Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Remand for Fresh Consideration - The petitioner sought to introduce documents from a prior suit between related parties allegedly proving that petitioner was not in possession at the time of institution of the eviction suit – The appellate court dismissed the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – The High Court held that while diligence was considered, the appellate court has independent discretion to admit evidence if necessary for effective adjudication – The matter was remanded to the appellate court to reconsider the necessity of additional documents at the time of hearing of the appeal [Paras 1720].

Eviction Suit – Commonality of Subject Property in Two Suits – Document Relevancy Recognized -

The Court observed that the suit properties in Title Suit No. 24/2011 (specific performance) and Title Suit No. 226/2011 (eviction) are identical – Documents filed and exhibited in the earlier suit may have direct bearing on the outcome of the appeal against the eviction decree – The appellate court is required to consider these documents during the hearing of the appeal on merits [Paras 19-20].

Appellate Court’s Power – Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) – Discretion Elaborated - The Court reiterated that even without due diligence being proved, the appellate court may still admit additional evidence if it is required to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause – The Court relied on Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) 7 SCC 247 – Matter remitted back for proper exercise of discretion [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Petition Allowed in Part – Remand Ordered - Application under Article 227 allowed in part – Matter remanded to the appellate court to consider the admissibility of additional documents at the time of final hearing of Title Appeal No. 43 of 2017 on merits [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 341 and 324 IPC – Appellants restrained and assaulted PWs 1 and 2 using a stick and iron rod – Incident arose out of prior hostility involving a third accused – Trial court convicted appellants and sentenced them to imprisonment and fine – Held: Evidence of injured witnesses corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness – Conviction upheld [Paras 2-11].

Appellate Review – No Interference with Conviction – Trial court’s findings supported by consistent testimony of victims and medical officer – Defence did not adduce any evidence – No perversity or illegality found in evaluation of facts – Appeal against conviction dismissed [Paras 8-11].

Sentencing – Modification of Sentence in Light of Delay – Incident occurred in 2003 and 22 years had passed – Accused had no criminal antecedents – Held: Interests of justice would be served by reducing sentence to imprisonment till rising of court with enhanced compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC – Sentence modified accordingly [Para 12].

Decision – Conviction confirmed – Sentence modified –  Accused sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court –  Directed to pay ₹5,000 each to PW1 and ₹7,500 each to PW2 – Default of payment to entail two months’ simple imprisonment – Appeal allowed in part [Para 12].

Criminal Law - Victim Compensation – Enhancement – Application of Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme – Compensation Enhanced – The trial court awarded Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the minor victim of rape without assigning proper reasons – High Court held that as per the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019, considering rape, resultant pregnancy, and the minor status of the victim, she was entitled to compensation of Rs.12,75,000/- including the statutory enhancement of 50% – Compensation enhanced accordingly [Paras 7-12].

Rape – Minor Victim – Applicability of Enhanced Compensation under Clause 9(5) of the Scheme – The Court observed that under Clause 9(5) of the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019, where the victim is a minor, the maximum compensation shall be deemed to be 50% higher than the scheduled amount – Since the victim suffered rape and pregnancy resulting in medical termination, she was entitled to full benefits under the scheme [Paras 8-11].

Non-Speaking Order – Trial Court Erred – Compensation Reassessed – Trial court failed to record reasons for awarding only Rs.3,00,000/- – High Court found the award arbitrary and reassessed it by applying the statutory provisions and guidelines under the Victim Compensation Scheme [Para 9].

Final Order – Compensation Enhanced to Rs.12,75,000/- – Directions to DLSA – The Court modified the judgment and directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and State Legal Services Authority to ensure disbursement of the enhanced compensation to the victim, adjusting any amount already paid [Para 12-14].

Criminal Procedure – Challenge to Cognizance – Revision Already Dismissed – 482 Application Dismissed – The applicants sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 01.03.2024 on the ground of jurisdiction, alleging that the FIR was beyond territorial jurisdiction and constituted a second FIR – The Court found that the challenge had already been rejected in revision by a coordinate bench on merits and the dismissal had attained finality – The plea was not maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 1-19]. 
 
Absconding     Accused     –     Non-cooperation     in Investigation – Inherent Powers Not Invokable – The Court held that the applicants, having absconded throughout the investigation and failed to appear despite issuance of non-bailable warrants and Red Corner Notices, were disentitled to invoke the Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot be used to circumvent the regular criminal process [Paras 19-21]. 
 
