Divorce by Mutual Consent – Appearance through Video-Conferencing – Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act – Physical Appearance Not Mandatory – Petitioners sought divorce by mutual consent while residing abroad. The Family Court refused to number the petitions citing procedural issues, including the insistence on physical appearance at the Indian Consulate for video-conferencing – Held: The Court ruled that in divorce cases under Section 13-B, physical presence of the parties is not mandatory. Appearance through virtual mode is permissible, and Power of Attorneys can represent the parties, provided they are duly registered or adjudicated. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not obstruct justice, especially when both parties have amicably agreed to part ways. The Family Court was directed not to raise procedural objections and allow video-conferencing from remote sites [Paras 26-30].

Use of Technology in Court Proceedings – Video-Conferencing Rules – Coordinator Not Mandatory for Civil Cases – The Madras High Court clarified that in civil matters, including mutual consent divorce petitions, the presence of a coordinator at the remote site is not mandatory, unlike in criminal cases where the presence of a coordinator is required. The Court encouraged the use of video-conferencing to expedite proceedings, reduce unnecessary travel, and ensure justice [Paras 25-29].

Waiver of Statutory Period – Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Period Not Mandatory – Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, the Court reiterated that the statutory waiting period of six months under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory and can be waived when it is clear that there is no possibility of reconciliation. The Court emphasized that the waiver can be granted to avoid prolonging the agony of the parties [Paras 17-20].

Family Courts – Directions for Handling Section 13-B Petitions – The Court issued detailed guidelines for Family Courts in handling mutual consent divorce petitions, including the option for virtual hearings, representation through Power of Attorney, and dispensation with physical presence. The Court instructed that these petitions should be handled expeditiously, particularly when both parties are residing abroad, to prevent unnecessary delays [Paras 32-33].
Decision:
C.R.P. No. 1994 of 2024 allowed – Marriage between G. Shrilakshmi and Anirudh Ramkumar dissolved.
C.M.P. No. 12451 of 2024 in C.R.P. No. 1800 of 2024 allowed – Marriage between Aishwarya Sridhar and Harihara Venkataraman Balasubramanian dissolved.
C.R.P. No. 89 of 2024 disposed of with directions to the Family Court to allow the divorce petition without insisting on physical presence.
 

Service Law – Regularization of NMRs/Daily Wage Workers – Eligibility for Regularization – Continuous Service for Over 10 Years – Petitioners employed as NMRs/daily wage employees claimed regularization based on the principle that they had completed more than 10 years of continuous service without interruption and were allowed to draw time scale and benefits on par with regular employees – Held: Petitioners are entitled to regularization as they meet the criteria laid down in Umadevi's case (2006) and its subsequent clarifications in M.L. Kesari (2010) – Long service of more than 10 years without protection of court orders entitles them to regularization [Paras 22-25].

Non-Fulfillment of 5-Year Requirement as per G.O.Ms.No.212, 1994 – Irrelevant Post Umadevi Ruling – Respondents argued that petitioners were ineligible for regularization due to not completing 5 years of service by 25/11/1993, as required by G.O.Ms.No.212 – Held: The Supreme Court in Umadevi and M.L. Kesari clarified that such employees with over 10 years of continuous service in sanctioned posts must be regularized, making the 5-year requirement irrelevant in light of this binding law [Paras 12-16, 23-24].

Vacant Posts – Continuous Service as Proof of Vacancy – Petitioners’ continuation in service for more than 20-30 years, coupled with unfilled vacancies in the departments, demonstrated that vacant posts existed, justifying regularization – Held: The existence of vacancies supports the petitioners’ claim for regularization, as their long service in the corporation indicates availability of sanctioned posts [Paras 23, 24].

Precedents Supporting Regularization – Kodali Raju Case and Others – Petitioners relied on the decisions in Kodali Raju v. APSRTC (2007) and C. Mahender v. Pottisreeramulu Telugu University (2020), where similarly placed employees were granted regularization – Held: The principles laid down in these cases apply, and petitioners are entitled to be regularized in their respective posts [Paras 19, 22].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Respondents directed to regularize petitioners’ services from the date of completion of 10 years of service within four months – No order as to costs [Paras 25-27].

Narcotic Drugs – Acquittal Reversed – Appeal against acquittal in a case under Section 20 of the NDPS Act – Accused charged with possession of 840 grams of charas – Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act – On appeal, the High Court held that Section 50 applies only to personal searches, not to bags carried by the accused – Held: Trial Court erred in applying Section 50 to the facts of the case – Acquittal reversed, and accused convicted [Paras 1, 6, 17-21].

Compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act – Applicability Limited to Personal Search – The trial court acquitted the respondent due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates informing the accused of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Held: Section 50 is applicable only to personal search and not to searches of bags or containers carried by the accused – The charas was recovered from a rucksack and not from the personal search, hence, Section 50 is not applicable in this case [Paras 20-30].

Conscious Possession – Presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of NDPS Act – Once possession of contraband is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that it was not in their conscious possession – Held: The respondent failed to provide any explanation for carrying the bag containing contraband – The presence of his voter ID in the bag further confirmed his conscious possession [Paras 40-45].

Minor Contradictions in Witness Statements – Witness Credibility – The respondent argued that there were contradictions in witness testimonies, particularly regarding the arrest and search – Held: Minor contradictions do not affect the core issue of recovery, which was consistently supported by key witnesses – The statements regarding the recovery of contraband from the rucksack were credible and reliable [Paras 50-55].

Decision – Acquittal Set Aside – Conviction Ordered – The trial court's judgment of acquittal was found to be perverse and legally unsound – The respondent was convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act – The respondent was directed to appear for sentencing on 08/11/2024 [Paras 60-65].

Bail under NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Stringent Conditions of Section 37 – Bail Denied – The applicant, arrested at IGI Airport with 107 capsules containing heroin weighing 1,061 grams, sought bail contending improper sampling and delay in filing Section 52A application – Held: The seized contraband was well over the threshold of "commercial quantity" (250 grams), triggering Section 37 NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail. The court did not find a prima facie case of non-guilt or that the applicant would not reoffend if granted bail. The bail application was dismissed [Paras 22, 43].

Sampling Procedure – Proper Mixing of Contraband – No Prejudice to the Applicant – The applicant alleged improper sampling, claiming that all capsules were mixed together before sampling – Held: The procedure complied with the requirement to create a homogenous sample before testing, and no fault or prejudice was found in the process followed by Customs [Paras 22-24].

Delay in Filing Section 52A Application – Not Fatal for Prosecution – The applicant argued that a 17-day delay in filing the application under Section 52A of the NDPS Act was illegal – Held: Though delays in filing Section 52A applications should be avoided, the court noted that such delays, without showing specific prejudice, do not vitiate the prosecution’s case at the bail stage [Paras 25, 33].

Personal Search – Section 50 NDPS Act – Applicability – The applicant raised concerns about defective notices under Section 50 NDPS Act and Section 102 Customs Act – Held: As no contraband was found on the applicant’s person, Section 50’s safeguards, which pertain to personal searches, did not apply. The recovery was from her luggage, and the notice under Section 50 was deemed proper [Paras 35-37].

Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 of the Constitution – Not Sufficient for Bail – The applicant, in custody for over 2.5 years, argued for bail due to prolonged detention and delayed trial – Held: While long detention can violate Article 21, the seriousness of the offence and the quantity of drugs recovered prevented the court from granting bail under the stringent provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 39-43].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – No prima facie case of non-guilt established – Conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act not satisfied [Paras 43, 44].

Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving – Acquittal - High Speed Not Proof of Negligence – Sections 279, 304A, IPC – The appellant sought to challenge the acquittal of the accused, claiming the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner – Held: High speed alone is not sufficient to infer rashness or negligence – The testimony indicating that the bus was being driven at 60 km per hour was within the prescribed speed limit under Section 112(1), Motor Vehicles Act – There was no material to substantiate negligence solely based on speed [Paras 24-30].

Parking on Highway – Violation of Rule 15(2), Rules of Road Regulations – Contributory Negligence – The accident occurred due to a collision between the bus and a stationary truck parked on the highway – Held: The truck driver violated Rule 15(2) by parking alongside another vehicle, causing a dangerous obstruction – The accident cannot be attributed solely to the bus driver, as the truck driver’s negligence contributed significantly to the incident [Paras 31-35].

Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies and Inferences – The key witnesses either did not witness the accident or provided contradictory statements regarding the bus driver’s negligence – Held: Witnesses cannot infer negligence without factual support – The testimonies lacked the necessary facts to establish the accused’s negligence beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 36-40].

Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – The trial court’s judgment was reasonable based on the evidence presented – The court found no reason to interfere with the acquittal of the accused, as the prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 41-45].

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal Against Acquittal – Standard of Appellate Scrutiny – Section 378, CrPC – Presumption of Innocence Reaffirmed – The appellate court held that acquittal can only be set aside when the trial court’s findings are perverse or based on a misapprehension of evidence – Emphasis placed on the injured witness’s consistent testimony and corroborating medical evidence, strengthening the prosecution’s case – Appeal partly allowed to overturn acquittals of accused nos. 5, 6, and 10, but conviction modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, IPC, due to a lack of premeditated intent [Paras 18-24].

