Criminal Law – Conviction under NDPS Act – Appeal against trial court's judgment convicting appellant for possession of 7 kg of 'charas' later identified as 'opium' – Alleged procedural lapses in compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52A NDPS Act – Safe custody of seized contraband not established – Discrepancies in forensic examination results – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted due to non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements and reasonable doubt in prosecution's case. [Paras 1-50]

Criminal Law - Scope of Magistrate’s Powers Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Petition filed under Article 227 challenging the order of the Magistrate directing a preliminary investigation by police. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate misinterpreted the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) and Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014). The court held that the Magistrate has the authority to order a preliminary investigation in appropriate cases as elucidated in Priyanka Srivastava and Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri (2023). The petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had not been finally disposed of by the Magistrate, rendering the current petition premature. The High Court directed the Magistrate to dispose of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. [Paras 1-16]

Judicial Vigilance - Filing Affidavit Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Emphasized the necessity for applicants to support their applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with affidavits as mandated in Priyanka Srivastava to deter frivolous filings. Magistrates are advised to verify the veracity of allegations in such applications to prevent misuse of judicial process. [Para 8]

Decision - Premature Petition - The petition challenging the Magistrate's order for preliminary investigation was dismissed as premature. The Magistrate's authority to direct preliminary investigations in appropriate cases was affirmed. The Magistrate was directed to decide the pending application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. expeditiously and on its own merits. [Paras 15-16]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Application to quash charge sheet, cognizance order, and entire proceedings under IPC and SC/ST Act – Applicants argued delay in FIR filing and lack of proper investigation – Court held prima facie case exists based on charge sheet and cognizance order – No grounds for quashing established – Application dismissed.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Misuse Allegations – Journalists accused of extortion, assault, and defamation under IPC and SC/ST Act – Applicants claimed false implication due to news report on illegal tree cutting – Court found no evidence of misuse of SC/ST Act – License validity and credentials of applicants in question – Court noted ongoing investigation into allegations of blackmail and antisocial activities by fake journalists.

Judicial Review – Limits of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Court emphasized limitations of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Intervention only in cases of jurisdictional error, abuse of process, or absence of prima facie case – Reference to Supreme Court precedents on quashing of criminal proceedings – Application of legal principles to dismiss application for lack of merit.

Decision: Held: Application dismissed – No interference warranted in charge sheet, cognizance order, or ongoing trial – Prima facie case made out against applicants under IPC and SC/ST Act – State machinery advised to investigate credentials and activities of alleged journalists involved in blackmail.

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentence - Criminal appeal against conviction for dowry death under Section 304B IPC and cruelty under Section 498A IPC - Appellant convicted by Trial Court - Sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B and 2 years under Section 498A, with a fine and default imprisonment - Appeal challenges validity of conviction and sufficiency of evidence - High Court examines evidence, procedural delays, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies - Acquittal of co-accused not challenged by State - Held, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 1-17]

Delay in FIR Registration - Examination - Incident on 06.07.1999, FIR registered on 12.07.1999 - Delay argued as a result of deliberation and false allegations - High Court finds initial DD entry and hospital intimation were timely - Delay in witness statements not sufficient to discredit prosecution case entirely. [Para 5]

Demand for Dowry - Analysis - Incidents of alleged dowry demands and harassment scrutinized - Testimonies of deceased's brothers inconsistent and partially hearsay - Lack of direct evidence from eye-witnesses and non-examination of key witnesses - Material contradictions noted in prosecution's case - Appellant's involvement in alleged demands not proven beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 6-14]

Decision - Acquittal - Appeal allowed - Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC set aside - Appellant acquitted due to insufficient evidence - Bail bonds and surety bonds discharged. [Paras 16-19]

Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Writ Petition under Article 226 – Petition challenging unauthorized construction of a road on private land - Article 300-A and human rights considerations - State cannot dispossess a citizen of property without legal sanction and compensation - The State's claim of adverse possession against a private individual is untenable - Held, construction on private land without acquisition violates constitutional rights. [Paras 1-36]

State's Liability and Officer's Responsibility - Executive Engineer's failure to comply with interim court orders – Interim orders required halting construction on private land - Admitted non-compliance indicates a hostile attitude towards legal processes and citizens' rights - Held, mesne profits for unauthorized use of land to be recovered from the officer’s salary - Officer directed to show cause for contempt of court. [Paras 7-36, 40-41]

Decision - Petition Allowed - Respondents directed to immediately cease road construction on petitioner’s land, dismantle any existing construction, and compensate petitioner for unauthorized use - Mesne profits to be deducted from salary of responsible officer - Cost imposed on the officer for non-compliance with interim orders. [Paras 31-41]

Will – Proof and Validity – The petitioner sought to have his name mutated in the revenue records based on a Will executed by Phagulal Patel in favor of Dharmendra Sonkar. The Court emphasized that for a Will to be acted upon, it must be duly proved in accordance with the law. The petitioner failed to provide evidence proving the genuineness and validity of the Will. The Court highlighted the necessity of proving the Will through a civil court declaration before mutation can be done​​.

