Eviction Proceedings – Non-Maintenance and Ill-Treatment – Petitioner challenged eviction from mother's property – Allegation of harassment and non-compliance with procedural rules – High Court found procedural defects in issuance of show cause notice and lack of verification of title by District Collector – Impugned order set aside, remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 1-26].

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens – Procedural Compliance – Rule 21(3) stipulates summary proceedings for eviction based on non-maintenance/ill-treatment – Collector's failure to follow prescribed steps including verification of property title and specific grounds in show cause notice – Emphasized need for strict adherence to procedure to prevent misuse and ensure fairness [Paras 10-22].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned eviction order dated 07.03.2024 set aside – Case remanded to District Collector for reconsideration with directions to follow proper procedure – Respondent No. 2 to complete process within 60 days [Paras 23-26].
 

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of Girija Devi – Eyewitness account from the informant (mother-in-law of the deceased) contradicted by her own statements and other witnesses declared hostile – Conviction based on unreliable sole testimony – No motive or recovery of the weapon – Appellant acquitted due to lack of evidence [Paras 1-30].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Sole eyewitness, the mother-in-law of the deceased, found unreliable due to contradictions in her testimony and statements of other witnesses who turned hostile – Court emphasizes necessity for credible and consistent witness testimony for conviction [Paras 9-11, 23].

Hostile Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution – Majority of witnesses, including Punam Kumari @ Sonam Kumari (PW-2), Sangita Devi (PW-7), and Saroti Kumari (PW-8), declared hostile – Prosecution’s inability to establish case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of corroborative evidence from witnesses [Paras 7, 10-14].

Evidence – Weapon Recovery and Motive – No recovery of weapon used in the alleged crime – Lack of clear motive and any incriminating material found at the place of occurrence (P.O.) – Prosecution’s failure to provide substantive evidence linking the appellant to the crime [Paras 20-25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted due to insufficient evidence – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 26-32].
 

Mesne Profits – Determination and Liability - Revision application challenging the order for mesne profits post-termination of lease – Defendant in unlawful possession – Plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits from date of lease termination – Court draws adverse inference against defendant for withholding profit information – Valuation based on Ready Reckoner rates upheld – No error in Appellate Bench directing payment till possession delivery [Paras 1-42].

Inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC – Scope and Application - Appellate Court has authority to correct trial court’s error and ensure mesne profits awarded until actual possession transfer – Provisions under Order XLI Rule 33 permit granting relief not sought in cross-objections – Judicial notice of property valuation trends applied appropriately [Paras 12-14, 27-30, 33-38].

Conduct of Public Sector Undertakings – Duty to Act Fairly - BPCL’s conduct criticized for allowing agent to use premises post-lease termination – Court emphasizes duty of fairness for public sector entities – Liability for mesne profits upheld despite agent’s occupation [Paras 22-25].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Orders by Small Causes Court and Appellate Bench upheld – BPCL directed to pay mesne profits until delivery of possession – Court underscores need for adherence to procedural fairness by public sector undertakings [Para 42].
 

Prevention of Corruption – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant, a junior clerk, was convicted for accepting a bribe for influencing a judicial officer – Conviction based on evidence of demand, acceptance, and chemical analysis confirming phenolphthalein powder – Court noted that the charge framed under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was inappropriate as it should have been under Sections 7 and 13 – Prosecution lacked proper sanction under Section 19 of the Act – Conviction quashed, liberty granted to seek fresh sanction and retry if necessary [Paras 1-61].

Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Essential Proof – Reiterated that for conviction under Sections 7 and 13, demand and acceptance must be proven either by direct or circumstantial evidence – Constitution Bench's ruling on the necessity of proving both elements emphasized – Deficiencies in procedural handling noted [Paras 30-32].

Procedural Errors – Effect of Wrong Charge – Erroneous charge under Section 8, instead of Section 7 and 13 – Held that absence of sanction and incorrect framing of charges invalidated the trial – Retrial permissible with appropriate sanction [Paras 49-53].

Defective Investigation – Not a Ground for Acquittal – Court held that defective investigation alone does not warrant acquittal if substantive evidence is available – Importance of fair trial and due process for the accused balanced with public interest in upholding the integrity of the judiciary [Paras 34-36, 57-58].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence quashed – Case remanded for potential retrial upon obtaining proper sanction [Para 61].

