PIL - Public Prosecutors – Appointment and Consultation – Primacy of District Judge’s Opinion – Rules of 1978 Inapplicable - The Court held that the appointment of Public Prosecutors under Section 24(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 18(3) BNSS) is governed exclusively by statutory provisions and not by the Kerala Government Law Officers Rules of 1978, which apply only to civil posts – Public Prosecutors do not hold civil posts and hence fall outside the purview of the Rules – The CrPC/BNSS mandates consultation with the Sessions Judge whose opinion must be given primacy in the selection process [Paras 7–12, 15–19].

Vacancies – Delay in Appointments – Duty of the State – Protocol Required - The Court expressed serious concern over delays in appointing Public Prosecutors and failure to create posts in newly established courts – Directed the State to formulate and follow a protocol for timely appointment – Court reserved the right to revive the petition in case of non-compliance [Paras 21–23, 24.3].

Judicial Review – Arbitrary Appointments – Guidelines Must Align with Law – The Court held that any executive guidelines which dilute the statutory consultative requirement or deviate from the law laid down by the Supreme Court would be invalid – Mandated formulation of new internal guidelines giving primacy to the opinion of District Judges [Paras 20, 24.2].

Decision – Suo Motu PIL Closed with Directions – The Court closed the suo motu proceedings with explicit directions for the State to issue revised guidelines for appointments and protocols for prompt filling of vacancies – Liberty granted to revive the petition if future violations occur [Paras 24–26].
 

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Requirement of Application – Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act – Alimony Award Quashed - Family Court had awarded Rs.70 lakhs as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife without there being a specific application, either oral or written – Held: Though the law does not mandate a written application, the absence of any application or prayer in pleadings and failure to frame an issue or consider evidence renders the order unsustainable – The Court found that the Trial Court had not evaluated the parties’ incomes, financial capacities, or relevant parameters before awarding alimony [Paras 2.1-2.6, 4.1, 4.7-5].

Equitable Relief – Parameters for Granting Alimony – Court Must Assess Financial Status and Conduct – Fresh Determination Ordered - The High Court emphasized that grant of alimony is discretionary and must be based on conduct of parties, duration of marriage, income, standard of living, and other circumstances – The Trial Court had failed to evaluate these aspects properly and relied on U.S. court orders without examining domestic evidence – Matter remanded to the Family Court to be decided afresh with direction to record oral and documentary evidence from both parties [Paras 4.5-6].

Appeal Outcome – Alimony Order Set Aside – Matter Remanded - The Gujarat High Court quashed the Family Court’s alimony order and remanded the matter for fresh determination within ten weeks – Clarified that no opinion was expressed on the quantum or entitlement to alimony, leaving that to the Family Court’s discretion after evidence is led [Paras 6, Final Order].
 

Service Law - Departmental Proceedings – Finding of Misconduct – Limited Judicial Review – Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence – Petitioner was found guilty of negligence and disobedience as Branch Manager—Held: Once disciplinary findings are supported by evidence and endorsed by Tribunal, High Court cannot interfere on mere alternate interpretations [Paras 4-5, 9].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Penalty of Reversion to Two Grades Lower – Disproportionate – The punishment imposed was reversion from Assistant Manager to Junior Assistant (base-level post) – Held: Though major penalties are permissible, reverting two grades down without malafide or grave misconduct is excessive – Matter remanded for reconsideration of penalty [Paras 6-7, 14].

Tribunal's Jurisdiction – Selective Interference Permissible – Tribunal rightly quashed recovery of ₹14,92,930 but sustained reversion – Held: Mixed finding is valid where punishment bifurcated – However, proportionality of reversion remained open to challenge and warranted judicial correction [Paras 2, 5-6].

Judicial Review – Limits Defined – Courts Not to Act as Appellate Authority – Court reiterated that judicial review does not extend to re-evaluating evidence or interfering with penalty unless shockingly disproportionate – Cited P. Gunasekaran and Dalbir Singh decisions [Paras 4-5].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Court quashed penalty of reversion and remitted matter back to disciplinary authority for reconsideration of appropriate penalty under applicable rules [Para 8].

