Tenancy Law – Right to Cross-Examination – Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 – The tenants sought to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1 for cross-examination, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller – Held: A tenant does not have the right to cross-examine in proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) unless the tenant disputes the landlord-tenant relationship – The petitions were dismissed by the court, confirming the Rent Controller's view – The tenants were not entitled to cross-examine as there was no dispute on the landlord-tenant relationship in this case [Paras 2-3].

Reopening of Evidence – Civil Revision Petitions – The tenants filed petitions to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 and recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination – The Rent Controller dismissed the petitions, leading to the present Civil Revision Petitions – Held: The court confirmed the Rent Controller's view that the tenants do not have the right to cross-examination in this scenario – However, the court set aside ex parte orders passed on 23.08.2024, allowing tenants an opportunity to present their defense by producing evidence before 18.09.2024 – Failure to appear would result in forfeiture of their right to an inquiry before the Rent Controller [Paras 4-7].

Precedent – Reference to Previous Decision – The court relied on its earlier decision in J. Thennarasu Vs. Anita Nalliah, holding that a tenant does not have a right to cross-examination under Section 21(2)(a) unless there is a dispute regarding the landlord-tenant relationship – This principle was applied in the present case to dismiss the tenants' petitions [Para 3].

Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions filed by the tenants were dismissed, confirming the Rent Controller's view that the tenants do not have the right to cross-examination in proceedings under Section 21(2)(a) where the landlord-tenant relationship is undisputed. The ex parte orders passed by the Rent Controller were set aside, granting the tenants an opportunity to present their defense by producing evidence on or before 18.09.2024. The proceedings were directed to be completed by 04.10.2024, with arguments scheduled for 20.09.2024(Paras 4-7).

Live-in Relationships – Protection of Life and Liberty – Petitioners in CRWP No. 4660 of 2021 and CRWP No. 149 of 2024, though already married to third parties, sought protection for their life and liberty while living in a live-in relationship – Held: Despite societal and moral objections, the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected, irrespective of marital status or social norms – The Court affirmed the right of individuals, including those already married, to live in a live-in relationship, provided the threat to their life and liberty is genuine [Paras 1-5, 28, 37-39, 45].

Marital Status – Denial of Protection – In LPA No. 968 of 2021, the High Court had earlier denied protection to individuals in live-in relationships where one partner was married, citing potential harm to the social fabric – Held: The previous judgment was overturned, reaffirming that the right to protection under Article 21 overrides societal norms, and protection must be granted where threats exist, even if one partner is already married – The appeal was dismissed with costs [Paras 6, 45].

Societal Morality vs. Constitutional Rights – The Court held that the right to privacy and autonomy under Article 21 includes the right to form relationships of one’s choice, even in live-in arrangements, irrespective of societal moral disapproval – Social fabric concerns cannot outweigh fundamental rights – Court highlighted the decriminalization of adultery in Joseph Shine v. Union of India as a basis for granting protection to those in live-in relationships where one partner is married [Paras 13-19, 22-24].

Protection Mechanism – Overburdened Police – A mechanism for live-in couples seeking protection was outlined, involving first approaching District Legal Services Authorities or the State Human Rights Commission for counseling and mediation – The Court suggested this as a first step before approaching the Courts, thereby easing the burden on the judicial and police systems [Paras 25-27].

Minors in Live-in Relationships – The Court clarified that minors cannot enter into live-in relationships due to legal incapacities under laws like the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Minors cannot claim protection in such cases, and their welfare must be ensured through custody arrangements with parents or guardians, or by sending them to appropriate care homes under the Juvenile Justice Act [Paras 40-44].

Decision: CRWP No. 4660 of 2021 and CRWP No. 149 of 2024 allowed – LPA No. 968 of 2021 dismissed – Clear mechanisms outlined for protection of individuals in live-in relationships, including pre-litigation counseling, and reaffirmation of minors’ legal incapacities regarding live-in relationships [Paras 45-47].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – The appellant, State of Gujarat, challenged the acquittal of the respondent, a Clerk in the SRP Group, who was accused of demanding and accepting ₹200 for fixing the pay and leave salary of the complainant – The trial court acquitted the respondent on the grounds of insufficient evidence – Held: The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent made a demand for illegal gratification and that the accused had the authority to fix the complainant’s pay – There were material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and no clear evidence of demand and acceptance [Paras 3, 9, 10].

Judicial Standards – Acquittal in Corruption Cases – The trial court’s acquittal was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – The appellate court reaffirmed that mere possession of currency notes is insufficient to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act without concrete proof of demand and acceptance – Held: The view taken by the trial court was plausible and did not suffer from illegality or perversity, warranting no interference [Paras 10-11].

Presumption of Innocence – High Standard for Reversal of Acquittal – The appellate court reiterated that in acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is strengthened – The acquittal can only be reversed if the trial court's decision is found to be manifestly erroneous or based on misinterpretation of law or facts – Held: The trial court's reasoning was based on sound legal principles, and no compelling evidence was found to overturn the acquittal [Paras 8, 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The acquittal of the respondent by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat, in Special ACB Case No. 4/1993 is upheld – Bail bond canceled – Judgment dated 26.02.2010 is confirmed [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Law – Corruption – Proof of Demand – Demand Not Established – The respondent, a clerk in SRP Group 11, was acquitted by the Trial Court of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded ₹200 from the complainant to process his pay and leave records – The Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification – Held: Mere acceptance of money without clear proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act – The acquittal was upheld [Paras 10-11].