Freedom of Press – Sting Operation – Legal Boundaries – Petitioners, media persons, conducted a sting operation inside a jail to record an accused’s statement. The Court emphasized the critical role of the press in a democracy but highlighted the necessity of adhering to legal boundaries. It underscored that while the media has significant freedom, this does not exempt it from legal consequences if actions contravene established laws. The prosecution alleged violations under Sections 86 and 87 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, which prohibit unauthorized communication and possession of recording devices inside a jail. [Paras 1-16]

Sting Operation – Public Interest vs. Legal Restrictions – The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments noting that sting operations, while sometimes serving public interest, must still adhere to legal standards. It distinguished between lawful investigative journalism and unlawful acts, stressing that intent and adherence to laws are pivotal. The Court cited the necessity for media operations to balance investigative zeal with legal constraints, ensuring actions do not infringe on individual rights or statutory provisions. [Paras 10-15]

Quashing of Proceedings – Lack of Malafide Intent – The petitioners’ actions, aimed at news gathering without malafide intent, were acknowledged. Considering the lack of actual recording and the preventive action by jail authorities, the Court ruled continuation of prosecution unnecessary. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings, recognizing the petitioners’ over-enthusiastic but non-malafide attempt to gather news, thus underscoring the balance between press freedom and legal adherence. [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed. Proceedings against petitioners in ST.No.2065/2014 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime No.1123/2013 of Pathanamthitta Police Station quashed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioner sought to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for alleged offences under Section 498A IPC – Contention that Section 498A applies only to cruelty by husband or his relatives, and not applicable to live-in relationships – Prosecution conceded absence of a legal marriage between the parties – High Court referenced Supreme Court and prior High Court rulings on similar matters – Quashed proceedings for lack of legal marital relationship [Paras 1-10].

Section 498A IPC – Applicability – High Court held Section 498A IPC requires a valid marital relationship – Live-in relationships do not constitute ‘husband’ or ‘relative’ as per the statutory definition – Cited decisions in Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Unnikrishnan @ Chandu v. State of Kerala confirming the requirement of a legal marriage for Section 498A to apply [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in Crime No. 939/2023 of Quilandy Police Station, Kozhikode, now pending as C.C. No. 1471/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Quilandy, stand quashed [Para 10].

Income Tax – Unexplained Cash Deposits – Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the source of Rs. 47,30,000/- deposited in his bank account – Claimed cash belonged to Kana Ram, who sold an immovable property but had no bank account – Kana Ram’s contrary statement led to the addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- as income – Tribunal and lower authorities upheld the addition – Appeal dismissed – Court found no substantial question of law [Paras 1-10].

Burden of Proof – Onus on Assessee – Appellant’s explanation deemed insufficient – Kana Ram’s lack of tax returns or proof of immovable property sale contributed to the decision – Reliance on earlier judgments regarding unexplained investments and cash credits [Paras 4-7].

Concurrent Findings – No interference required – Both appellate authorities’ decisions consistent – No substantial question of law identified [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of appellate authorities upheld.

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Section 16(1)(e) – Subletting and Transfer of Tenancy Rights – Civil Revision Application filed challenging the judgment and order by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court – Appellate Bench decreed the suit directing the termination of tenancy on the grounds of subletting and ordered an enquiry into mesne profits – Revision Application dismissed – High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Bench.

Tenancy – Subletting – Tenant alleged to have sublet the premises to his brother's wife and her children – Evidence showed tenant had vacated the premises and did not return after retirement – Mere legal possession not sufficient; factum of residence by tenant and occupants must be proved – Concurrent user of premises by tenant and family members not established – Subletting inferred from exclusive possession by third parties [Paras 1-40].

Adoption and Tenancy Rights – Tenant claimed to be the adopted son of original tenant – Severed relation with natural family – Attempted to pass tenancy rights to brother’s wife – High Court emphasized the need to end prolonged possession by extended family once original need ceased [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court upheld – Applicants to return possession to landlords – Temporary relief granted for 8 weeks to allow Applicants to seek alternative remedies [Paras 41-42].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Prosecution’s reliance on extra-judicial confession to Village Revenue Officer – Accused’s confessions led to discovery of blood-stained clothes, weapons – Fingerprint evidence corroborated accused’s presence at scene – All circumstances conclusively pointing to guilt of accused – Convictions upheld [Paras 1-45].

Evidence Law – Extra-Judicial Confession – Accused’s confession before Village Revenue Officer considered credible – Confession led to recovery of incriminating material objects – Court found no reason to disbelieve Village Revenue Officer’s testimony – Confession substantiated by other circumstantial evidence [Paras 20-26].

Fingerprints – Collection and Comparison – Police collection of fingerprints without Magistrate’s order challenged – Court held police are competent to collect fingerprints – Evidence corroborated accused’s presence at crime scene – Fingerprints matched with those found at ATM [Paras 37-44].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC and three years and six months for offence under Section 380 read with Section 511 IPC confirmed – Court found prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – No grounds to interfere with trial court’s judgment [Paras 45-46].