Pension – Qualifying Service Calculation – Petitioner contested the calculation of qualifying service for pension, arguing that his entire period of service should be counted, including the time spent as a work-charge employee – High Court found the Tribunal and respondents adhered to the applicable guidelines (Oms dated 14.05.1968 and 10.03.1986) – Petitioner’s reliance on other cases distinguished as inapplicable – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-23].

Work-Charge Service – Pension Calculation – Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision affirmed that only 50% of work-charge service period counted towards pension, in accordance with established guidelines – High Court concurred with Tribunal’s interpretation and application of relevant office memoranda and pension rules [Paras 9, 19, 22].

Writ Petition dismissed – High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and the respondent’s application of pension calculation guidelines – Pending applications disposed of as infructuous [Para 23].
 

Stamp Duty – Insufficient Stamping of Agreement to Sell – Applicability of Article 23A of Indian Stamp Act – Arbitrator’s decision on stamping upheld by High Court – ATS considered as conveyance under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act – Appellants’ contention that Article 23A does not apply rejected – Requirement of stamp duty as per Article 23A affirmed [Paras 1-31].

Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act – Part Performance Doctrine – ATS and possession of property interlinked – Possession handed over in terms of ATS – Doctrine of part performance invoked – High Court reiterates applicability of Section 53A when possession is pursuant to ATS – Appeal dismissed, arbitrator’s decision upheld [Paras 19-27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Arbitrator’s decision upheld – Court emphasizes correct interpretation of Article 23A and Section 53A in determining stamp duty obligations [Para 32].
 

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Deposit of Compensation – The petitioner challenged the order directing him to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a condition for the suspension of his sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the order is consistent with the statutory obligation under Section 148 of the NI Act. The Court reiterated that unless an exceptional case is made out with specific reasons, the requirement to deposit compensation is mandatory, and the appellate court is justified in imposing this condition without needing to provide additional reasoning​.

Appellate Procedure – Section 148 of the NI Act – The Court highlighted that Section 148 imposes a mandatory requirement on the appellate court to direct the deposit of at least 20% of the compensation amount when considering an appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. The onus is on the appellant to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to avoid this deposit​.

Decision: Petition dismissed – The court upheld the lower appellate court's order directing the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days as a precondition for suspension of sentence during appeal.

Building Permits – Unauthorized Construction – Petitioners constructed a building on a parking area originally designated under a valid permit – Panchayat cancelled the permit upon discovering the misuse – Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions ordered partial occupancy, which was contested – High Court held the construction illegal and upheld the Panchayat’s cancellation – Petitioners directed to either demolish the unauthorized construction or provide an equivalent parking area [Paras 1-11].

Jurisdiction and Powers – Local Self Government – Tribunal’s Order – Tribunal directed partial occupancy and numbering of building despite unauthorized construction – High Court found Tribunal’s order erroneous as it conflicted with established legal provisions – Emphasized necessity of compliance with original permit conditions and due process in construction approvals [Paras 4-9].

Property Rights and Dispute Resolution – Pending Civil Suit – Noted that a civil suit for partition was ongoing between the parties – Highlighted the importance of resolving proprietary rights through civil court – Interim relief granted to petitioners to avoid building disuse, allowing conditional numbering and occupancy subject to final civil court decision [Paras 5-10].

Decision: Writ Petitions Partly Allowed – High Court set aside Tribunal’s partial occupancy order – Upheld Panchayat’s permit cancellation – Directed Panchayat to number remaining rooms temporarily – Petitioners to bear expenses – Final occupancy subject to civil court decision in ongoing partition suit.

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Petitioners accused of inducing the respondent to supply goods based on false promises and then failing to make full payment – Trial court issued summons based on prima facie evidence – High Court finds no fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the beginning of the transaction, and the disputes are purely civil in nature – Proceedings and order issuing summons quashed [Paras 1-20].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings – Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process of law – High Court emphasizes the need to distinguish between civil disputes and criminal offences – Summons issued without sufficient grounds for proceeding under criminal law – Order set aside [Paras 5-13].

Commercial Transactions – Civil vs. Criminal Liability – Transactions between parties purely commercial – Non-payment of dues constitutes a civil breach, not a criminal offence – Judicial precedent supports differentiation between breach of contract and criminal acts [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Revision application allowed – Proceedings and order issuing summons quashed – Civil remedies advised for recovery of dues [Paras 14-15].
 

