Criminal Law – Change of Investigative Agency – Sections 452, 376, 313, 506, 323, 427 IPC – Whether a court can direct a change of the investigating agency upon the request of the accused – Held, the accused cannot choose or demand a change in the investigating agency unless clear evidence of bias or partiality is demonstrated – [Paras 12-16].

Writ of Mandamus – Section 156(3) CrPC – Application to Change Investigation Agency – The petitioners alleged that they were falsely implicated due to an ongoing civil dispute over land – Court reiterated that allegations of bias must be substantiated by specific material facts and not merely vague claims – Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court emphasized that such changes in investigation should only be made in exceptional cases to ensure justice – [Paras 17-24].

Judicial Precedent – Apex Court Guidelines – The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753, highlighting that changes in investigation must be rare and based on convincing evidence of bias or injustice – The petitioners failed to make a case for such a change – [Paras 25-29].

Decision:

Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioners' request for the appointment of another agency to investigate the criminal case was denied – Court observed that the investigation conducted by the local police was not shown to be biased or improper – The ongoing civil dispute cannot form the basis for seeking a change in the investigative agency – [Paras 30-33].

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Suit for Injunction Simpliciter – Whether a suit for permanent injunction can be decreed without seeking a declaration of title when the title of the plaintiff is under dispute – Held, when a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title, the suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of title – [Paras 19-22].

Title Dispute – Requirement of Comprehensive Suit – The trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove absolute ownership over the property – First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit based solely on possession without addressing the complicated issues of title – [Paras 5-7].

Burden of Proof – Title and Possession – The Supreme Court's rulings in Anathula Sudhakar and Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji applied, holding that where de jure possession has to be established based on title, the suit must be for declaration and not merely for injunction – [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside – The plaintiff/respondent is directed to amend the plaint to convert the suit into a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, right, and interest, and for consequential permanent injunction – The trial court is directed to decide the case on merits as a suit for declaration of title and possession – [Paras 24-27].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Section 439 CrPC and Section 45 PMLA – Bail for a woman under PMLA – The petitioner applied for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, arguing that she was wrongfully implicated in a money laundering case linked to her father’s illegal activities. She was accused of laundering approximately ₹12 crores through her companies from proceeds of cross-border cattle smuggling. Despite being a school teacher, investigations revealed that she managed various companies involved in the laundering activities – [Paras 1-45].

Bail under PMLA – Proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA – Special treatment for women – The court considered the special provision under the Proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA, which grants exceptions to women, persons under 16, or those who are infirm, from stringent bail conditions. The petitioner, being a woman, was entitled to consideration under this provision. The court found no specific reasons to deny her the benefit of this provision – [Paras 50-51].

Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Impact of long incarceration – The court emphasized that the petitioner had been in custody since 26th April 2023. With the trial expected to be prolonged due to the voluminous chargesheet and translation issues, prolonged detention without trial would infringe upon her fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – [Paras 45-55].

Doctrine of Parity – Bail granted to co-accused – The court considered the bail already granted to the petitioner’s co-accused, including her father, Anubrata Mondal, by the Supreme Court on the grounds of prolonged detention. The principle of parity, along with the petitioner’s entitlement under the proviso to Section 45(1), formed the basis for granting bail – [Paras 52-55].

Decision:

Regular Bail Granted – The petitioner was admitted to regular bail with conditions, including a personal bond of ₹10,00,000, restrictions on leaving the country, and cooperation with the investigation – [Paras 60-70].

Partition Suit – Oral Gift and Applicability of Indian Succession Act – Whether the oral gift made by the first defendant (father) in 1963 to his wife Ayisha is valid, and if the Indian Succession Act applies post the registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act – Held, the oral gift to Ayisha was upheld based on evidence in Exts.A2 and A4, wherein the gift was acknowledged – The Indian Succession Act governs the succession due to the marriage registration under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act – [Paras 1-25].

Special Marriage Act and Succession – Section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 applies to marriages solemnized under this Act, including marriages registered post-celebration under other forms – The trial court’s decision to apply the Indian Succession Act for partition of the property was affirmed – [Paras 20-25].

Gift under Mohammedan Law – Validity of Oral Gift – Under Mohammedan Law, oral gifts are permissible if essential conditions of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession are met – Court found sufficient evidence through the joint statements of the donor and donee, affirming possession and the gift – [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Appeal and cross objections dismissed – The preliminary decree of partition based on the application of the Indian Succession Act is upheld – No interference with the trial court’s findings.

Arbitration Law – Challenge to Arbitral Award – Section 34 of the Arbitration Act – Whether the arbitral tribunal acted outside the terms of the contract by directing the refund of the security deposit and partially rejecting the "risk and cost" counterclaim of the Railways – Held, the arbitral tribunal failed to comply with Section 28(3) of the Arbitration Act by not adhering to the specific terms of the contract, including the forfeiture of the security deposit under Clause 62 of the GCC – [Paras 5-19].

Contract Law – Risk and Cost – Employer's Right to Recover Costs – The arbitral tribunal acted perversely by disregarding key evidence (Annexures 'A' and 'B'), which substantiated the Railways' claim for the full amount of "risk and cost" recovery. The tribunal relied on irrelevant documents, leading to a partial denial of the counterclaim – [Paras 20-30].

Public Policy and Arbitral Awards – The award was in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law as it overlooked crucial contractual provisions and relied on irrelevant considerations. The court reiterated the primacy of the contract and the need for arbitral awards to adhere to the contract's terms – [Paras 31-35].