Evidentiary Value of Injured Witness – Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony – Injured eyewitness, also the complainant, provided a consistent account of the incident, corroborated by an independent eyewitness and medical records – Trial court erred in dismissing this testimony due to minor contradictions – Court reiterated the high evidentiary value of injured witness statements unless compelling reasons for dismissal exist [Paras 13-16].

Unlawful Assembly – Common Intention and Individual Liability – Sections 147, 149, and 34, IPC – The court held that despite the gathering of the accused with deadly weapons and involvement in a lethal altercation, no sufficient proof of common object to murder existed – Convictions altered to reflect lesser offense under Section 304 Part II, IPC due to lack of premeditation and evident escalation from a mutual confrontation [Paras 19-23].

Acquittal Affirmed for Accused No. 3 – Insufficient Evidence – Allegations against accused no. 3 were limited to verbal abuse without physical participation in the assault – Court upheld trial court’s acquittal for accused no. 3, citing lack of incriminating evidence beyond abuse [Para 23.1].

Decision: The appeal is partly allowed. The acquittal of respondent accused nos. 5, 6, and 10 is reversed, with conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence for these respondents is limited to the period already undergone, considering the incident’s age and lack of clear premeditated intent. The acquittal of accused no. 3 is affirmed, as no substantive evidence links them to the assault beyond verbal abuse [Paras 23-25].

Civil Law - Limitation for Reference – Section 10 and 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act – Delay Beyond Reasonable Period – The petitioner challenged the Central Government's order of reference to the Industrial Tribunal made after an 11-year delay post-appeal dismissal – The court noted that while Section 10 of the ID Act does not prescribe a limitation period, a reasonable period must be implied based on principles of justice – Held: The respondent's application was served beyond a reasonable period of limitation; thus, the reference order was deemed invalid [Paras 7-10, 13].

Distinction Between Departmental and Criminal Proceedings – Validity of Acquittal Impact – The respondent's claim for reinstatement based on his acquittal in criminal proceedings was examined – Citing relevant Supreme Court precedents, the court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal trials and are based on different standards of proof – Held: Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle an employee to revive employment claims that have become stale [Paras 11-12].

Judicial Review Scope – High Court's Interference – Articles 226/227 of the Constitution – The court reiterated that judicial review should not re-evaluate the evidence or interfere with findings of disciplinary authorities unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate – Held: The High Court found no exceptional grounds for interference under Article 226/227 [Para 12].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed; the order dated 28.08.2006 referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal was set aside [Para 14].

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Conviction and Sentence – The accused was convicted for issuing a dishonoured cheque of ₹7,35,375/- to discharge his liability, and sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year with compensation to the complainant – The conviction was affirmed by the appellate court [Paras 2-5].

Compromise Between Parties – One Time Settlement – During the revision proceedings, the parties settled the matter under the One Time Settlement Scheme of the complainant bank – Held: Since the accused has paid the amount under the settlement and the complainant has no objection, the offence is compounded in terms of Section 147 of the Act and as per the guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 [Paras 10-15].

Judgment of Conviction Set Aside – The judgments of the lower courts were quashed and the accused acquitted – The court also directed the accused to pay ₹10,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant and deposit 5% of the cheque amount with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority as a compounding fee [Paras 20-25].

Decision – Petition Allowed – The court allowed the criminal revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the release of any deposited amount to the accused [Paras 26-30].

Criminal Procedure – Closing of Cross-Examination – Delay Tactics – The petitioner’s counsel deferred the cross-examination of the prosecutrix on multiple occasions, citing inadequate preparation and change of lawyer – Held: The trial court rightly closed the petitioner’s right to cross-examine the prosecutrix after repeated delays and refusal to pay costs – The petitioner’s conduct was deemed an attempt to harass the prosecutrix, and the change of counsel was not considered a valid reason for further adjournments [Paras 2-19].

Right to Cross-Examination – Impact of Delaying Tactics – The court emphasized that while cross-examination is a vital right for the accused, it must not be misused to delay proceedings or harass witnesses – Repeated adjournments for cross-examination without valid reasons violate the principles of a fair trial and timely justice – Held: The petitioner is solely responsible for the consequences of the non-cross-examination, and the trial court’s order stands [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The trial court’s decision to close the petitioner’s right to cross-examine the prosecutrix is upheld – The petitioner’s attempts to delay proceedings and harass the prosecutrix cannot be condoned [Para 19].