Mutation – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – The Court reiterated that revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a Will. The mutation of names based on a Will can only be done if the Will is duly proved in a competent civil court. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments underscoring that mutation entries do not confer title and are only relevant for fiscal purposes​​.

Hindu Succession Act – Class II Heirs – The Court noted that under the Hindu Succession Act, the petitioner, being a nephew, falls under Class-II heirs and does not automatically inherit the property of his uncle unless explicitly mentioned in a valid Will. The absence of a legal declaration of the Will further negated the petitioner's claim​​.

Decision - The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner must first seek a declaration from a civil court regarding the validity of the Will before any mutation in the revenue records can be considered. The revenue authorities were deemed not competent to mutate names based on an unproved Will​​.

Refund of Security Deposit – Limitation Period – Kerala Municipality Act – Suit for refund of ₹2,06,287/- as security deposit from Kannur Municipality – First Appellate Court found claim barred by limitation under Section 544 of Kerala Municipality Act, requiring suit within six months of cause of action – High Court overrules, stating wrongful retention of security deposit by the municipality does not fall within actions done under the Act – Statutory notice requirement and six-month limitation period inapplicable – Ordinary limitation period for recovery of deposits under the Indian Limitation Act applies [Paras 11-19].

Notice Requirement – Kerala Municipality Act – Detailed analysis of Section 544 requirements for prior notice and special limitation period for suits against municipal authorities – High Court clarifies that wrongful acts not done under the Act do not attract Section 544 protection – Regular civil court procedure and limitation period govern the refund claim [Paras 12-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Judgment of Additional District Court-I, Thalassery reversed – Decree of Sub Court, Kannur for realization of security deposit restored – Suit not barred by limitation under Section 544 of Kerala Municipality Act [Paras 19-21].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – The applicants sought the appointment of a neutral arbitrator, challenging the named arbitrator's eligibility on the grounds of a professional relationship with the respondent. The court held that an arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Act, read with the Seventh Schedule, terminates the mandate of the arbitrator, and the appointment of a new arbitrator is warranted​​.

Arbitrator's Independence and Impartiality – Professional Relationship – The Court found that the named arbitrator's professional ties with the respondent created justifiable doubts about his independence and impartiality. The applicants' objections were valid under Section 12(5), which mandates the termination of the arbitrator's mandate in such cases​​.

Procedure for Challenging Arbitrator – The applicants had not previously raised objections before the arbitrator but approached the Court directly. The Court concluded that this approach was justified due to the ineligibility of the arbitrator under the Act, which allows for such direct applications in cases of clear ineligibility​​.

Decision:

The application was allowed. The appointment of the named arbitrator was set aside, and a new impartial, independent, and neutral arbitrator was appointed. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring arbitrators' independence and impartiality to maintain the integrity of the arbitration process​​.

Partition Suit – Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Order – Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Vacation – Appellant and Respondent No. 2 are Siblings, Dispute Over Family Properties – Consent Decree for Partition Previously Granted – Respondent No. 1 (Daughter of Respondent No. 2) Filed New Suit Suppressing Material Facts – High Court Set Aside Interim Order, Allowed Appeal, Directed Execution of Consent Decree [Paras 1-14, 25-31].

Suppression of Material Facts – Consent Decree Already Implemented – Respondent No. 2 Admitted Sale of Properties – Respondent No. 1’s Pleadings Contained False Assertions – High Court Found Abuse of Legal Process – Directed Notice for Suo Moto Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Respondents for False Pleadings and Affidavits [Paras 27-47].

Recovery of Possession – License Fee – Execution Proceedings to Recover Possession and License Fee Pursuant to Consent Decree – Court Directed Immediate Execution [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The impugned judgment dated 9th January 2023 was set aside, and the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 21st December 2018 was vacated. The appellant was permitted to proceed with execution proceedings to recover possession and license fees as per the consent decree. The respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit 2/3rd of the sale consideration with the Registrar General within four weeks to secure the interests of respondent Nos. 1 and 3.