Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent in a murder case – Trial Court had acquitted the respondent on grounds of insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies – High Court examined the merits of the trial court’s findings and the prosecution's evidence – High Court upheld the acquittal, agreeing with the lower court’s assessment of unreliable witness statements and lack of concrete evidence linking the respondent to the crime [Paras 1-28]​​.

Evidentiary Standards – Witness Testimonies – High Court highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements and the prosecution's failure to provide a coherent narrative – Emphasized the necessity of reliable and corroborated testimonies in securing convictions – Court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to overturn the trial court’s acquittal [Paras 10-20]​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – High Court affirmed that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt [Para 28]​​.

Taxation Law – Compounded Rate of Tax – Bakery Products and Beverages – Petitioners, dealers in bakery products and beverages, contested the denial of compounded tax rate under Section 8(c)(i) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the turnover of packaged bakery items – Assessing Authorities applied regular tax rates under Section 6 for resale items – Appellate Authority and Tribunal confirmed the assessment – High Court interprets Section 8(c)(i) to permit compounded tax rate on total turnover, including other goods incidentally sold by dealers in cooked food and beverages – Orders of lower authorities set aside, allowing compounded rate for petitioners [Paras 1-10].

Legal Interpretation – Section 8(c)(i) of KVAT Act – Clarifies that once a dealer qualifies under Section 8(c)(i), they may apply the compounded tax rate to the total turnover – Emphasizes legislative intent to enable dealers in cooked food and beverages to pay tax at a simplified rate on all sales, not restricted to items of the same nature [Paras 8-10].

Decision:

Revisions allowed – Orders of the VAT Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, set aside – Petitioners entitled to pay tax at the compounded rate under Section 8(c)(i) on their entire turnover, including resale items [Paras 10-11].

Election Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 329(b) of the Constitution - Petitioner sought declaration of electoral malpractices and repolling - High Court held that disputes relating to election process should be resolved through election petitions as per constitutional mandate - Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable - Held that the Court cannot intervene in ongoing election processes which must be challenged via appropriate election petitions after conclusion of elections - Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 7-9, 12, 18]

Conduct of Elections - Scrutiny of Electoral Documents - Petitioner claimed denial of opportunity to address grievances during scrutiny of Form 17A - High Court found no evidence of violation of Election Commission guidelines by election officers - Held that instructions from Election Commission, though binding, do not constitute enforceable law for invalidation of elections - Petitioner's remedy lies in filing an election petition. [Paras 4-6, 14-15]

Decision - Election Dispute Resolution - High Court emphasized adherence to constitutional framework for resolving election disputes - Reinforced the principle that election processes should not be interrupted by judicial intervention during their course - Writ petition dismissed without costs, with liberty to petitioner to seek appropriate remedy through election petition. [Paras 16-19]

Election Law – Writ Petition challenging election process – Dismissal on grounds of non-maintainability – Petitioner contested in the 2024 General Elections as an MLA candidate from the YSR Congress Party – Allegations of electoral offences and collusion between election staff and Telugu Desam Party personnel – Petitioner sought fresh polls in specific polling stations – Court found that the proper recourse for election disputes is through an election petition as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and not through a writ petition under Article 226 – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Jurisdiction and Maintainability – Article 329(b) – Interpretation – Election disputes to be adjudicated via election petition – High Courts barred from interfering in election processes while they are ongoing – Only after the conclusion of the election process can disputes be raised. [Paras 7-12]

Election Commission Directives – Legal standing – Directions issued by the Election Commission to Chief Electoral Officers – Binding but not equivalent to law – Violation of such directions does not invalidate election results – Remedies available through election petitions, not writ petitions. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Court held the petition as not maintainable under Article 329(b) – Petitioner advised to pursue election disputes through appropriate proceedings after the election process – No adjudication on the truthfulness of allegations – Petition dismissed without costs. [Paras 18-19]

Elections – Writ Petition for Re-scrutiny and Re-polling – Article 329(b) of the Constitution – Election Petition as Proper Remedy – Petitioner contested as MLA from 166-Chandragiri Assembly Constituency – Alleged voter suppression, ballot tampering, and violence on polling day – Complaints to election authorities ignored – Petitioner kept in separate room during scrutiny due to law and order issues – Supreme Court held that disputes related to elections should be addressed via election petitions and not writ petitions – Writ petition dismissed for lack of maintainability. [Paras 2-18]

Constitutional Law – Article 329(b) – Bar on Court Interference – Election matters to be resolved through election petitions – Interference by courts during election process is barred – Courts to avoid interrupting the electoral process – Held that grievances related to electoral offenses should be pursued through appropriate election petitions post-election. [Paras 7-10, 12-16]