Decision:

AP No. 780 of 2012 Allowed – The portions of the arbitral award granting a refund of the security deposit and partially refusing the counterclaim for "risk and cost" recovery are set aside. The claimant/respondent is liable to pay the full amount of Rs. 4,06,39,192 to the Railways under the counterclaim. The Railways are entitled to adjust this amount against any dues to the respondent.

EC No. 3 of 2024 Dismissed – [Paras 36-40].

Criminal Law – Additional Evidence at Revision Stage – Section 401 CrPC – Whether additional evidence can be admitted at the revision stage – Held, the High Court can permit additional evidence even during revision if it is relevant and necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. Documents proving illegal detention of the petitioner were allowed as additional evidence – [Paras 10-25].

Arrest and Detention – Credibility of Prosecution's Case – The petitioner’s arrest and seizure of explosive substances on 02.12.1999 was contested through Habeas Corpus documents showing that the petitioner had been illegally detained since 30.11.1999. The court noted discrepancies in the prosecution’s version, which failed to explain how the petitioner’s wife anticipated his arrest a day earlier – [Paras 35-45].

Independent Witnesses – Section 100(4) CrPC – The failure to secure independent witnesses during the alleged arrest and seizure was a significant omission. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with Section 100(4) CrPC in securing independent witnesses during such seizures – [Paras 50-55].

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – The conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, is set aside. The prosecution's case was found to be unreliable due to inconsistencies regarding the arrest and seizure. The petitioner is acquitted of all charges. Fine amounts paid by the petitioner are to be refunded – [Paras 60-65].

Land Ownership – Lease Deed – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Execution of lease deed challenged – Whether the State of U.P. was justified in leasing the land to the appellant despite claims of ownership by Bhola (respondent) – Held, Bhola’s land was never declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and the execution of the lease deed was unlawful – First appellate court rightly cancelled the lease.

Property Law – Exchange of Property – Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Alleged exchange of land between Bhola and the State – Whether the exchange met legal requirements under Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held, exchange must follow procedures applicable to sale, which was not followed in this case – No valid exchange of land established –.

Doctrine of Estoppel – Admission of Facts – Whether Bhola’s admission in an affidavit regarding relinquishment of rights estopped him from claiming the land – Held, admission alone cannot confer legal title; property must be transferred through recognized legal modes such as sale, lease, or exchange .

Trespass – Illegality in Property Transfer – Role of State Officials – Whether the appellant and State functionaries acted within the law in taking possession of Bhola’s land – Held, the State’s actions constituted property grabbing without legal sanction, amounting to trespass – The lease deed was declared void .

Costs and Damages – Trespass and wrongful possession – Whether the appellant and State Government were liable to pay costs for wrongful possession – Held, exemplary damages of Rs. 10,00,000 awarded to compensate for the 32-year deprivation of land possession .

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The second appeal was dismissed, and the first appellate court’s decision was upheld, cancelling the lease deed executed in favor of the appellant. The court imposed exemplary costs and damages of Rs. 10,00,000, jointly payable by the appellant and the State Government to the legal heirs of Bhola​.

Criminal Law – Corruption Conviction – Reversal on Appeal – Appellant, a Junior Assistant in the Taluk Office, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.250/- for issuing a death certificate. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fines. On appeal, the High Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including doubts about the credibility of the bribe transaction and the circumstances of the trap. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-50].

Witness Testimony – Credibility Questioned – The main witness, P.W.2, who claimed the appellant demanded Rs.250/-, handed over five Rs.50/- notes as instructed by the investigating officer. However, he later received Rs.100/- back, raising doubts about the alleged bribe demand. Furthermore, the defense successfully argued that the appellant was on duty at the District Treasury on the day of the trap, and the prosecution's case that he returned to the Taluk Office was improbable. Testimonies of defense witnesses D.W.1 and D.W.2 also supported the appellant’s defense that the money was a repayment of a loan, not a bribe [Paras 25-40].

Circumstantial Evidence – Flawed Trap Operation – Although the prosecution relied on the positive naphthalene test of the marked notes, the court found that the prosecution could not conclusively establish that the money was accepted as a bribe. The inconsistencies in P.W.2's statements, coupled with the appellant’s explanation of loan repayment corroborated by P.W.5 (Tahsildar), weakened the prosecution’s case. The artificiality of the appellant returning Rs.100/- also raised serious doubts [Paras 35-50].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Corruption Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released immediately if not required in any other case.

Motor Vehicles – Permit Variation Application – Rejection and Appeal – Reversal on Civil Revision Petition – Appellant filed for route extension beyond Lakshmi Mills – Application treated as new permit request under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act – State Transport Appellate Tribunal upheld rejection – Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution – Court held Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 applies – Application for variation permissible annually up to 24 km without treating as fresh permit – Held: Order of Tribunal set aside, matter remitted to RTA for reconsideration.

Motor Vehicles Act vs. Special Provisions Act – Special Law Prevails – Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 permits small operators to file annual route variation applications up to 24 km without treating them as new permit requests. The Court clarified that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not apply where the Tamil Nadu Special Provisions Act governs. The Tribunal misapplied Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, failing to acknowledge the special provisions. Held: Small operators may file fresh variation requests annually under the 1992 Act [Paras 1-61].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside – Matter remitted to RTA with direction to reconsider and dispose of application as per the 1992 Act – RTA to dispose of matter by 10.10.2024.