Criminal Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Filing of Criminal Appeals – Delay of 390 days in filing Appeals under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 – Petition by appellant/accused No. 2 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeals – Delay caused in filing the Criminal Appeals against orders dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Special Court for NIA Cases – The issue before the Court was whether the statutory period under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act could be extended beyond the second proviso, which limits the filing period to 90 days – Held: Delay of 390 days condoned, Appeals maintainable, subject to the Supreme Court's decision on this issue [Paras 1, 3, 5, 35, 36].

Interpretation of Law – Section 21(5) of NIA Act, 2008 – Scope of Condonation – Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be read into Section 21(5) of the NIA Act – Appellant argued that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply, allowing the condonation of delay – Special Public Prosecutor argued that the NIA Act provides its own timeline and that any further extension of time would contradict the object of the special statute – High Courts have provided inconsistent rulings on this issue, some allowing condonation based on Article 21 of the Constitution, others ruling against extension beyond 90 days – Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies as the NIA Act does not expressly exclude its application [Paras 5-9, 24-27, 31, 34].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Appeal – Article 21 of the Constitution – High Court relied on Article 21, stating that procedural law cannot deprive a person of their right to Appeal, which is a part of the fundamental right to life and liberty – Equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution invoked due to the NIA's inconsistent stance in different High Courts regarding condonation of delay under the NIA Act – Court emphasized that the law must apply equally to the accused and the Agency without discrimination [Paras 16, 19, 21-23, 29].

Judicial Inconsistency – Inconsistent Stances by NIA – The NIA adopted contradictory positions in different cases, supporting condonation of delay in some instances while opposing it in others – Court criticized this inconsistent application of law by the NIA, noting that it should not selectively argue for condonation of delay based on convenience [Paras 12, 14, 19].

Decision: Appeals maintainable – Delay of 390 days condoned – The Court allowed the delay considering the absence of any express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act from Section 21(5) of the NIA Act – However, this decision is subject to any future rulings by the Supreme Court on the same issue – I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.421 of 2024 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.425 of 2024 allowed and disposed of [Paras 35-37].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Rape – Acquittal – Appellant was convicted for attempting to rape the prosecutrix (PW-1) and sentenced to 10 years R.I. by the trial court – On appeal, the High Court found contradictions regarding the date of the incident, with different dates (18th, 20th, and 21st June 2022) mentioned in the prosecutrix’s statement, FIR, and MLC – FIR was delayed by 6-9 days without proper explanation – No corroborative evidence from independent witnesses or forensic support (FSL or DNA) – Medical examination was also delayed – Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 294, 323, 376(1) read with Section 511, and 506(2) IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1, 8, 10, 11, 14].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Prosecutrix – The prosecutrix’s testimony was inconsistent, with contradictions regarding the date of the incident – Her statement under Section 164 CrPC mentioned a different date from the FIR and her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC – The derogatory words alleged to have been used by the appellant were missing in her initial statements – No independent witness supported her version – The unexplained delay in filing the FIR further weakened her credibility [Paras 8, 9, 10].

FIR Delay – Impact on Prosecution's Case – FIR was lodged after a delay of 6-9 days, with no reasonable explanation provided – Citing precedents, the Court noted that such a delay can raise doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution's case – The delayed medical examination and other procedural lapses further weakened the case [Paras 10, 11, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 294, 323, 376(1) read with Section 511, and 506(2) IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Attempt to Murder – The appellants were convicted under Sections 307/149 IPC for assaulting the complainant, causing the amputation of his right hand palm – Appellants argued that the injury was not fatal and was caused by a single blow to a non-vital part of the body – Held: The court reduced the conviction from Section 307 to Section 326 IPC, noting that the injury was grievous but not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and there was no clear intention to kill [Paras 13-18, 23-26].

Common Object – Application of Section 149 IPC – Appellants argued they did not share a common object to attempt murder – Court observed that all appellants participated in the attack with deadly weapons, making them liable under Section 149 IPC for the common object of causing grievous hurt [Paras 15, 27-30].

Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – The trial court's conviction under Section 120-B was set aside due to lack of evidence supporting the existence of a prior agreement to commit the offense – No conspiracy was proven beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 31-32].

Sentencing – Conviction Modified – Conviction under Section 307 IPC reduced to Section 326 IPC – The appellants sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹20,000 each – Court held that a lesser punishment would not serve the ends of justice given the gravity of the injury inflicted in a public place [Paras 33-38].