Competence of Accused to Process Salary – The prosecution alleged that the respondent, being a clerk, could influence the processing of salary bills – Held: The respondent had no authority to process or fix the salary of the complainant – The prosecution’s case failed as the respondent was not in a position to fulfill the alleged promise in exchange for the bribe [Para 10].

Prosecution Failure – No Clear Evidence of Demand – The prosecution relied on the complainant's testimony, which was inconsistent and lacked corroboration – The Panch witness did not hear any demand, and the trap laying officer could not directly witness the transaction – Held: The prosecution failed to prove demand beyond reasonable doubt, a sine qua non for establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal confirmed – The respondent was acquitted of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act [Paras 12-13].
 

Parole – Grounds for Granting – Convict sought parole to arrange finances and bid farewell to his son departing for higher studies abroad – Authorities rejected application citing pendency of appeal – High Court held pendency of appeal not a valid ground to deny parole – Rule 18 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, interpreted to allow parole for significant family events, including happy occasions [Paras 1-10].

Parole – Emotional Well-being – Court recognized parole’s role in maintaining family ties and mental well-being of inmates – Emphasized humanistic approach to allow convicts temporary release for significant family moments – Criticized rigid interpretation of parole rules limiting to emergencies [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner granted parole for 10 days from 12^th July 2024 to 22^nd July 2024 – Required to execute personal bond and one local surety of Rs.25,000/- – Ordered to report to local police station on alternate days [Paras 10-12].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 of the Constitution – Petitioners sought writs for annual grade increments and pension revision – Rajasthan High Court directed compliance with earlier decision in Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan – Similar petitions addressed as judgment treated as in rem rather than in personam – Repeated identical petitions termed misuse of judicial process – Token cost imposed on petitioners for filing repetitive claims – Held: Respondents to comply with previous orders, representations to be considered within three weeks [Paras 1-25].

Doctrine of Finality – Vijay Singh case judgment established as final – Petitioners not required to re-approach the court for similar claims – Judicial decorum mandates that final judgments be adhered to by authorities – Frivolous and repetitive litigation burdens the judicial system – Court imposed token costs to deter abuse of process – Held: Departments to act on representations without further litigation, token costs imposed [Paras 16-20].

Costs Imposed for Frivolous Litigation – Repeated petitions unnecessarily occupying court time – Symbolic costs of Rs. 1000/- imposed on each petitioner – Petitioners directed to deposit costs in the Litigants Welfare Fund – Non-compliance with court orders would amount to contempt – Held: Token costs necessary to ensure genuine grievances are prioritized, unnecessary litigation discouraged [Paras 18-23].

Decision – Petitions dismissed – Court reiterated previous decisions and imposed costs on repetitive petitions – Ordered respondents to comply with earlier judgments and address representations within three weeks – Petitioners given liberty to approach court only if their representation is decided adversely [Paras 21-25].

Criminal Law – Bail application – Accused allegedly caused fatal injuries to his mother during a quarrel – Accusations based on circumstantial evidence – Petitioner in judicial custody for over a year – Investigation complete but trial delayed – Petitioner's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution considered – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 2-12].

Right to Life and Liberty – Article 21 – Court noted the petitioner’s prolonged detention without charge framing – Held that extended custody violates the petitioner's right to life under Article 21 – Bail not to be withheld as punishment, reaffirming that bail is the rule and jail is the exception [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Delay – Sessions Court report indicated delay due to pending murder cases – Despite assurances, charge not framed even after six months – Court emphasizes prompt trial proceedings [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Bail granted with conditions including regular appearances before the Investigating Officer, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and surrendering of passport [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Appeal against Conviction – Reliability of Child Witnesses – Appellant convicted for the murder of his mother-in-law and grievously injuring his wife. The trial court convicted based on the testimony of two child witnesses (sons of the appellant) and corroborative forensic evidence – Held, the testimony of child witnesses can be relied upon when consistent and corroborated by other evidence – Child witness testimony is valid under close scrutiny – Appellant’s argument that the child witnesses were tutored was rejected – No grounds to interfere with the trial court's findings – [Paras 19-22, 27].

Dying Declaration – Infirmities in Signature – Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act – The deceased’s dying declaration did not have a signature on the final narration, though her signature was present during preliminary questioning – Held, the court accepted that the absence of signature raises suspicion but found that other corroborative evidence sufficiently proved the appellant’s guilt – Dying declaration not solely relied upon to convict the accused – [Paras 15-16].

Forensic Evidence – Corroboration of Bloodstains – Section 45 of the Evidence Act – The forensic report matched the bloodstains on the accused’s clothes with those found on the deceased’s saree, confirming his presence at the crime scene – Evidence corroborated with the testimonies of child witnesses and other prosecution witnesses – [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC confirmed by the High Court.

Taxation Law - Customs Law – Duty Drawback – Recovery Proceedings Against Deceased Sole Proprietor – Recovery proceedings initiated against a deceased person under the Customs Act, 1962, for non-realization of export proceeds – Petitioner, the wife of the deceased, challenged the recovery notice on the grounds that no recovery can be made from legal heirs without legal steps to bring them on record – Court held that a show cause notice issued against a dead person is void and recovery proceedings based on such notice cannot be sustained – Reference made to Supreme Court rulings, including Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs [2015 (10) SCC 770] [Paras 9, 12-16].

Legal Heirs – Liability for Deceased Sole Proprietor's Dues – Legal heirs cannot be held liable for recovery of government dues in the absence of a statutory provision allowing such recovery – The Customs Act does not provide for continuing recovery proceedings against the legal heirs of a deceased sole proprietor – Notices and orders passed against a dead person are null and void [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Show cause notice issued against the deceased set aside – Recovery proceedings quashed as they were initiated against a dead person without bringing the legal heirs on record [Paras 15-17].