Criminal Law – Acquittal under Sections 395 and 397 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act upheld by the High Court - Burden of Proof and Standard of Evidence – The appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents accused of robbery and causing hurt with deadly weapons. The prosecution relied heavily on a test identification parade (TIP) conducted eight months post-incident and the recovery of stolen goods in melted form. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's burden to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's judgment found the TIP unreliable due to procedural lapses and previous exposure of the accused's photographs in the media, resulting in identification bias. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of stolen goods as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the appeal against acquittal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision. [Paras 1-13]

Test Identification Parade (TIP) - Reliability – The TIP was conducted after an inordinate delay of eight months, during which the accused's photographs were published in newspapers. The court held that such exposure undermines the TIP's credibility, and with no other substantive evidence corroborating the identification, the trial court rightly dismissed this evidence as unreliable. [Para 9.1]

Recovery of Stolen Property – The prosecution's claim of recovering stolen property was flawed as the items were found in melted form, making identification impossible. The panch witnesses turned hostile, and the prosecution failed to follow proper procedures under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the recovery did not link the accused to the crime convincingly. [Para 9.4]

Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence - Presumption of Innocence – Reaffirming the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the court noted that any doubt must favor the accused. The appellate court highlighted the need for compelling evidence to overturn a trial court's acquittal, which was absent in this case. [Para 8.1, 8.2]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the respondents due to lack of credible evidence linking them to the crime. The prosecution failed to meet the high burden of proof required in criminal cases, resulting in the confirmation of the acquittal. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Section 378 of Cr.P.C. – Appeal by the State challenging acquittal by the trial court. The trial court acquitted the accused for offences under Sections 323, 504 read with Section 114 of IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, finding no perversity or misappreciation of evidence that would warrant interference. – Held: Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-8]

Scope of “Public View” – Interpretation – Interpretation of “public view” within the meaning of Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. The trial court erred by narrowly interpreting “public view” as requiring a public place. The High Court clarified that “public view” can include incidents witnessed by members of the public, even if occurring on private property. – Held: The term “public view” must be broadly interpreted to include the presence of public witnesses. [Paras 8-10]

Appreciation of Evidence – Contradictions in Testimonies – The prosecution’s case was undermined by contradictions between the FIR and the deposition of the complainant and other witnesses. The complainant’s statements about the assault differed from her medical records and other witnesses’ testimonies. The trial court’s assessment of these contradictions was found to be reasonable and supported by the evidence. – Held: No fault in trial court’s appreciation of evidence. [Paras 4-7]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal by the trial court are upheld. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the accused in the alleged offences. The trial court’s view was found to be a plausible and reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Evidence Law - Admissibility of Secondary Evidence - Civil Writ Petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by the Trial Court - The compromise document dated 27.01.2014, relied upon by the petitioner, was unregistered and unstamped - Held, since the document created rights in immovable property, it required compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 - Consequently, an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence, and its photocopy cannot be allowed as secondary evidence - Writ Petition dismissed. [Paras 15-23]

Family Settlement - Requirement of Registration - Analysis - The compromise document, which partitioned the disputed property and conferred rights upon the parties, was required to be registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 - A family settlement that creates new rights in immovable property must be registered - Cited case law confirms the necessity of registration for enforceability and admissibility in evidence. [Paras 16-19]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - The Trial Court's order dismissing the petitioner's application for admitting the photocopy of the unregistered compromise document as secondary evidence upheld - No interference warranted - Writ petition dismissed with ancillary applications. [Para 23]

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​​.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Final Report – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner accused of offences under Section 15(1) of POCSO Act and Section 67B of IT Act – Allegations of sharing and transmitting pornographic material involving a child – No material evidence to show petitioner shared or transmitted such material – Mere possession or storing without intent to share or transmit not an offence under Section 15(1) of POCSO Act or Section 67B of IT Act – Petition allowed, final report quashed [Paras 1-16].

Offence Under Section 15(1) of POCSO Act – Ingredients – Mere possession or storing of child pornographic material without intention to share or transmit not an offence – Intent to share or transmit essential [Paras 8-9].

Offence Under Section 67B of IT Act – Ingredients – Automatic or accidental downloading of child pornographic material without intention to share or transmit not an offence – Material evidence must show intentional downloading and sharing [Paras 10-13].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Final report and all further proceedings in Crime No. 911 of 2020 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur, quashed.
 

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].

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Bar under Section 60 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act – The court upheld the decision of the Special Court which denied jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle under Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The petitioner was directed to pursue alternative remedies as prescribed under the Act and Rules, such as moving the application before the Collector for release of the vehicle upon payment of the penalty as stipulated under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 [Paras 1-12, 16].

Alternative Remedies – Writ Jurisdiction – The court reiterated that despite the statutory bar on the jurisdiction of the Special Court, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India remains unaffected. It provided the petitioner the liberty to invoke the writ jurisdiction if the vehicle was wrongfully seized [Paras 13-17].

Confiscation and Release of Vehicles – Statutory Provisions and Procedures – The court explained the statutory provisions governing the confiscation and release of seized vehicles under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and the corresponding Rules, including the process for applying for the release of a vehicle upon payment of the prescribed penalty [Paras 7-10].

Decision:

Petition dismissed in limine – The court upheld the order of the Special Judge (Excise) and dismissed the petition. The petitioner was advised to either seek the release of the vehicle by paying the penalty under the relevant provisions or to approach the High Court through writ jurisdiction if he believed the seizure was unlawful [Paras 16-17].

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.