Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Petitioners, members of a family, accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust in a commodity trading dispute involving Rs. 37.75 crores – The court finds prima facie evidence against the petitioners of fraudulent intent, noting that they transferred properties to avoid liabilities – Claims of the dispute being civil in nature rejected, as criminal proceedings were found appropriate given the allegations of deceit and dishonesty [Paras 1-34].

Commercial Transactions – Criminal Proceedings – Civil and criminal remedies are not mutually exclusive – Even in commercial transactions, criminal prosecution is valid where fraud and cheating are alleged – The court underscores that criminal intent can coexist with civil obligations, justifying the continuation of criminal proceedings [Paras 25-28].

Breach of Contract and Cheating – Petitioners' claim that the dispute was purely civil and related to contract breaches was dismissed – The court emphasized that allegations of fraudulent intent and dishonest actions warranted criminal investigation and proceedings [Paras 29-33].

Decision: Anticipatory bail applications dismissed – The court found that granting bail would hinder the ongoing investigation into serious allegations of fraud and cheating – Observations made are prima facie and do not affect the merits of the case [Para 34].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 294(b), 506(ii), 323, and 447 IPC – Validity of Cognizance Without Considering Refer Report – Kerala High Court Directions for Reconsideration – The High Court quashed the cognizance orders of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court in cases arising from protest complaints after the police submitted refer reports. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate must consider the refer report and decide on cognizance based on both the complainant's materials and the police investigation report. The matter was remitted back for reconsideration in light of established legal principles [Paras 2-7].

Legal Principles – Requirement to Consider Police Refer Report Before Taking Cognizance – Kerala High Court reiterated that when a Magistrate is presented with a refer report from the police, it is mandatory to evaluate the report along with the complainant's evidence before taking cognizance. Ignoring the refer report and proceeding with cognizance solely based on the complaint constitutes a violation of established legal procedures, warranting the quashing of such cognizance orders [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Quashing of Cognizance Orders – Held – The orders taking cognizance in CC Nos. 350/2014 and 355/2014 are quashed, and the cases are remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in line with the legal requirements. The Magistrate is directed to re-evaluate the cases considering both the refer reports and the complainant’s materials, following precedents established in Parameshwaran Nair v. Surendran and Kader v. State of Kerala [Paras 7-10].

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Appellant challenged the validity of the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that it was granted without application of mind and by an incompetent authority. The court held that the sanction order lacked necessary documentary evidence to show that the powers were properly delegated to the sanctioning authority. The absence of relevant materials and the authority’s failure to demonstrate a conscious application of mind rendered the sanction invalid [Paras 9-16].

Demand and Acceptance – Proof Requirements – The prosecution’s case was based on allegations of demand and acceptance of a bribe for reducing a fine imposed on the contractor’s firm. The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence regarding prior demands and the demand on the day of the trap. The complainant’s testimony lacked independent corroboration, and the evidence of the shadow witness failed to conclusively prove a demand, particularly when the alleged demand was made through gestures (raising eyebrows) [Paras 31-39].

Tape Recorder Evidence – Contradictions in Testimonies – The court noted contradictions in the testimonies regarding the use of a tape recorder during the trap, which further weakened the prosecution's case. The failure to provide consistent evidence on key aspects of the investigation raised doubts about the veracity of the incident [Paras 30-40].

Presumption of Guilt – Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – The court emphasized that a presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Act can only arise once foundational facts are established. Given the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, the court found no basis for such a presumption in this instance [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The conviction and sentence of the appellant were quashed and set aside. The accused was acquitted of all charges, including those under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act​.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – Frivolous Petition – Multiple and Omnibus Prayers – Legal Basis Lacking – Abuse of Judicial Process – Exemplary Costs – The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL filed by Crimeophobia, a criminology firm, through its founder, Snehil Dhall, for making multiple omnibus prayers without any legal or factual basis, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. The court noted that the petition sought directions on diverse matters, including the establishment of anti-organized crime units, the revocation of leases in Aarey Colony, and the creation of new commissions without any proper legal framework or foundation. The court emphasized the need for caution in filing PILs, especially when unrelated causes of action are joined. The petitioner was ordered to pay a cost of ₹10,000 for wasting judicial time. [Paras 1-6, 13, 15-19]

Mandamus and PIL Scope – Superior Courts as Protectors of Legal Rights – The court reiterated that writs of mandamus could only be issued to protect established legal rights, and courts cannot be used as a forum to enforce personal ideas or research outcomes. The prayers against UNICEF, the United Nations, and New Zealand were particularly criticized as being outside the jurisdiction of the court and beyond the scope of a PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution. [Paras 7-10]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Costs Imposed – Held: The PIL was dismissed with an order for the petitioner to deposit ₹10,000 as costs with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. The court further issued a caution to the petitioner against filing similar frivolous petitions in the future, warning of stricter consequences. [Paras 20-22]
 

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Appeal allowed – Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act – Respondent issued cheque towards loan repayment, which was dishonored – Trial Court acquitted respondent, failing to properly apply presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act – High Court held that once execution of cheque is admitted, presumption of liability arises – Burden shifts to accused to rebut presumption, which respondent failed to do – Trial Court’s approach flawed in placing onus on complainant instead of accused – Appeal allowed, acquittal set aside [Paras 11-20].