Inherent Powers – Discretion to be Exercised Sparingly – Petition Rejected – The Court reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly and cannot be granted to those who flout court processes – Applicants’ conduct of avoiding investigation and trial disentitled them from relief [Paras 20-22]. 
 
Decision – Application Dismissed – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Court refused to interfere with the criminal proceedings or the cognizance order challenged by the applicants [Para 22]. 
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Lack of Prima Facie Evidence – Case based on CDRs and Transcripts – Quashing Allowed - The petitioners challenged the FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order alleging conspiracy and illegal gratification to obtain a loan from Syndicate Bank – The Court held that there was no corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution's allegations except for CDRs and intercepted conversations – CDRs alone, without independent proof, cannot establish conspiracy – Held: Petitioners cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution based solely on speculative evidence [Paras 80-93].

Vicarious Liability – Absence of Specific Allegations – Managing Director Not Liable – Quashing Allowed - The Court reiterated that vicarious liability cannot be fastened on company officials in the absence of specific statutory provision or clear allegations – Mere designation of Petitioner No.2 as CMD of M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. does not attract vicarious criminal liability – Held: Prosecution failed to demonstrate how the petitioners were involved in the alleged conspiracy [Paras 83-85, 106].

Criminal Conspiracy – No Prior Meeting of Mind – Mere Communication Not Sufficient – Quashing Allowed - Court found that the prosecution failed to prove any prior meeting of minds or agreement between petitioners and other accused – Routine business communication between petitioners and other accused like Pawan Bansal cannot amount to criminal conspiracy – Held: Mere presence of CDRs and conversations without corroboration cannot establish conspiracy under Section 120B IPC [Paras 87-93].

Witness Testimony – Contradictory and Inconclusive – Cannot Be Sole Basis – Quashing Allowed - Statements of key witnesses such as Mr. U.S. Majumdar and Mr. Ghanshyam Mudgal were found to be vague, inconsistent and not incriminating – Court held that such uncorroborated statements are insufficient for framing charges – Held: No prima facie case made out against the petitioners [Paras 109-116].

Commercial Transactions – Routine Loan Processing – Not Indicative of Conspiracy – Quashing Allowed - The petitioners’ engagement with Altius Finserve Pvt. Ltd. for processing a loan was held to be a standard business transaction – Absence of direct evidence linking this arrangement to any illegal gratification – Held: The prosecution’s theory of conspiracy was speculative and unsubstantiated [Paras 117-123].

Decision – FIR, Chargesheet, Cognizance Order Quashed – Proceedings Against Petitioners Terminated - The Court quashed FIR RC No. AC-1/2014/A-0005, the charge-sheet dated 27/09/2017 and the cognizance order dated 09/03/2018 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala House Courts against M/s Prakash Industries Ltd., Mr. Ved Prakash Agarwal, and Mr. Vipul Agarwal – All consequential proceedings also quashed [Paras 148-149].
 

Criminal Law – Economic Offence – Bail in ₹24.74 Crore - Misappropriation Case – Petitioners accused of misappropriating funds from a co-operative society in conspiracy with staff – Allegations relate to period 2021–2024 – Petitioners are Grama Panchayat and District Panchayat members – Held: Despite gravity, bail granted due to absence of custodial interrogation need and cooperation shown [Paras 1-6]. 
 
Bail Jurisprudence – Custodial Interrogation Not Essential - Bail allowed – Investigating Officer recorded petitioners’ statements; although cooperation was allegedly lacking, no recovery or further custodial step shown as pending – Court relied on principle that mere non-cooperation cannot defeat bail claim – Direction issued for appearance and cooperation [Paras 5-6]. 
 
Personal Liberty – Bail as Rule – Reference to Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of U.P. – Bail cannot be denied merely on the existence of arrest power – Emphasis on liberty and fair trial – Accused not shown to be flight risk or tampering with evidence – Court reiterated that arrest should not be routine [Paras 7-9]. 
 
Bail Conditions – Preventive Safeguards – Petitioners directed to appear for interrogation, refrain from influencing witnesses, and not leave India – Bail granted subject to execution of bond and compliance with multiple protective conditions to ensure fair investigation [Para 10]. 
 
Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Petitioners to be released on bail in event of arrest on execution of bond of ₹50,000 each with two solvent sureties – Directed to cooperate with investigation – Breach of any condition shall lead to cancellation of bail [Para 10]. 
 