Compensation – Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. – Out of the fine amount, ₹80,000 to be paid to the complainant as compensation for his injuries [Para 39].

Civil Law - Development Agreement – Breach of Contract – Declaration Sought for Nullity – The plaintiff sought a declaration that the development agreement and supplementary agreement with the defendant firm were null and void due to non-performance and failure to obtain registration from ORERA – The trial court and first appellate court held that the defendant breached the contract by collecting money from prospective buyers without obtaining ORERA registration, violating Section 3 of the RERA Act – Held: The plaintiff was justified in seeking a declaration of nullity, and the agreements were rightfully rescinded [Paras 22-24, 27].

Premature Filing of Suit – Cause of Action – The appellant argued that the suit was prematurely filed before the stipulated timelines in the agreement for completing the project and making payments – The court rejected this, holding that the breach occurred when the defendant collected funds without ORERA registration, justifying the filing of the suit even before the expiration of the contractual period [Paras 19-21].

Authority to File Suit – Power of Attorney Holder’s Knowledge – The appellant challenged the maintainability of the suit, asserting that the plaintiff’s authorized agent lacked personal knowledge of the transaction – The court ruled that the agent’s lack of knowledge regarding specific agreements did not invalidate his general awareness of the case – Any procedural defects in authorization were curable and did not defeat the substantive rights of the parties [Paras 12-16].

Reconstitution of Partnership – Dissolution on Death of Partner – The original partnership firm, having only two partners, was dissolved upon the death of one partner – The court held that the reconstitution of the firm could not bind the plaintiff to the agreements made with the dissolved entity, justifying the plaintiff’s claim for declaration of nullity [Paras 23-24].

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. The plaintiff’s declaration that the agreements and GPA were null and void was affirmed. The defendant was ordered to refund Rs. 3.2 crores to the plaintiff with interest at 12% p.a. from 01/05/2020 until payment [Paras 33-35].

Advocate's Right to Speech – Gag Order by Bar Council of India – Writ Petition Allowed – The petitioner, a practicing advocate, challenged the gag order imposed by the Bar Council of India restraining advocates from making public statements concerning alleged financial mismanagement in the Karnataka State Bar Council – The Court held that the Bar Council of India had no statutory power to issue such a gag order under Sections 4, 6, and 7 of the Advocates Act, as it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) – The order was deemed unsustainable and was quashed [Paras 10-20].

Supervisory Powers of Bar Council of India – Limited Scope – The Court observed that while the Bar Council of India has general supervisory powers over State Bar Councils, these do not extend to restraining advocates from exercising their right to speech, as this would exceed the statutory mandate of Section 7(1)(g) of the Advocates Act [Paras 12-18].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The gag order imposed by the Bar Council of India, dated 08/04/2024, communicated through a letter dated 12/04/2024, was quashed.

Probate Petition – Will dated 28.12.1968 – The petitioners sought probate of the Will executed by Late V. Subramania Mudaliar, leaving the suit property to his daughter Saroja @ Pattammal, disinheriting his sons – The Will was challenged on the grounds of forgery and lack of due execution – The Court upheld the validity of the Will, noting that the legal heirs were aware of the Will, which had been acted upon with no challenge for over 40 years – Held: The Will was duly executed and the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, as the sole Executrix had passed away during the proceedings [Paras 26, 31, 58, 61].

Limitation – Probate Proceedings – Defendants argued that the probate petition was barred by limitation as it was filed over 40 years after the death of the testator – The Court rejected this, holding that Article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to probate proceedings – The petition was filed within a reasonable time after the cause of action arose, following a legal notice from the defendants in 2012 [Paras 30, 60].

Forged Will Allegation – Forensic Expert Opinion – Defendants challenged the genuineness of the Will, citing differences between the signatures of the testator on the Will and other documents – Forensic evidence suggested a difference in signatures, but the Court ruled that non-contemporaneous signatures and the limitations of forensic comparison made the expert evidence inconclusive – Held: Expert evidence is weak and must be corroborated by substantive evidence – The Court accepted the testimony of witnesses familiar with the signatures [Paras 34-36, 42-44].

Partition Suit – Right to Seek Partition – The plaintiffs in C.S. No. 325 of 2013 sought partition of the suit property, claiming the testator had died intestate – The Court dismissed the partition suit, ruling that the Will was valid, and the property was rightfully inherited by Saroja under the Will – Held: The plaintiffs in the partition suit had no right to seek partition [Paras 62, 63].

