Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Disability – Appellant, a labourer aged 40 years, suffered grievous injuries including fracture of left clavicle, chest injury, and severe head injury with haemorrhagic contusion causing midline shift in a vehicular accident on 22.11.2005 – Tribunal awarded a paltry sum of Rs. 95,000/- – Medical Board assessed 25% permanent disability; functional disability assessed at 20% for computation purposes – High Court found Tribunal's award grossly inadequate and enhanced total compensation to Rs. 7,72,135/- under various heads – Held: Compensation must be just and commensurate with the nature, extent and gravity of injuries suffered [Paras 7–17].

Loss of Income – Proof of Income – Minimum Wage as Yardstick – Absence of documentary proof of income not a ground to deny just compensation in Motor Accident Claims, which are summary in nature – Monthly income assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month based on minimum wages prevailing in Haryana in 2005 – Loss of income during hospitalisation (7 days) assessed at Rs. 935/-; loss during bed-rest period of six months assessed at Rs. 24,000/- – Held: Minimum wage notification is a yardstick and not an absolute factor; guesswork in assessing income must not be totally detached from reality [Paras 9–12.3].

Future Loss of Earnings – Future Prospects – Permanent Disability – Functional disability assessed at 20% – Claimant aged 40 years at time of accident; future prospects added at 30% as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi – Income taken as Rs. 5,200/- per month after adding future prospects – Compensation under loss of future earnings assessed at Rs. 1,87,200/- applying multiplier of 15 – Held: Claimant entitled to compensation for both future loss of earnings and future prospects even in disability cases [Paras 12.4–12.6].

Medical Expenses – Pragmatic Approach – Tribunal had restricted medical expenses to Rs. 20,000/- on account of discrepancies in some bills despite proof of treatment and expenditure – Held: In injury cases, a pragmatic approach must be adopted; a claimant cannot be expected to preserve every bill during treatment and recovery; medical expenses reassessed and enhanced to Rs. 60,000/- [Para 13].

Pain and Suffering – Non-Pecuniary Damages – Claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries including severe head injury and permanent disability – Tribunal's award under this head found wholly inadequate – Held: Compensation under non-pecuniary heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of injuries, duration of hospitalisation, extent of disability, and mental and physical agony; compensation under pain and suffering assessed at Rs. 4,00,000/- [Paras 14–15].

Interest – Enhancement – Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% per annum – Held: Interest enhanced to 9% per annum from date of institution of claim petition till realisation; in case of non-payment within three months, interest payable at 12% per annum thereafter [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Compensation enhanced from Rs. 95,000/- to Rs. 7,72,135/- with interest at 9% per annum; liability of respondents to remain as determined by the Tribunal.

Land Revenue – Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 – Re-grant – Holder of Village Office – Burden of Proof – Petitioner claimed re-grant as heir of her husband Chikka Hanumaiah whose ancestor Byla was alleged to be Holder of village office — sole documentary basis was the extract of the barabaluti register (Annexure-B) issued by Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk — extract related to property in Bengaluru South Taluk — columns for survey number and extent left blank — name of village originally mentioned as "Vaderapura" struck off and "Rachanamudu" inserted — Tahsildar, Bengaluru South filed affidavit stating that the Thoti Inam barabaluti register is not maintained — Held: Annexure-B does not refer to the property in question and is not proved — petitioner failed to discharge the burden of establishing Byla as Holder of village office [Paras 55–73, 86].

Land Revenue – Re-grant – Status of Narasimhaiah – Officiator vs. Holder of Village Office – Narasimhaiah in his application described himself as interested to serve as Thoti and mentioned Venkatagiri as Barwardar — Narasimhaiah never claimed Byla as his ancestor or as village office holder — tastik payments made in 1987–2004 cannot establish rights as of the appointed date 01.02.1963 — Tahsildar's report dated 11.07.1972 rejected by Assistant Commissioner as Revenue Inspector was incompetent to draw a report on inam lands — Held: No records establish Narasimhaiah as Holder of village office — District Court's finding that Narasimhaiah was the Barwardar not acceptable [Paras 90–99].