Criminal Law - Arms Act – Conviction under Section 7 vs Section 3 – Prohibited Arm Not Proven – Conviction Modified - Appellant was initially convicted under Section 7/25 of the Arms Act for possession of a country-made revolver – Trial court relied on a District Magistrate's report but no ballistic report or scientific evidence was produced to prove it was a prohibited arm – Held: In absence of proof that seized arm was automatic or met other criteria under Section 2(1)(i), conviction under Section 7 not sustainable – Conviction altered to Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Proof of Weapon Type – No Expert or Technical Evidence Produced – Prosecution Failed to Prove Prohibited Nature of Weapon – No ballistic expert opinion or technical data was produced to confirm the nature of the firearm as “prohibited” – Armourer was a field constable without expert credentials – Held: Failure to meet evidentiary threshold required under Arms Act to convict under Section 7 [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Sentencing – Reformative Justice – Probation Principles Applied – Sentence Reduced - Appellant was 21 years old at time of offence, with no prior criminal record and had already undergone over 2 years in custody – Maximum punishment for Section 3 offence is 3 years – Held: Sentence reduced to period already undergone and benefit of reformative principles under Probation of Offenders Act considered appropriate [Paras 5.7–Conclusion].

Appeal – Partial Allowance – Conviction Modified – Appellant Acquitted of Section 7 Charge - Court set aside conviction under Section 7/25 – Convicted instead under Section 3/25 of Arms Act – Sentence modified to time already served – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith [Conclusion].
 

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Absence of Application or Evidence – Decree Set Aside – Appellant challenged the Family Court’s direction to pay ₹70 lakhs as permanent alimony despite absence of written or oral application by wife under Section 25 HMA – High Court held that permanent alimony, though discretionary and equitable, must be supported by pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence on financial condition of parties – Held: Award of alimony without any such foundation unsustainable in law [Paras 2.1-2.6, 4.7, 5-6].

Maintenance – Mandatory Framing of Issue and Financial Assessment – Court held that without framing issue or assessing oral and documentary evidence regarding earning capacity, conduct, and living standard of both parties, permanent alimony cannot be granted – Reliance solely on U.S. court’s child support order was impermissible – Matter remanded for proper adjudication [Paras 2.5, 3.7, 4.7, 5].

Oral Application – Permissible but Not Made – Equitable Relief Requires Legal Foundation – Though the Court accepted that application under Section 25 need not be written, it found that no oral prayer was made either – Respondent-wife’s failure to disclose income details and evidence of financial independence also weighed against grant without trial [Paras 2.2, 2.5, 4.7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Alimony Order Quashed – Matter Remanded – Family Court directed to reconsider alimony based on oral and documentary evidence from both sides and complete adjudication within ten weeks – ₹15 lakhs deposited by appellant to be transferred to Family Court and kept in FDR pending outcome [Paras 6-7].
 

Unlawful Activities – Bail under UAPA – Long Incarceration – Bail Granted - Appellant, accused of involvement in ISIS-related recruitment and conspiracy, was in custody since 02.08.2023 – Charge not yet framed and further investigation ongoing – Court considered prolonged incarceration, bleak chances of trial commencement, and parity with similarly placed co-accused who was granted bail by Apex Court – Held: Incarceration of over 8 months without trial violates right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 – Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 6-8].

Grounds of Arrest – Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Pankaj Bansal Doctrine – Not Applicable Retrospectively – Appellant challenged arrest as illegal due to non-supply of written grounds – Court held that Pankaj Bansal judgment applies prospectively – Since arrest occurred before the judgment date (02.08.2023 vs 03.10.2023), protection under the precedent not available – Arrest upheld [Para 5].

Jurisdiction of NIA – FIR Registration – Section 6(5) of NIA Act – Validity Upheld - Challenge to FIR on ground that NIA registered it directly without prior State referral – Court relied on prior ruling in Ali K. v. Union of India to affirm that Central Government can direct investigation under Section 6(5) even without prior case registration – No illegality found in FIR registration [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to stringent conditions including travel restrictions, regular reporting, and non-interference with evidence or witnesses – Breach of any condition may lead to cancellation of bail [Para 8].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Presence Proved – Appellant assaulted his brother with a trident and bamboo lathi, packed the body in a gunny bag, and disposed of it in a jungle – Held: Evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.16, corroborated by recovery of the body and medical testimony, proved the crime beyond doubt [Paras 6, 8-10].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility of Verbal Shout – Res Gestae Covered – Victim’s last words calling for help and naming his assailant, heard by P.W.16, admissible as a dying declaration and as part of the same transaction under Section 6 of the Evidence Act – Held: Statement reliable and can form basis for conviction [Paras 9, 35].

