Criminal Law – Double Jeopardy – Section 300 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner was previously tried and acquitted by a Special Court in Delhi for charges under UAPA, IPC, and the Passport Act. Subsequently, he faced trial in Bengaluru for similar charges. The petitioner filed for discharge under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. to avoid being tried again on the same facts. The Special Court dismissed the application, leading to the present writ petition.

Scope of Section 300 Cr.P.C. – Acquittal and Subsequent Trials – The court examined the applicability of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and found that the facts of the cases tried in Delhi and Bengaluru, though similar, were not identical. The petitioner’s involvement in separate incidents constituted different offences. The court concluded that Section 300 did not apply because the charges stemmed from distinct events, despite some overlapping witnesses [Paras 2-21].

Interpretation of Legal Provisions – The judgment analyzed Section 300 Cr.P.C. alongside Section 221 Cr.P.C., clarifying the conditions under which a person acquitted or convicted cannot be retried. The court reiterated that Section 300(1) protects against double jeopardy only when the subsequent charges are based on the same facts and not merely similar or overlapping evidence [Paras 7-16].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The court upheld the Special Court’s decision, finding no merit in the petitioner’s claim under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner's discharge was denied, allowing the trial in Bengaluru to proceed [Paras 18-21].

Criminal Procedure – Non-Bailable Warrants – Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) – The issuance of NBWs against the petitioner was challenged. The court found that the NBWs were issued hastily and without following the proper legal procedure. It emphasized the need for proper judicial scrutiny and application of mind before issuing NBWs, as such warrants impact personal liberty. The court held that the initial action was not in consonance with the law, and all subsequent proceedings, including the issuance of NBWs and process under Section 82 CrPC, were deemed illegal and unsustainable [Paras 1-27].

Criminal Procedure – Process Under Section 82 CrPC – Judicial Requirements – The court highlighted the necessity for courts to record reasons to believe that an accused is absconding or concealing himself before issuing a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC. The absence of such reasons in the impugned orders indicated non-application of mind by the Magistrate, rendering the orders unsustainable. The court reiterated that proper procedural safeguards must be followed to ensure the fairness of the judicial process [Paras 18-23, 24-26].

Anticipatory Bail – Right to Seek Anticipatory Bail – The petitioner’s right to seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was upheld. The court observed that the right to anticipatory bail is a statutory right designed to protect individual liberty. The court criticized the investigating officer's actions, which appeared to collude with the complainant to hastily procure NBWs, thus undermining the petitioner’s right to anticipatory bail. The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions ensuring his cooperation with the investigation [Paras 28-50].

Issuance of NBWs and Summons – Proper Sequence – The court emphasized that the process to compel appearance should follow the sequence outlined in the CrPC: summons first, then bailable warrants, and NBWs as a last resort. This sequence reflects the legislative intent to protect personal liberty by ensuring that less intrusive measures are exhausted before resorting to NBWs. The court underscored that NBWs should not be issued for aiding the investigation but only for ensuring the presence of the accused in court [Paras 19-21].

Abuse of Process of Court – Exercise of Inherent Powers – The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the impugned orders and subsequent proceedings, citing abuse of process of court. The court noted that if the initial action is illegal, all subsequent actions based on it are also illegal. The court highlighted its duty to ensure substantial justice and prevent misuse of judicial processes [Paras 28-33].

Decision: The petition was allowed. The orders dated 06.02.2024 (issuance of NBWs), 14.02.2024 (process under Section 82 CrPC), 31.05.2024 (declaring petitioner absconder), and 28.06.2024 (attachment warrants) were quashed. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with conditions to join the investigation, not to tamper with evidence, and to furnish a personal bond [Paras 32-50].
 

Criminal Law – Procedural Violations – Appellant, a police inspector, conducted a raid on the respondent’s spa suspecting illegal activities – Raid led to the detention of an Indonesian citizen working as a massage therapist – FIR registered was later quashed due to procedural non-compliance – Court emphasized mandatory compliance with Section 15 of the ITP Act [Paras 4-10].

Compensation for Illegal Detention – Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution – Respondent’s detention found to be unlawful due to non-compliance with mandatory procedures – Court directed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the respondent for loss of liberty, reputation, and mental trauma – Compensation to be recovered from the appellant, not from public funds [Paras 11-18].

Jurisdiction – Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeal – Appeal against the Single Judge’s order quashing the FIR and directing compensation deemed not maintainable under Section 15 of the Letters Patent Act – Matter arose from criminal proceedings, thus falling under criminal jurisdiction [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Compensation order upheld – Appeal deemed not maintainable under Letters Patent Act – Connected CMP closed [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Petitioner in custody since January 2021 – Trial progressing slowly with only 12 out of 30 prosecution witnesses examined over more than three years – Court held that right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India – Bail granted due to undue delay in trial [Paras 1-5].

Right to Speedy Trial – Constitutional Guarantee – Citing Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Emphasized that an accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely pending trial – Held that prolonged detention without timely trial violates fundamental rights – Court referred to precedents emphasizing the right to a timely trial and the presumption of innocence [Paras 4-34].