Land Revenue – Re-grant – Sale by Pendente Lite Seller – Effect on Locus to Prosecute – Petitioner Kadari Narasamma sold the property on 28.07.2014 during pendency of proceedings before the District Court without disclosing the same — Held: There is no mandate in law requiring disclosure of a sale transaction unless the Court has passed a restraining order — the pendente lite seller does not lose locus to prosecute or defend the proceeding — the purchaser's right is subject to the decision of the Court — ratio in H. Anjanappa and Others v. A. Prabhakar and Others applies only to pendente lite purchasers, not sellers [Paras 49–52].

Land Revenue – Section 5(3) of Act, 1961 – 15-Year Restriction on Alienation – Amendment of 2003 – After the 2003 amendment, the 15-year restriction is to be reckoned from the date of re-grant after 2003 — sale made by Kadari Narasamma would be null and void — in that event, proviso to Section 5(4) of the Act, 1961 enables heirs of the transferor to seek re-grant [Para 51].

Land Revenue – Amendment to Section 7 of Act, 1961 – Prospective or Retrospective – Question Left Open – Whether the 1978 amendment to Section 7 of the Act, substituting the provision for re-grant of land to unauthorized holders, operates prospectively or retrospectively was not argued — question left open as answering it in either way would not aid the petitioners who have failed to establish Byla as Holder of village office — sons of Narasimhaiah have relinquished their claim and Kadari Narasamma prosecuted the case not as daughter of Narasimhaiah but as heir of her husband [Paras 108–112].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed — Possession held by respondent No.1 (purchaser from Narasimhaiah) since 1971 not disturbed — Deputy Commissioner directed to take steps to trace the original barabaluti registers and report to the Registry within three months — no order as to costs.

Money Laundering — PMLA, 2002 — Sections 3 and 4 — Bail — Twin Conditions under Section 45 — Bail Rejected — Applicant, a director of M/s Aviral Building Construction Pvt. Ltd., sought regular bail — Predicate offence registered against main accused Saurabh Sharma (constable) under Prevention of Corruption Act for acquiring disproportionate assets — ED registered ECIR on basis of scheduled offence — Investigation revealed applicant and co-accused directors had no independent financial capability to purchase properties worth crores; funds were arranged by main accused through unsecured loans, shell companies and fictitious credit societies — 9 immovable properties worth Rs. 6,44,33,000/- purchased in company's name — Statements under Section 50 PMLA of co-accused and applicant corroborate his active role in laundering — Held: Twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA are mandatory; Court must have reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail — Evidence establishes prima facie involvement of applicant in organized money laundering scheme — Bail rejected [Paras 12, 34-39].

PMLA — Section 50 — Statements Recorded During Inquiry — Admissibility — Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA are not hit by Articles 20(3) or 21 of the Constitution — Such statements are deemed judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) and are admissible in evidence — They can be considered at the stage of bail application [Paras 14, 15, 37, 38].

PMLA — Section 45 — Twin Conditions — Mandatory Nature — Bail in Economic Offences — Economic offences constitute a distinct and serious class of offences — The stringent twin conditions under Section 45 must be satisfied regardless of the form of proceedings, including those under Section 438 CrPC or before Constitutional Courts — Denial by accused alone is not sufficient to negate mens rea — Courts must apply a different approach in matters of bail in socio-economic offences [Paras 12, 12.2, 12.3, 33, 37].

