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].

Promissory Note – Execution and Consideration – Burden of Proof – Second Appeal allowed – The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had borrowed Rs. 1,50,000 by executing a promissory note (Ex-A.1), which the defendant denied, alleging forgery – The Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff based on the defendant’s admission of signature on Ex-A.1 – Held: The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the passing of consideration or the execution of the promissory note – Mere admission of signature by the defendant did not shift the burden of proof to him under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the presumption in favor of the plaintiff was rebutted by the defendant’s evidence, including changes in signature – The suit was dismissed [Paras 3, 7, 8, 11].

Simultaneous Business Partnership – Defence of Forgery – The defendant claimed that the promissory note was forged from a blank one he had handed over during a previous partnership in a chit fund business – The High Court held that this defence was credible, especially since the plaintiff failed to examine the scribe of the promissory note, further weakening the plaintiff's case [Paras 5, 9, 12].

Failure to Examine Key Witness – Adverse Inference – The plaintiff did not produce the scribe cum witness who allegedly attested the promissory note, nor did he summon him despite claiming threats from the defendant – The Court ruled that adverse inference should be drawn from this failure to call the key witness [Paras 9, 10].

Result: Second Appeal allowed – The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are set aside – Suit dismissed – Refund of any deposit made pursuant to interim orders – No order as to costs [Paras 13, 14].

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].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint – Non-filing of Duplicate – Order VII Rule 11(e), CPC – Procedural Defect – The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(e), CPC, due to the failure of the plaintiff to file the plaint in duplicate – Held: The rejection of a plaint under this provision is procedural and not automatic – Courts are required to provide an opportunity to rectify such defects – The trial court rightly granted the plaintiff an opportunity to submit a duplicate plaint before rejecting the application for rejection [Paras 2-5].

Procedural Defects – Opportunity to Rectify – Reference to Salem Advocate Bar Association Case – The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India, (2003) 1 SCC 49, which held that procedural defects under Order VII Rule 11(e) require the court to provide an opportunity for rectification – The court cannot reject the plaint outright without giving the plaintiff a chance to cure the defect [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The court found no infirmity in the trial court’s order and dismissed the petition – The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file a duplicate plaint, failing which the trial court would have the liberty to reject the plaint as per law [Paras 6-7].
 

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].

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction – Cognizance by Sessions Court – Section 193 of Cr.P.C. – Cognizance cannot be taken by the Sessions Court until a case is committed to it – The trial court added the applicants to the array of accused while considering a bail application before the committal of the case – Held: The court acted without jurisdiction in registering and deciding the MJC before the case was committed – The order was invalid and was set aside [Paras 10, 15, 20-22].

Criminal Procedure – Power to Add Accused – Section 319 of Cr.P.C. – Jurisdiction Limited to Committed Cases – The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add accused persons can only be exercised after the case is committed to the Sessions Court – The court, in deciding the bail application before committal, erroneously took cognizance of the matter and registered the MJC – The subsequent order adding the applicants as accused was invalid, even though it was passed after committal, as the MJC was improperly registered initially [Paras 30-35].

Procedural Irregularity – Jurisdictional Error Cannot Be Cured – Even though the Sessions Court acquired jurisdiction later, the proceedings initiated without jurisdiction cannot be validated retrospectively – An order made without initial jurisdiction remains void, and further proceedings cannot rectify it – The trial court should have dismissed the complainant’s application as premature [Paras 40-45].

Decision: The criminal revision is allowed, and the impugned order dated 10/01/2022 passed by the Sessions Court is set aside. The court held that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to register the MJC during the bail application stage and thus, the subsequent order was void and unsustainable.

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].

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].

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].