Bail – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – NDPS Act – Prolonged Custody and Delay in Trial – Bail applications by petitioners arrested with 23600 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride. Petitioners in custody since 27.11.2020, with trial progress minimal, citing only 3 out of 13 witnesses examined over 3.5 years. Held: Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court precedents support bail when custody exceeds a substantial part of the prescribed sentence and trial delay not attributable to petitioners. Bail granted. [Paras 1-13]

Criminal Law – Bail in NDPS Cases – Twin Conditions under Section 37 – Supreme Court in _Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha_ interpreted prolonged incarceration and delayed trials as grounds for bail despite Section 37 NDPS Act conditions. Constitutional courts retain bail discretion on Part III violations. [Paras 5, 8-10]

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioners Ranjeet Singh and Preetpal Singh granted bail due to prolonged custody and lack of trial progress. Petitioners must furnish personal bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each. Conditions include mandatory court appearance and non-misuse of bail. [Paras 12-14]

Murder and Dying Declaration – Acquittal Appeal – State challenged acquittal of accused for murder under IPC Section 302 – High Court upheld acquittal, citing lack of credible evidence and discrepancies in witness testimonies – Emphasized necessity of clear evidence to overturn acquittal [Paras 1-13].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Prosecution's Failure – Court noted prosecution's failure to present consistent and corroborative evidence – Key witnesses turned hostile, and contradictions in complainant’s statements weakened the case – Dying declaration not considered due to lack of clarity on the deceased’s conscious state [Paras 6-7, 10].

Legal Principles and Standards – Presumption of Innocence – Court reinforced the principle that acquittal should not be overturned unless findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous – Referenced Supreme Court rulings underscoring cautious approach in reversing acquittals [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Trial court's judgment upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in prosecution’s case [Paras 13].

IBBI Disciplinary Action – Suspension of Registration – Charges Against Petitioner – Multiple Allegations Including Influencing Valuers, Non-Refundable Fees, Appointment of Unregistered Valuers, Excess Fees to Related Entity – Disciplinary Committee Found Petitioner Guilty on Several Charges – Petitioner Contended No Violation of Regulations [Paras 1-14].

Non-Refundable Participation Fee – No Violation Found – Fees Imposed Before Relevant Provisions Came into Force – Court Held Petitioner Not Guilty of Misconduct for Imposing Non-Refundable Fees as Deterrence to Non-Serious Bidders [Paras 6-8].

Appointment of Unregistered Valuers – Minor Irregularity – Valuation Done by Registered Valuers in Individual Capacity Despite Bills in Firm’s Name – No Serious Misconduct Found [Paras 9-11].

Excess Fees to Related Entity – Misconduct Found – Petitioner’s Firm Paid More Than Liquidator – Attempt to Circumvent Fee Regulations – Petitioner’s Actions Contrary to Liquidation Process Intent [Paras 12-16].

Decision:
Petition Partially Allowed – The court upheld the Disciplinary Committee’s finding on the charge of excess fees to a related entity and misconduct. However, due to the petitioner already serving 20 months of suspension, the court modified the suspension to the period already undergone. The petition was disposed of with this modification.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered against petitioner for alleged misuse of machinery instead of manual labor under MGNREGA scheme – Petitioner retired and no charge-sheet filed till date – High Court quashes FIR based on Rule 9(3) of Pension Rules, 1976, which prohibits judicial proceedings after four years from cause of action – Departmental enquiry cleared petitioner of wrongdoing – FIR found to constitute an irregularity, not illegality [Paras 1-14].

Pension Rules, 1976 – Rule 9(3) – Application to Retired Government Servant – Judicial proceedings not initiated within stipulated time frame – High Court interprets ‘judicial proceeding’ as commencing with filing of charge-sheet – Provisions of Pension Rules, 1976 applied to quash FIR registered after permissible period [Paras 4-11].

Departmental Enquiry – Clean Chit – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – Petitioner given clean chit in departmental enquiry – High Court considers this significant in quashing criminal proceedings [Paras 6, 8].

Decision: Petition allowed – FIR registered at Crime No. 116 of 2014 and subsequent proceedings quashed – Petition disposed of with no costs [Paras 14-15].

Corruption Law – Quashing of FIR – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR for disproportionate assets – Allegations against petitioner No.1 of acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Preliminary enquiry not mandatory in all corruption cases – FIR upheld despite lack of preliminary enquiry – Supreme Court precedents on preliminary enquiry and FIR registration discussed – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Preliminary Enquiry – Requirement and Scope – Preliminary enquiry not always required before FIR in corruption cases – Sufficient material in source report justifying FIR registration – Petitioners argued lack of preliminary enquiry and challenged asset valuation – Court found source report detailed and prima facie case made out – Cites multiple Supreme Court judgments affirming FIR registration without preliminary enquiry [Paras 4-20].