Decision: Bail application rejected.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Sub-Inspector of Police – Demand of Illegal Gratification – Absence of Material Evidence – Petitioner-accused No.3, working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Kamareddy Police Station, was arrayed in Crime No.05/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020 for offences under Sections 7(a)(c) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B read with Section 34 of IPC – The primary allegations of demand of Rs.5,00,000/- illegal gratification were directed against accused No.1 (Inspector of Police) and accused No.2 (a private person) – The name of the petitioner-accused No.3 surfaced for the first time only in a subsequent complaint dated 13.11.2020, alleging demand of Rs.20,000/- for granting station bail and accepting sureties in Crime No.404 of 2020 – Held: The allegation rests on a solitary and uncorroborated statement; no trap was laid and no recovery was effected from the petitioner; proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 6, 8, 10, 11].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 7(a) – Sine Qua Non of Demand and Acceptance – Statutory Presumption under Section 20 – For constituting an offence under Section 7(a) of the Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non – In the absence of proof of both demand and acceptance, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked – No official favour or act was pending with petitioner-accused No.3 in relation to the complainant; matter had been entrusted to another Sub-Inspector – Essential ingredients of Section 7(a) read with clause (c) conspicuously absent [Para 10].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Meeting of Minds – To sustain a charge of criminal conspiracy or common intention under Sections 120B and 34 of IPC, cogent material demonstrating an agreement or meeting of minds to commit an illegal act is required – Scrutiny of the record discloses no material indicating that petitioner-accused No.3 entered into any agreement with other accused to demand or accept illegal gratification – Prosecution failed to establish any nexus or linkage suggestive of criminal conspiracy or common intention [Para 10].

Quashing – Proceedings against Co-Accused – Effect – Proceedings against accused No.1 (Inspector of Police) were already quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.9027 of 2021 vide order dated 01.08.2022 – Though quashing of proceedings against one accused does not automatically absolve other accused, the primary substratum of allegations having been set aside, and no independent material existing against petitioner-accused No.3, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Para 9, 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings against petitioner-accused No.3 in Crime No.05/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020/ACB of ACB, Nizamabad Range, quashed – Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide vs. Murder – Altercation over a mobile phone – Appellant hit the deceased on the head with a lathi, causing a fatal injury – Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC – Appellant contended lack of premeditation and intent, seeking modification of conviction – High Court observed that the incident occurred suddenly when the accused was called to the spot and struck a single blow – Held: While the accused lacked the specific intention to cause death, inflicting an injury on a vital part (head) demonstrates knowledge that the act was likely to cause death – The act falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and modified to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 27–29].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PW-2 accompanied the deceased to the spot and witnessed the appellant arriving and striking the deceased on the head with a lathi – Testimony corroborated by PW-1 (who arrived shortly after) and medical evidence (PW-15) confirming death due to hemorrhagic shock from a lacerated head injury – Held: The oral evidence of the eyewitness is natural, unrebutted, and inspires confidence, proving the appellant's act of assault beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 22–26].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Criminal Law – Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Public Servant – Sections 332/34 IPC – Process Server assaulted while serving injunction order – Appellant no.1 abated on death – Conviction of appellant no.2 upheld – Process Server (P.W.4) went to serve injunction order passed in Misc. Case No. 14 of 1997 arising out of Title Suit No. 22 of 1996 – Both appellants caught hold of, assaulted and dragged P.W.4 and snatched red banners and forced him to sign a blank paper – P.W.4 being a public servant with no enmity towards accused, his uncorroborated but credible testimony acted upon – Hostile eye witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3) partially corroborated the prosecution version – Held: Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction under Sections 332/34 IPC affirmed [Paras 4–11].

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Partial Reliance – P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 turned hostile but their evidence that the Process Server had gone to serve injunction order and both accused persons were present at spot stood unchallenged – Held: Even evidence of hostile witnesses can be partly relied upon if found trustworthy; their testimony consistent with P.Ws. 4 and 6 on material aspects [Para 10].

