Stamp Duty – Insufficient Stamping of Agreement to Sell – Applicability of Article 23A of Indian Stamp Act – Arbitrator’s decision on stamping upheld by High Court – ATS considered as conveyance under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act – Appellants’ contention that Article 23A does not apply rejected – Requirement of stamp duty as per Article 23A affirmed [Paras 1-31].

Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act – Part Performance Doctrine – ATS and possession of property interlinked – Possession handed over in terms of ATS – Doctrine of part performance invoked – High Court reiterates applicability of Section 53A when possession is pursuant to ATS – Appeal dismissed, arbitrator’s decision upheld [Paras 19-27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Arbitrator’s decision upheld – Court emphasizes correct interpretation of Article 23A and Section 53A in determining stamp duty obligations [Para 32].
 

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Deposit of Compensation – The petitioner challenged the order directing him to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a condition for the suspension of his sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the order is consistent with the statutory obligation under Section 148 of the NI Act. The Court reiterated that unless an exceptional case is made out with specific reasons, the requirement to deposit compensation is mandatory, and the appellate court is justified in imposing this condition without needing to provide additional reasoning​.

Appellate Procedure – Section 148 of the NI Act – The Court highlighted that Section 148 imposes a mandatory requirement on the appellate court to direct the deposit of at least 20% of the compensation amount when considering an appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. The onus is on the appellant to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to avoid this deposit​.

Decision: Petition dismissed – The court upheld the lower appellate court's order directing the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days as a precondition for suspension of sentence during appeal.

Examination Process – OMR Sheet Filling Errors – Petitioners excluded from selection process due to improper filling/darkening of bubbles on OMR sheets – The court underscored the importance of strict adherence to instructions to maintain the sanctity and efficiency of the selection process – Emphasis on the mandatory nature of instructions and the lack of provision for rectification post-submission [Paras 1-12].

Sanctity of Selection Process – Upholding Instructions – Court referred to the Supreme Court’s precedent on strict compliance with examination guidelines – Allowing corrections post-submission would undermine the selection process and open possibilities for misuse – Highlighted that the process is automated, and errors cannot be manually corrected without disrupting the fairness and transparency [Paras 6-10].

Mandatory Nature of Instructions – Supreme Court’s Dictum – Reinforced the principle that instructions issued during examinations are mandatory and must be strictly followed – Cited Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemalathaa, stating that deviations from mandatory instructions cannot be condoned, and the High Court cannot relax such instructions under Article 226 [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The petition is dismissed. The court affirmed that the mandatory instructions for filling OMR sheets must be adhered to strictly. Any lapses by the candidates cannot be rectified post-submission, and such candidates must be excluded from the selection process.
 

Narcotic Drugs – Conviction – Appeal: Appellant convicted for possession and trafficking of charas (9 kg and 800 grams) – Trial Court sentenced appellant to 20 years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 – Appellant’s challenge based on procedural lapses in sampling and certification as per NDPS Act and Standing Orders – High Court finds procedural irregularities in drawing samples and failure to follow mandatory provisions under Section 52A of the NDPS Act – Appellant’s conviction set aside [Paras 1-33].

Procedure under Section 52A of NDPS Act – Statutory obligation for drawing samples in presence of Magistrate – Failure to comply with Standing Orders No. 1/88 and 1/89 regarding the sampling and storage of seized narcotic drugs – High Court emphasizes necessity for compliance with statutory procedures to maintain integrity of evidence [Paras 20-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – High Court underscores importance of adherence to prescribed procedures for seizure and sampling to ensure fair trial and uphold justice [Para 32-33].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in relation to accusations of caste-based atrocities and violence – Court analyzed the applicability of Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which typically bar anticipatory bail – Court found no prima facie case of caste atrocity against the petitioner based on the allegations and evidence presented – Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C., considering petitioner’s age, political status, and lack of flight risk [Paras 1-17].