Disproportionate Assets – Burden of Proof – Accused’s burden to explain disproportionate assets – Court emphasized investigating officer’s role limited to collecting evidence – Held preliminary enquiry not mandatory in all cases of disproportionate assets – Investigation and evidence evaluation to occur during trial, not at FIR stage [Paras 18-24].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Court found FIR and subsequent investigation justified based on substantial material evidencing disproportionate assets – Preliminary enquiry deemed non-mandatory under current legal standards.

Examinations – Judicial Review – Appellants contested the accuracy of the CGLE 2023 answer key and sought re-evaluation – High Court emphasized limited judicial review scope in academic matters – Courts generally refrain from interfering with expert evaluation unless there's a glaring error or violation of natural justice – Appeals dismissed as no exceptional circumstances or manifest errors were found [Paras 14-27].

Answer Key – Expert Evaluation – Answer keys prepared by subject matter experts presumed correct unless proven otherwise – Appellants failed to demonstrate errors that warrant judicial intervention – Courts should avoid substituting their judgment for that of academic experts – Reliance placed on multiple Supreme Court judgments affirming limited scope for revaluation unless explicitly provided by examination rules [Paras 18-22].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted with the Single Judge's decision or the SSC’s answer key – Pending applications disposed of – No orders as to costs [Paras 28-32].

Family Law – Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Petitioner-wife sought transfer of husband's divorce petition for convenience and effective prosecution – Related criminal and maintenance cases filed by wife pending in Raibag – Respondent-husband opposed citing inconvenience due to work location – Court ordered transfer considering wife's existing cases and statutory provisions for jurisdiction [Paras 1-7].

Jurisdiction – Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act – Petition for divorce to be filed within jurisdiction where respondent resides at petition presentation – Petitioner's prior cases in Raibag and husband's attendance considered for convenience – Court supported effective prosecution by transferring divorce proceedings [Paras 6-7].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Divorce proceedings transferred from Family Court, Dharwad to Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag.

Motor Vehicle Accident – Fitness Certificate and Insurance Liability – The appellants, owner and driver of the offending vehicle, contested the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's decision to exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay compensation. The Court examined the legal requirements for a valid fitness certificate under Sections 39 and 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The absence of a fitness certificate on the date of the accident was deemed a fundamental breach of the insurance policy terms, justifying the insurance company's exoneration​​.

Legal Precedents – Applicability – The Court referred to previous judgments, including United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vinod and Others and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Asha and Others, confirming that the absence of a fitness certificate constitutes a breach of the insurance policy, thereby exonerating the insurer from liability. The principle established in these cases was applied, rejecting the appellants' reliance on contrary precedents​​.

Insurance Policy Conditions – Interpretation – It was argued that the insurance policy did not explicitly mention the necessity of a valid fitness certificate. The Court clarified that compliance with legal requirements, such as maintaining a valid fitness certificate, is implicitly necessary for the insurance policy to be effective. The absence of such compliance constitutes a valid ground for the insurer's exoneration​​.

Decision:

The appeals were dismissed. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay compensation due to the absence of a valid fitness certificate for the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The principle of "pay and recover" applied by the Tribunal was affirmed​​.

Reassessment Action – Validity – Search Case – Petitioner Challenged Notice for AY 2013-14 Issued Post Search – Court Examined Timeframes Under Section 149(1) and 153C – First Proviso to Section 149(1) Requires Consideration of Pre-2021 Timelines – Reassessment Notice Held Beyond Limitation Period [Paras 1-13].

Block Period Computation – Section 153C – Legal Fiction Introduced by First Proviso to Section 153C – Six or Ten Year Block Period for Non-Searched Entity to be Computed from Handover of Material – AY 2013-14 Found Beyond Ten Year Block Period [Paras 10-19].

Legal Precedents – Interpretation of Relevant Assessment Year – Court Relied on Previous Judgments in Filatex India Ltd. and Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. – First Proviso to Section 149(1) Reaffirmed [Paras 3-11].

Decision: Petition Allowed – The court quashed the impugned notice dated 30 March 2023 and all consequential actions for being issued beyond the limitation period as per Section 149 read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The court did not address the prayer regarding the reading down of Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148, as it is being considered in a separate case