Probation of Offenders Act – Section 4 – Reformative Justice – Long Delay – Appellant no.2, now aged about 48 years, was in his early twenties at the time of the incident in 1997 – Appeal pending for over 26 years – No criminal antecedents – Living a settled family life – Incarceration at this belated stage would be counter-productive and serve no penological purpose – Court has a mandatory duty to consider grant of probation where circumstances so warrant – If declined, special reasons must be recorded – Held: Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act extended; appellant directed to execute bond of Rs. 5,000/- with surety for six months under supervision of Probation Officer – Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- awarded to victim under Section 5 of the Act [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Criminal Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 332/34 IPC upheld – Instead of imprisonment, appellant no.2 released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for six months on executing bond of Rs. 5,000/- with surety – Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- payable to victim within one month.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 454 and 427 – House Trespass and Mischief – Landlord Trespassing into Tenanted Premises – Ownership No Defence – Accused, the owner of a room let out to PW1, entered the tenanted room in PW1's absence and threw out his household articles causing damage of Rs. 10,000/- – Convicted by Trial Court and sentence modified by Appellate Court – Revision filed challenging conviction – Held: Offences of criminal trespass and house trespass are offences against possession and not against ownership; even the true owner cannot under the guise of ownership unlawfully enter premises in the lawful possession of another with intent to commit an offence; conviction affirmed [Paras 16–18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – High Court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC exercises supervisory jurisdiction to correct miscarriage of justice and cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate court or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible – Evidence of four independent eyewitnesses (PW3, PW4, PW5, PW9), who had no motive to falsely implicate the accused, found consistent and free from material contradictions – Concurrent findings of courts below do not warrant interference [Paras 13–15].

Sentence – Modification – Landlord-Tenant Dispute – No Criminal Antecedents – Although conviction upheld, sentence of three months' simple imprisonment each for both offences confirmed by Appellate Court held to be somewhat harsh given that the genesis of the offence lay in a landlord-tenant dispute and no criminal antecedents were proved against the accused – Held: Sentence reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court for both offences; direction to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(3) CrPC maintained; default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of compensation; substantive sentences to run concurrently [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Revision petition allowed in part – Conviction under Sections 454 and 427 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court for both offences; compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(3) CrPC; default of one month simple imprisonment – Accused directed to appear before Trial Court on 01.06.2026 to undergo sentence [Paras 20–21].

Education Law – Examination Eligibility – Bachelor of Physiotherapy – University directed to consider representation – Petitioner, enrolled in the BPT course since 2016, sought permission to appear in the third year supplementary examinations scheduled for May/June 2026 – University opposed the petition on the ground that modifications to its notification disentitled the petitioner from consideration – Court, on perusal of the University's notification dated 23rd February 2026 for online application and fee payment for supplementary examinations, directed the University to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14th February 2026 within one week – Held: University shall permit the petitioner to take the ensuing examination if it positively accedes to the representation – No opinion expressed on merits – Petition disposed of [Paras 4-7].

Essential Commodities Act – Kerosene – Possession Beyond Permissible Limit – Conviction Upheld – Accused found in possession of 27 litres of kerosene oil in three tins at his shop during surprise inspection on 25.05.1990 — possession in excess of 10 litres without a valid dealer's licence prohibited under Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 — accused's defence that 20 litres belonged to another person rejected — prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 duly established seizure — Held: Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act affirmed [Paras 3–6].

Probation of Offenders Act – Section 4 – Long Delay – Reformative Approach – Incident of 1990 — appeal pending for about 33 years — appellant was in his mid-twenties at the time of the offence and is now in his late fifties — no criminal antecedents — leading a settled and dignified family life — minimum sentence prescribed under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 not a bar to invoking Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being a later enactment — court has a mandatory duty to consider probation; if declined, special reasons must be recorded — Held: Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act extended; appellant directed to execute bond of Rs. 500/- with one surety for one month under supervision of Probation Officer [Paras 7–10].

Decision: Criminal Appeal partly allowed — Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act upheld — Appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for one month on executing bond of Rs. 500/- with surety within fifteen days.