Decision: The Testamentary Original Suit (TOS No. 18 of 2015) is decreed – The plaintiffs are entitled to Letters of Administration with the Will annexed – The Civil Suit (C.S. No. 325 of 2013) for partition is dismissed [Para 64].

Civil Writ - Provident Fund Dues – Director’s Liability for Recovery under Section 8B of the EPF Act – Petition Allowed – Petitioners sought to quash recovery proceedings initiated against them, including the issuance of a recovery certificate, show cause notice, and arrest warrants under Section 8B of the EPF Act, due to alleged non-payment of provident fund dues by the company where petitioner was a director – Held: The petitioner, though a director of the company, was not an ‘employer’ as defined under Section 2(e) and 2(k) of the EPF Act since he was neither the ‘owner’ nor the ‘occupier’ with control over company affairs; he was merely an employee receiving a salary and contributing to provident fund and ESI schemes – Consequently, he could not be subjected to recovery proceedings under Section 8B of the EPF Act – Petition allowed, and impugned orders set aside [Paras 7, 16, 17].

Civil Liability under Section 8B vs. Criminal Liability under Section 14A of the EPF Act – Distinction in Application – The Court distinguished between civil liability for provident fund recovery under Section 8B and criminal liability under Section 14A of the EPF Act – Civil liability requires the individual to be an ‘employer’ or ‘occupier’ with ultimate control over factory affairs, while criminal liability can attach to any director, manager, or officer in charge of the company’s conduct at the time of the offence – Since the petitioner did not meet the criteria for civil liability, recovery proceedings under Section 8B were invalid, though criminal liability could still be assessed independently in a separate trial [Para 17].

Interpretation of ‘Employer’ and ‘Occupier’ under the EPF Act – Employee Status of Director – Petitioner argued he was an employee without control over the company and was wrongly held liable as an ‘employer’ – Court held that the term ‘employer’ in the EPF Act refers to individuals with managerial or proprietary control, not mere nominal directors without operational responsibility – Since the petitioner was not listed as an ‘occupier’ in the company’s Form 5A and had no control over factory operations, he was exempt from liability for provident fund dues under Section 8B [Paras 12-16].

Decision: Petition allowed – The impugned recovery proceedings, including the recovery certificate, show cause notice, and arrest warrants against the petitioner, are set aside – The petitioner cannot be held liable under Section 8B of the EPF Act as he was not an ‘employer’ or ‘occupier’ with control over the company’s affairs – No grounds for invoking civil recovery proceedings against petitioner under the EPF Act.
 

Default Bail – Period of Custody – Right Extinguished upon Filing of Challan – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner contended entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, asserting that the applicable period for filing the challan was 60 days as per Part-I of Section 307 IPC. The court found that at the time of filing for default bail, Part-II of Section 307 IPC, which prescribes a 90-day period due to life imprisonment as a maximum penalty, applied. The petitioner's right to default bail ceased once the challan was filed on 12.07.2024. The court held that the right to statutory bail is enforceable only prior to the filing of the charge sheet and ceases upon its filing [Paras 8-11].

Case Law on Default Bail – Supreme Court Precedent – The court reiterated the principle established by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 410, that the right to default bail does not survive after the filing of the challan. The custody post-challan is governed by different provisions, not Section 167 CrPC [Para 9].

Decision: The petition for default bail was dismissed. The court upheld the trial court’s determination that the applicable period for default bail was 90 days under Part-II of Section 307 IPC, and that the filing of the challan on 12.07.2024 precluded the petitioner’s claim for statutory bail.
 

Civil Law – Review Petition – Principle of Res Judicata – Satyadhyan Ghosal Case Applied – The petitioners sought review of a judgment dismissing their second appeal, arguing that under Mohammadan law, adoption and execution of wills are not recognized – Held: The petitioners were estopped from raising these issues, as the findings regarding adoption and will had attained finality in the first round of litigation – The principle of res judicata applies, barring re-litigation of issues already settled [Paras 12-18].

Application of Shariat Act – Non-retroactive Effect – The petitioners further contended that the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 2007, which mandates inheritance as per Mohammadan law, should apply to the present case – Held: The Shariat Act is not applicable retroactively, as the dispute pertains to events before its enactment [Paras 19-22].

Decision: The review petition was dismissed – The court found no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review – The petitioners were precluded from re-agitating issues that had been settled in earlier proceedings.