Recovery of Weapon – Disclosure Under Section 27 – Trident Seized – Admissible Evidence – Appellant’s disclosure led to recovery of the murder weapon (trident) concealed near a well – Doctor opined injuries were possible by the recovered weapons – Held: Discovery valid, despite absence of blood on trident [Paras 4, 8-10, 31-33].

Minor Contradictions – Eyewitness Versions Consistent – Discrepancy Not Material – P.W.13 and P.W.16 gave slightly different versions of what was heard but corroborated each other on material facts – Held: Discrepancies minor and immaterial, consistent with age and perception variations [Paras 9, 30-32].

Motive – Familial Dispute Over Mango Tree – Sufficient Background – Motive established through testimony about dispute between appellant and deceased over falling mangoes from a tree – Held: While motive is not necessary in all cases, it supports prosecution story [Para 36].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC confirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment with fines upheld – Held: Trial court rightly relied on credible eyewitnesses, corroborating medical and forensic evidence [Paras 10, 37].
 

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants failed to show any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: High Court cannot re-evaluate findings of fact where concurrent findings of two courts exist and evidence has been properly appreciated [Paras 13-14, 22-23].

Execution of Promissory Note – Attestation and Proof – Consideration Established – Plaintiff established execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note and passing of consideration through P.W.1 and P.W.2, the attestor – Held: Defendants failed to rebut presumption under Section 118 NI Act or produce contrary evidence [Paras 6, 16-17, 21-22].

Allegation of Forgery – No Proof or Expert Evidence – Defence Rejected – Appellants claimed Ex.A-1 was forged and fabricated but did not take steps to send the document to handwriting expert or file police complaint – Held: Mere plea of forgery without substantiation is insufficient to displace legally presumed validity of promissory note [Paras 7, 15-17, 21-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Corroborative Evidence of Debt – Section 138 NI Act Proceedings – Plaintiff filed cheque bounce case as parallel enforcement of debt – Held: Issuance of cheque for partial discharge of debt supports claim of enforceable liability under promissory note [Paras 6(a), 16].

Legal Presumption – Section 118 NI Act – Rebuttable Only by Preponderance – Courts Reaffirm – Held: Plaintiff enjoys presumption of consideration and valid execution which can only be rebutted through cogent contrary evidence—mere denial insufficient [Paras 18-19, citing G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Both trial and appellate court decrees upheld – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage without costs [Para 23].

PIL – Civil - Town Planning – Section 21(4A) vs. Section 162 MRTP Act – Composite Draft Development Plan – State  Government Empowered – Petitioners challenged appointment of Respondent No.6 by the State under Section 162, arguing only the “concerned” officer under Section 21(4A) could prepare draft development plan following planning authority’s failure – Held: Though Section 21(4A) mandates specified officers, supervening events and consensus in contempt proceedings justified State’s action under Section 162— Appointment upheld [Paras 24–27, 36, 40–41]. 
 
Contempt Proceedings – Statement Accepted by Court – Later Challenge Not Barred – Liberty Preserved – Petitioners argued contempt order dated 03.08.2023 was breached—Court held SLP was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ—Thus, petitioner was not barred from challenge, but no illegality found in State’s subsequent action [Paras 31–32, 36]. 
 
Change of Officer – Mere Replacement Not Illegal – No Vested Right to Continue – Petitioners objected to replacement of Respondent No.4 who had completed draft up to Section 25—Court found no right to continue for any officer—State’s decision to appoint Respondent No.6 valid under Section 162 in light of practical need for a composite plan [Paras 33–36]. 
 
Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioners Acted in Collusion – Accessed Sealed Draft Unlawfully – Court found petitioners accessed and relied on draft documents submitted under seal by Respondent No.4— Held: Conduct casts doubt on fairness—Petitioners failed to approach court with clean hands, undermining relief sought under Article 226 [Paras 37–38]. 
 
Decision – All Writ Petitions and PIL Dismissed – Rule Discharged – Composite Development Plan by Respondent No.6 Validated – Future Objections to be Addressed under MRTP Act Framework [Paras 40– 43].