Electoral Malpractice Allegations – Scrutiny of Form 17A – Election Petition – Petitioner’s absence during scrutiny due to separate room arrangement for safety – Authorities conducted random scrutiny and found no irregularities – Memo No.18/CEO-Peshi/2024-2 issued – Petitioner’s remedy lies in filing an election petition, not a writ petition. [Paras 2, 4, 17]

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court dismisses the writ petition citing the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) – Petitioner advised to pursue election petition for redressal of grievances – Court does not examine the veracity of electoral offense allegations. [Paras 18-19]

Family Law – Paternity Dispute – DNA Test – Petition challenging Family Court’s order rejecting application for DNA test to determine paternity – Petitioner had earlier been acquitted in a rape case involving the mother of the minor child – Petitioner had entered into an agreement admitting paternity and agreeing to pay maintenance and compensation – Held: Petitioner estopped from challenging paternity due to previous acknowledgment and agreement – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Equitable Estoppel in Paternity Cases – Analysis – Held: Applying the doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel, based on equitable estoppel, once a man has held out a child as his own, he cannot later deny paternity – Precedent from Pennsylvania Supreme Court and reliance on Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child support the preservation of familial identity – Ensuring stability and security for the child considered paramount. [Para 9-10]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, finding no merit in the petitioner’s challenge – The petitioner had acted in a manner accepting paternity, and his later denial was deemed impermissible – Public policy considerations regarding the child’s right to identity emphasized. [Para 11]

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Application for Handwriting Expert Referral - Writ Petition challenging the Trial Court's order dismissing an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 CPC for referring documents to a handwriting expert – Suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale – Disputed signatures on sale agreement – Defendant contested signatures, claiming repayment of loan – Trial Court rejected referral application, citing admission of execution of document by defendant – Held, Trial Court erred in rejecting application without clear admission of signatures by defendant – Comparison of disputed signatures with admitted ones necessary for fair trial – Petition allowed, Trial Court's order set aside, referral to handwriting expert ordered. [Paras 1-13]

Role of Handwriting Expert in Document Verification - Analysis - Held – Comparison of disputed signatures necessary to resolve controversy – Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act empowers court to compare signatures but should be exercised sparingly – Referral to handwriting expert more appropriate where defendant disputes signatures – Ensures thorough and fair consideration of evidence. [Para 10-13]

Decision - Referral to Handwriting Expert Ordered - Writ Petition allowed – Trial Court directed to refer disputed signatures to handwriting expert – Ensures fair trial and proper adjudication of issues in dispute – Trial Court’s order dismissing application set aside. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR for molestation and threats – FIR No.0048 dated 25.06.2022 registered under Sections 452, 354 IPC, Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, later including Sections 354-A and 195-A IPC – Petitioner alleged to have threatened the victim’s uncle to force compromise – High Court evaluates nature and scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held: Substantial prosecution evidence recorded, including inconsistent testimony of victim – High Court refrains from quashing FIR, emphasizing trial court’s role in evaluating evidence – Petition dismissed with costs for misleading information about previous petition – Directions for cost recovery provided. [Paras 1-13]

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Ambit – Powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction not limited to cases where no trial has commenced – High Court retains power to quash FIR even when substantial prosecution evidence is recorded, but with caution – Each case to be evaluated on facts – Reliance on precedents establishing principles for exercise of inherent powers. [Paras 6-9]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – Court finds no exceptional circumstances warranting interference – Petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs to be deposited with trial court and remitted to Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Detailed procedure for cost recovery outlined. [Paras 11-13]

Service Law – Correction of Date of Birth – Limitation – Central Administrative Tribunal Act – Respondent sought correction of date of birth from 01.06.1964 to 02.07.1964 after 23.5 years of service – Application rejected as per DoP&T Office Memorandum due to delay beyond five-year limit – Tribunal allowed application, altering retirement date by 32 days – High Court held Tribunal erred in entertaining belated application without sufficient cause under Section 21(3) of the CAT Act – Original Petition allowed, Tribunal’s order set aside [Paras 1-14].

Procedure under Section 21 of CAT Act – Belated Claims – Tribunal’s Jurisdiction – Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 21 constrained by time limits for applications – Non-compliance with prescribed timelines without justifiable cause renders application inadmissible – High Court emphasizes strict adherence to statutory time limits for altering service records [Paras 11-13].

Precedents on Correction of Date of Birth – Judicial Principles – Cites Supreme Court rulings on correction of date of birth in service records, underscoring restriction on belated claims and potential adverse impact on administration and public service – Correction requests must be timely and substantiated with unimpeachable evidence [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Original Petition allowed – Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 24.07.2023 in OA No. 469/2022 set aside – Original Application dismissed [Paras 20].