Evidence Assessment – Prima Facie Case – Court noted the need to examine whether allegations prima facie indicate involvement in an atrocity under the SC and ST Act – Found no direct evidence against the petitioner for inciting or participating in violence – Emphasized the necessity of judicial application of mind to determine applicability of statutory bars to anticipatory bail [Paras 7-14].

Application of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Despite Charge Sheet – Cited precedents affirming that filing of charge sheet does not preclude consideration of anticipatory bail – Analyzed facts and circumstances to determine the merit of bail petition, concluding custodial interrogation unnecessary due to completed investigation [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Petition for anticipatory bail allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest with conditions for personal bond and sureties – Emphasized non-influence of this order on trial proceedings [Paras 16-17].

Criminal Law – Maintenance for Children – The revision petition arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mavelikkara, affirming the trial court’s decision granting maintenance to the petitioner’s children under the PWDV Act. The petitioner challenged the continuation of maintenance payments after the children reached majority. The Kerala High Court emphasized that under Section 20(1)(d) of the PWDV Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., only minor children are entitled to maintenance. Therefore, maintenance obligations cease once the children attain the age of majority.

Section 2(b) of the PWDV Act – Definition of Child – The court reiterated that a ‘child’ under Section 2(b) of the PWDV Act refers to any person below the age of eighteen years. This definition restricts the entitlement to maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) only to minor children, invalidating the appellate court’s observation that maintenance can continue beyond the age of majority.

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act – Obligation to Maintain – The court also discussed Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, clarifying that while a male child is entitled to maintenance only until he attains majority, an unmarried daughter may claim maintenance beyond majority if she is unable to maintain herself. The court concluded that the appellate court misapplied the law regarding maintenance post-majority.

Decision – The revision petition was allowed to the extent that the obligation of the petitioner to pay maintenance to his sons ceases upon their attaining majority. The appellate court’s contrary observation was reversed.

Bail – NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Petitioner (Accused No.2) involved in illegal possession and transportation of 48 kgs of Ganja – Arrested on 02.03.2024 and in judicial custody since then – Entire investigation completed except filing of charge sheet – Bail granted with conditions – Petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties – Required to appear before the Station House Officer once a week until charge sheet filing [Paras 2-9].

Investigation Status – Completion and Bail Considerations – Acknowledgment of completed investigation barring charge sheet submission – Court inclined to grant bail considering the petitioner’s prolonged detention without trial progression [Paras 4-8].

Bail Conditions – Personal Bond and Sureties – Requirement of Rs.10,000/- bond and sureties – Weekly appearance mandate before Station House Officer to ensure compliance and presence [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Criminal Petition allowed. Petitioner granted bail with specified conditions.

Bail – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Procedural Irregularities – Petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, involving recovery of commercial quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride – Contention that recovery was a chance discovery made by a police party in a private vehicle, not recorded in the police zimni – Court noted procedural irregularities and prolonged incarceration – Bail granted [Paras 1-10].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Emphasized the right to a speedy trial as part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 – Highlighted the principle that “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception” – Reference to precedents asserting the importance of minimizing pre-conviction detention periods [Paras 6-8].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Petitioner granted regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – Court clarified that observations made should not be construed as opinions on the merits of the case [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Proceedings under Sections 406/506/120B IPC sought to be quashed by petitioners – Dispute over unpaid rent for scaffolding material provided during a construction project – Petitioners argued the issue is purely civil and there is no criminal breach of trust or intimidation – Held, no prima facie case for criminal charges – Allegations do not disclose criminal intent or misappropriation – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1-19].

Ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust – Essential ingredients under Section 405 IPC not satisfied – No dishonest misappropriation or use of property – Dispute over non-payment of rent and removal of scaffolding materials should be addressed in a civil court – Criminal proceedings inappropriate for resolving contractual disputes [Paras 10-13, 15-16].

Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court invoked inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings – Recognized duty of magistrate to assess prima facie case before issuing summons – Summons issued without adequate basis constitutes abuse of legal process – Emphasized distinction between civil and criminal wrongs [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. CN/1169/2021 before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, quashed – Court directed to resolve disputes through appropriate civil litigation channels.