable [Paras 18-24].

Reliance on Eyewitness Testimony – Convictions for A2 Upheld – PWs.1-4 consistently testified about A2’s direct assault on the deceased using a knife – Corroborated by medical evidence – Held: Conviction of A2 under Section 302 IPC upheld, and he was directed to serve the remaining sentence [Paras 32-34].

Delayed FIR – Not Fatal but Raises Doubt About A7’s Role – FIR filed three hours after the incident; court noted possible false implication of A7 – Acquittal ordered [Para 26].

Decision: Appeals for A5, A6, and A7 (Crl.A. Nos. 430 of 2018 and 338 of 2018) were allowed.
A3’s appeal was disposed of, modifying his conviction to comply with the Juvenile Justice Act provisions.
Appeal for A2 was partly allowed; conviction upheld, with the trial court directed to ensure execution of his remaining sentence.
 

Criminal Law - Section 353 IPC – Requirements for Offence – Absence of Ingredients – Discharge Allowed - The provisions of Section 353 IPC were examined to determine whether the accused used criminal force or assaulted public servants to obstruct their duty – Held: None of the prosecution's five witnesses stated any assault or obstruction, nor was any prima facie evidence of such actions found; thus, the discharge application was erroneously rejected [Paras 8-11].

Professional Conduct – Advocates' Role – Presence at Client's Office During Search – Advocacy Not Obstruction - Applicants, being advocates, visited their client's premises to provide legal assistance during a search and did not obstruct the officials' duty – Held: Advocates' presence cannot be construed as obstruction under Section 353 IPC [Paras 8.2, 11].

Abuse of Legal Process – Prolonged Proceedings – 17-Year Delay in Trial – Revision Application Allowed - The prolonged delay of 17 years in initiating the trial, combined with the lack of evidence of obstruction, constituted abuse of legal process – Held: Criminal proceedings quashed, and costs imposed on the State [Paras 9, 19-21].

Compensation – Costs Awarded to Applicants – Misuse of Legal Provisions – The Court directed the State to pay costs of ₹15,000 to each applicant for the unwarranted stigma and prolonged suffering due to baseless allegations, recoverable from the complainant [Paras 17, 20].

Decision: The Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25/06/2024 rejecting the discharge application is quashed and set aside. The applicants are discharged from the proceedings under Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC. Costs of ₹15,000 each are awarded to the applicants, payable by the State within four weeks, recoverable from the complainant.