Bail Jurisprudence – Pre-conviction Detention – Court reiterated the principles for granting bail, considering the right to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty – Emphasized that the detention should not be punitive but to ensure presence at trial – Bail granted with conditions to ensure the petitioner's presence at trial [Paras 16-34].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner granted bail due to prolonged pre-trial detention and the right to a speedy trial – Ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.
 

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of final report and proceedings in case of extortion and intimidation – Allegation that accused took illicit photographs of complainant and used them to extort money and gold – Accused contends innocence and challenges sufficiency of evidence – Prosecution relies on statements and material evidence suggesting prima facie case – High Court holds that evidence warrants trial, and innocence claims to be tested during trial – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Extortion and Intimidation – Prima Facie Case – Accused allegedly took illicit photographs and used them to blackmail complainant for money and gold – High Court finds sufficient material to support charges and justify trial – Highlights that detailed examination of evidence required at trial stage, not in quashment proceedings [Paras 5-9].

Decision – Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed – High Court emphasizes need for trial to properly assess evidence and allegations – Registry directed to forward copy of order to jurisdictional court for further steps [Para 10].
 

Entertainment Tax – Refund – Petitioner, a performance arts centre, sought refund of entertainment tax paid on unsold tickets for a music concert conducted within the jurisdiction of the Maradu Municipality – Petitioner remitted the entire tax amount but sold only a portion of the tickets, requesting refund for unsold tickets – Municipality refused refund, appropriating amount to Chairperson’s Distress Relief Fund – High Court held petitioner entitled to refund under Section 3 of the 1961 Act and Rule 19 of the 1962 Rules – Impugned communications quashed, directing Municipality to refund tax after deducting committed donation to Distress Relief Fund [Paras 1-6].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 3 of the 1961 Act – Definition of ‘admission’ and ‘admission to entertainment’ interpreted – Entertainment tax leviable only on tickets actually sold – Unused, unspoiled stamps to be refunded per Rule 19 – Full Bench precedent in Municipal Council, Kottayam v. K. Mahadeva Iyer followed [Paras 5-6].

Constitutional Law – Article 265 – Levy and collection of tax must be authorized by law – Appropriation of tax paid on unsold tickets to Distress Relief Fund without statutory basis violates Article 265 – High Court emphasized authority of law in tax matters [Paras 5-6].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – High Court directed Maradu Municipality to refund the entertainment tax paid on unsold tickets in accordance with Rule 19 of the 1962 Rules, after deducting the amount committed to the Distress Relief Fund. Exts. P4, P6, and P8 communications quashed.

Bail Application – Section 439 of Cr.P.C. – Principles – Petitioner accused of serious offences including attempted murder – Consideration of factors such as length of custody, completion of investigation, and absence of criminal antecedents – High Court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Criminal Law – Presumption of Innocence – Right to Bail – Petitioner in custody for 43 days, investigation complete, and final report filed – No previous criminal record – Court held that further detention was unwarranted and allowed bail with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent tampering with evidence [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Decision – Court exercised discretion judiciously and compassionately – Noted the importance of safeguarding individual liberty while ensuring the integrity of the investigation – Cited precedents emphasizing the fundamental right to bail [Paras 7-10].

Decision:

Application for bail allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties – Imposed conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the investigation.

Criminal Law – Discharge Petition – Dismissal of Discharge Petition Challenged – Accused sought discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., arguing lack of prima facie evidence for charges under Section 509 IPC and Sections 11(1) and 12 of POCSO Act – Trial court dismissed discharge petition, finding sufficient grounds for proceeding with trial – High Court upheld trial court’s decision, emphasizing prima facie presence of elements constituting the alleged offenses and the necessity for trial to determine the accused’s culpable mental state and intent [Paras 1-13].

Sexual Harassment under POCSO Act – Presumption of Culpable Mental State – High Court highlighted Section 30 of POCSO Act, which presumes culpable mental state of the accused, requiring him to prove the absence of such mental state – Court noted that lifting of dhothi and asking minor victim to measure his penis were acts that prima facie fell within the scope of Section 11(1) of POCSO Act and Section 509 of IPC, necessitating trial for full examination [Paras 9-11].

Evidentiary Standards for Discharge – Prima Facie Case – Court reiterated principles for considering discharge petitions, including assumption of prosecution’s materials as true, non-consideration of defense evidence at this stage, and sufficiency of prima facie grounds for framing charges – High Court found that trial court correctly applied these principles in dismissing discharge petition [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed – Discharge petition rightly dismissed by trial court – Case to proceed to trial [Para 13].

Penalty under Section 47(6) KVAT Act – The Tribunal cancelled the penalty imposed on the respondent assessee, noting that the consignment was accompanied by valid transport documents and statutory declarations – Held that the documents demonstrated no intent to evade tax, rendering the penalty order unsustainable [Paras 1-9].

Assessment based on Penalty Order – The Tribunal also set aside additions to the assessee’s declared turnover which were based on the invalid penalty order – Assessment order deemed unsustainable as it relied on the faulty penalty [Paras 1-9].

Evasion of Tax – State contended that the failure to register under the KVAT Act indicated an attempt to evade tax – Court observed that the respondent had paid higher CST applicable to unregistered dealers, nullifying the evasion argument [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Tribunal’s order upheld, penalty and assessment orders set aside – Findings based on valid transport and statutory documents presented by the assessee were deemed legally sustainable [Paras 1-9].