Sanction for Prosecution – Retrospective application of amended Section 19 of the PC Act – Court held the amendment to Section 19(1) of the PC Act, which requires sanction to prosecute retired public servants, applies prospectively from the date of cognizance of the offence, not from the date of offence or FIR – Refusal of sanction by the Secretary, Industries Department, was set aside due to non-application of mind and misappreciation of evidence – Direction to re-examine sanction request [Paras 8-14, 20-23, 27-35].

Application of Central Vigilance Commission Guidelines – Court found that KSCDC, being a public sector undertaking, is bound by the Store Purchase Manual and CVC Guidelines, contrary to findings of the sanctioning authority – Allegations of diversion of funds and irregular awarding of tenders substantiate the need for sanction [Paras 20-21].

Officers of Public Sector Undertakings – Protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C not applicable to officers of public sector undertakings – Such officers cannot claim the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C, even though they are public servants [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed in part – Ext.P3 order declining sanction set aside – Direction to the Secretary, Industries Department, to reconsider CBI’s request for sanction within three months – Proceedings in CC No. 45/2021 on the file of CJM Court, Thiruvananthapuram, stayed until decision on sanction is made – Criminal Miscellaneous Cases dismissed.
 

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in relation to accusations of caste-based atrocities and violence – Court analyzed the applicability of Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which typically bar anticipatory bail – Court found no prima facie case of caste atrocity against the petitioner based on the allegations and evidence presented – Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C., considering petitioner’s age, political status, and lack of flight risk [Paras 1-17].

Evidence Assessment – Prima Facie Case – Court noted the need to examine whether allegations prima facie indicate involvement in an atrocity under the SC and ST Act – Found no direct evidence against the petitioner for inciting or participating in violence – Emphasized the necessity of judicial application of mind to determine applicability of statutory bars to anticipatory bail [Paras 7-14].

Application of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Despite Charge Sheet – Cited precedents affirming that filing of charge sheet does not preclude consideration of anticipatory bail – Analyzed facts and circumstances to determine the merit of bail petition, concluding custodial interrogation unnecessary due to completed investigation [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Petition for anticipatory bail allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest with conditions for personal bond and sureties – Emphasized non-influence of this order on trial proceedings [Paras 16-17].

Wills – Validity and Proof – Dispute over the execution of multiple wills by Pohlo Ram – The trial court ruled in favor of the will dated 17.10.1997 – The appellate court allowed the appeal for the will dated 4.2.2000, finding it suspicious – High Court emphasized the need for clear proof and dismissed the appeal, reinstating the trial court’s decision [Paras 70-90].

Burden of Proof – Suspicious Circumstances – The burden lies on the propounder of the will to prove its genuineness and dispel any suspicious circumstances – Appellant failed to prove that the will dated 4.2.2000 was executed in sound mind and free of undue influence – Evidence highlighted inconsistencies and potential forgery [Paras 84-90].

Indian Succession Act – Sections 63 and 68 – Will must be attested by two or more witnesses – Evidence presented failed to confirm due attestation and mental state of the testator during execution – The appellate court’s reliance on procedural aspects without addressing core evidentiary issues resulted in the High Court overturning its decision [Paras 77-83].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment and decree reinstated – Will dated 17.10.1997 recognized as the last valid will of Pohlo Ram – Mortgage deed declared null and void [Para 74-75].
 

Examination Process – OMR Sheet Filling Errors – Petitioners excluded from selection process due to improper filling/darkening of bubbles on OMR sheets – The court underscored the importance of strict adherence to instructions to maintain the sanctity and efficiency of the selection process – Emphasis on the mandatory nature of instructions and the lack of provision for rectification post-submission [Paras 1-12].

Sanctity of Selection Process – Upholding Instructions – Court referred to the Supreme Court’s precedent on strict compliance with examination guidelines – Allowing corrections post-submission would undermine the selection process and open possibilities for misuse – Highlighted that the process is automated, and errors cannot be manually corrected without disrupting the fairness and transparency [Paras 6-10].

Mandatory Nature of Instructions – Supreme Court’s Dictum – Reinforced the principle that instructions issued during examinations are mandatory and must be strictly followed – Cited Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemalathaa, stating that deviations from mandatory instructions cannot be condoned, and the High Court cannot relax such instructions under Article 226 [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The petition is dismissed. The court affirmed that the mandatory instructions for filling OMR sheets must be adhered to strictly. Any lapses by the candidates cannot be rectified post-submission, and such candidates must be excluded from the selection process.