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act – Conviction Ordered – The accused was acquitted by the Trial Court holding the defence of issuance of cheque towards a furniture transaction as probable – The High Court found that the accused failed to substantiate the existence of Somayaji Furniture or prove repayment – No proof of purchase, no examination of material witness (Latha Saneel) and contradictory defences in reply notices undermined the accused’s case – The presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted – Conviction ordered [Paras 15-24].

Loan Transaction – Acceptance of Defence of Purchase of Furniture – Held Unreliable – The accused alleged that the cheque was issued for a furniture transaction in 2002 – However, no evidence of such a transaction, no receipt, no statement of account, nor the existence of Somayaji Furniture was established – The defence was held to be an afterthought without any supporting evidence – Defence rejected [Paras 17-19].

Judicial Approach – Importance of Consistency and Credibility in Defence – The Court emphasized that inconsistency in the accused’s replies (Ex.P8 and Ex.P13) and absence of corroborative evidence weakens the accused’s claim – Mere denial without cogent proof is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act [Paras 18-24].

Decision – Acquittal Set Aside – Accused Convicted – Appeal allowed – Trial Court’s acquittal order set aside – Accused convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- within two months, failing which, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months – Out of the amount, Rs.4,90,000/- to be paid to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- to vest with the State [Para 24].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Valid Loan Transaction and Dishonoured Cheque – Conviction Upheld - The petitioner contended that no loan was availed and the cheque was misused – The Court upheld concurrent findings of both courts holding that the accused had availed Rs.1 crore as loan and had issued cheque (Ex.P4) and acknowledgment (Ex.P2 & Ex.P3) – Defence that cheque was issued to one Santhosh for a smaller loan was found unsubstantiated and lacking in evidence – Conviction confirmed [Paras 10-19]. 
 
Evidence – Admission by Accused – Presumption not Rebutted - The accused admitted execution of crucial documents including Ex.P2 (consideration receipt), Ex.P3 (confirmation of balance), and Ex.P4 (dishonoured cheque) – No independent evidence was led to prove the defence that the cheque was given to Santhosh – Admission of execution and failure to examine Santhosh undermined the defence – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. 
Act stood unrebutted [Paras 14-18]. 
 
Power of Attorney – Substitution of GPA Holder – No Illegality - The petitioner contended that PW1 lacked authority due to subsequent substitution of GPA holder – The Court held that Ex.P1 continued to be valid as no material showed its withdrawal – PW1 was competent to depose on behalf of the complainant – The contention was rejected [Paras 11, 17-18]. 
 
Revision – Limited Scope – No Perversity Found – Dismissed - The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent illegality or perversity – Since both courts properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence, no interference was warranted – Revision dismissed [Para 19]. 
 
 

NDPS Act – Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Commercial Quantity – Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Accused in custody since 31.10.2023 for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)A, 22(c), and 25 of NDPS Act – Trial pending before Additional Sessions Judge-V, Thiruvananthapuram – Petitioner seeks bail citing prolonged incarceration and delay in trial – Held: Though commercial quantity is involved, prolonged incarceration due to prosecution’s laches militates against Article 21 – Petitioner can approach Trial Court for bail in light of Apex Court precedents [Paras 2, 4, 5, 6–11]. 
 
Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 vs Section 37 NDPS Act – Accused in custody for more than 20 months – Court observed that prolonged incarceration without fault of the accused violates Article 21 – Referenced SC decisions in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of M.P., Nitish Adhikary v. State of W.B., and Hasanujjaman v. State of W.B. which held that delay in trial caused solely by prosecution can override rigour of Section 37 NDPS – Also relied on Kerala HC’s own precedent in Shuaib A.S. v. State of Kerala [Paras 6–11]. 
 
Trial Delay – Prosecution's Lapses – Prosecution failed to cite all necessary witnesses initially – After examining existing witnesses, prosecution filed petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon more witnesses without clear purpose – Petition was dismissed; prosecution later given another chance to file proper petition – Delay attributed solely to prosecution, not to accused – Such delay justified consideration of bail despite Section 37 bar [Paras 9–11]. 
 
Decision: Bail application disposed – Petitioner allowed to file fresh bail application before Trial Court – Trial Court directed to consider bail on merits applying principles laid down by SC and HC in cited cases – To be decided within two weeks of application [Para 10].