Section 313 CrPC – Statement not sufficient for rebuttal – Respondent’s statement under Section 313 CrPC admitting signature on cheque but denying liability – Held insufficient to rebut statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act without supporting evidence – High Court emphasized that mere denials in Section 313 statement do not suffice for rebutting presumption – Proper legal analysis of evidential burden is crucial in NI Act cases [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned acquittal set aside – Case remanded to Trial Court for further proceedings in light of the proper application of presumptions under the NI Act.

Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – The High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that no work of the complainant was pending with the appellant at the time of the trap, and the money allegedly received was claimed to be processing fees. The prosecution could not prove that the recorded conversation was of the appellant, nor that the processing fee was not paid earlier or deducted from the complainant's account [Paras 6-14].
Evidence – Voice Recording Admissibility – The prosecution relied on a recorded conversation to establish the demand for a bribe. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the voice in the recording belonged to the appellant. The Court cited established legal principles that require the identification and authentication of voices in such evidence, which were not met in this case [Paras 10-11].
Reasonable Doubt – Spontaneous Explanation – The appellant’s defense was that the Rs. 3000 found with him was a processing fee for the loan, not a bribe. The Court observed that the prosecution did not sufficiently counter this explanation, further casting doubt on the case against the appellant [Paras 12-14].
Decision: Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside. The appellant was directed to be released from bail obligations, with a condition to appear if the judgment is challenged before a higher court.
 

Criminal Procedure – Dismissal of Complaint – The Trial Court dismissed the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. for non-appearance of the complainant on the date fixed for hearing. The complainant argued that his absence was due to an error in noting the date by his counsel. The High Court, upon review, found that the complainant’s presence was not essential on the said date as the court was only required to put the notice of accusation to the accused, which could proceed in the complainant’s absence [Paras 8-15].

Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Application and Misapplication – The High Court emphasized that under Section 256 Cr.P.C., a complaint should not be dismissed for default if the presence of the complainant is not necessary. The Trial Court’s action of dismissing the complaint was found to be erroneous as the complainant’s presence was not required for the specific proceedings scheduled on that date [Paras 12-16].

Decision:

The appeal was allowed. The High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court dismissing the complaint and restored the complaint to its original position, directing the Trial Court to proceed further in accordance with the law [Paras 17-20].

Review – Maintainability – New Counsel – Review application filed by a new counsel who was neither the filing nor the arguing counsel in the original case – High Court rejected the review application, noting that the original order was decided on merits and that changing counsel to file a review petition without addressing the maintainability constitutes an abuse of process – The court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000 to discourage such practices [Paras 6-9].

Mesne Profits – Deposit During Pendency of Appeal – The court reaffirmed the earlier order requiring mesne profits to be deposited in a Fixed Deposit/Recurring Deposit, with payments to be made by the 10^th of each month – Cited relevant Supreme Court judgments on the treatment of mesne profits during appeals [Paras 3-7].

Decision: Review Application dismissed with costs – Original order affirmed – The court emphasized the impropriety of changing counsel solely to re-argue matters already decided on merits [Paras 9].

Juvenile Justice Act – Bail to Juvenile – Application of Section 12 – The petitioner, a juvenile in conflict with law, was denied bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge despite provisions under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act favoring the release of juveniles. Both lower courts relied solely on the gravity of the offense to deny bail without assigning proper reasoning as required by law. The court held that the denial of bail based solely on the nature of the offense, without objective reasoning or evidence to show the juvenile’s release would be harmful, violated Section 12 [Paras 1-20].

Proviso to Section 12 – Requirement for Reasoned Findings – The court emphasized that under Section 12, bail to a juvenile can only be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release would expose the child to physical, moral, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. The lower courts failed to provide sufficient reasoning or evidence to justify denying bail, and mere suspicion or the seriousness of the offense cannot be grounds for such denial [Paras 21-35].

Revised Approach – Principles of Juvenile Justice – The court referred to the fundamental principles of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prioritize the child’s best interests and presumption of innocence. The court stressed that a human approach must be adopted when considering bail for juveniles, with the goal of reintegrating them into society and avoiding stigmatization [Paras 36-50].

Decision: Petition allowed. The orders denying bail were set aside, and the juvenile was granted bail with conditions to ensure his supervision and reintegration into society.